Preprint servers and string theory evolution

Server arXiv.org is a vast online repository of physics papers, most of which are uploaded before they have passed muster by refereeing. Recently, increasing amount of scientists, testified that none of their papers are accepted and others are forcibly recategorized by the administrators of the arXiv either due to the controversial nature of their work, or it not being canonical to string theory, in what amounts to intellectual censorship. We should realize, the main (if not the only reason) of preprint servers is to maintain priority of scientific work - without it all ideas could be presented in private blogs for the sake of recency without problems. From these and possibly another reasons (1, 2) a viXra.org portal has been launched recently by "independent physicist" Phil Gibbs as a functional alternative to arXiv.org.

What happened here? The following lines are illustrating my private understanding of the whole story at general level from exsintric perspective of outer observer:

Because string theory was never accepted by mainstream in its entirety due the "lack of falsifiability", string theorists have started to use arXiv portal as their alternative publishing platform like squatters, thus by-passing standard process of peer-review of mainstream physics. They claimed on public, the dynamic character of string theory development requires faster public exchange of ideas, then the standard peer-review process can provide. Now string theory is forty years old theory (like "..old woman wearing way too much lipstick.." by Robert B. Laughlin) and arXiv server was always considered as an alternative publishing platform, especially by mainstream peer-reviewed journals (Science or Nature journals in particular), which were often hostile to preliminary publishing of scientific articles from apparent "conflict of interests" reasons (1, 2, 3).

As the result, former squatters have begun to consider arXiv server as their native or even private publishing platform and they started to displace proponents of another alternative theories by general paradigm "young anarchists - old conservatives". It's significant, well known proponent of string theory Lubos Motl is both opponent of squatters, both opponent of viXra.org due the "lack of credibility" by now - i.e. from the very same reason, from which string theorists were forced to publish their work on arXiv server before some time - although squatting chaos corresponds well the conceptual chaos of string theories and Mr. Motl himself was in strong opposition to mainstream (Google translation) represented by Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic in his young age.

Now we can observe formation of new opposition and we can expect, whenever such alternative becomes significant, a new independent publishing group will be established on its base - and so on.. Such evolution is quite common in social groups and it fits the AWT model of nested condensation of Aether particles well - so we can consider it as easily predictable in AWT context. While we should appreciate the responsibility, rigorousness and acuracy of formal approach represented by string theory, we shouldn't overlook the conceptual vagueness of this approach based on internal inconsistency of postulates and the lack of understanding of subject at general level. Instead of it, Aether concept is based on deep insintric plurality of concepts and mainstream scientists, some string theorists in particular should learn plurality in thinking by now. From this perspective, formation of vi@Xra server is the first step in this direction.

This week's hype of string theory - or just another evidence of Aether model?

String theory (ST) is believed to provide description of particles by model of 1D stringy loops. While this model has worked only for bosons inside of atom nuclei (for which it was proposed originally at the beginning of 70's), it was extended later for N-dimensional strings, so called branes and the number of string theories increased significantly, but without larger success, measured in number of testable predictions. Recently Leiden University presented article "Physical Reality of String Theory Demonstrated", in which scientists modeled some aspects of phase transition in hight temperature superconductors by concept of AdS/CFT duality, developed for ST originally. Such result is no surprise for AWT, because it allows to model HT superconductivity by ballistic charge transfer through field of electrons, highly compressed by presence of hole stripes. While individual concepts of string theory (concept of branes, hidden dimensions, AdS/CFT correspondence or even holographic principle) may become relevant for particle physics, as a whole ST remains void and fringe theory, because concept of hidden dimensions violates Lorentz symmetry, which the formal model of ST is based on.



Aether Wave theory therefore explains strings as a foamy density fluctuations of hypothetical dense gas, which is forming vacuum. While electrons in superconductors are heavily compressed near holes by Coulomb forces, they behave in similar way, like particles on event horizon of black holes and they forms "stringy" fluctuations of density - so we can use some of ST concepts for description of this system.

If such model is still relevant for string theorists, it would simply mean, particle strings are formed by highly compressed fermion field as well - which is essentially AWT model. Such result excludes model of particles formed by isolated strings and branes, as presented in naive drawings from Brian Greene's popular books and TV shows. Instead of this, every particle is formed by compact cluster of foamy density fluctuations, formed by another particles.



But string theory wasn't designed for such purpose - it was supposed to describe fermion itself, not the compact systems of fermions. While ST failed this target apparently from obvious reasons, the endeavor to model superconductivity by AdS/CFT correspondence is just an attempt to make the best of a bad job. We should realize, how string theorists are frustrated after forty years of ST development, while still having no real physical system to describe. Now they're modeling dense system of fermions instead of individual particles - and they're still happy.... Even worse - it seems, they even didn't spot the difference!

The true is, HT superconductivity is conceptually quite simple phenomenon and no working knowledge of string theory is required for its intuitive understanding at all. String theorists shouldn't forget it, when pretending boldly, they can provide the very first / only description of this phenomena, explanation the less. From AWT follows, every dense cloud of compressed electrons should exhibit a superconductivity and we can model it by computer simulations of repulsing particle field, or by numerical solution of Schrödinger equation on field of charged particles, i.e. via standard means of quantum mechanics without introduction of concepts borrowed from ad hoced theories.

Did Aether concept hit the mainstream at last?

By Arthur Schopenhauer all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed and ignored. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted in quiet as being self-evident. It seems, dense Aether concept has reached its third stage by now. This post is a reaction to recent article Remarks on the world-sheet saga of Prof. Bert Schroer. As Jacques Distler has independently figured out on Clifford Johnson's blog, Schroer's general "reasoning" goes as follows:

1. Only zero-dimensional particles are acceptable building blocks in physics. ..Wtf...?!?
   
2. So string theory must be a theory of point-like particle fields with infinitely many components, too.
   (The only question is, why scientists have realized just after forty years of string theory existence..)
3. This localization is inconsistent with the idea of world-sheets and the string theoretical interpretation of T-duality.

The expected denouncement of Lubos Motl had to follow. Every introduction of Aether model into physics fulfills predictable scenario, in which particle model will be used for politics and disposal of private animosities, rather then for reconciliation of existing theories. The pluralistic character of AWT model would be ignored during such confrontation completely. The problem isn't indeed in string theory, but in its postulate set. String theory is just formal layer built upon postulates, which could be reformulated anytime later. But because it's popularity serves as source of grant money for theoretical physicists, it's leads to easily predictable situation, when various people would add new and new postulates into theory, while ignoring former ones in order to call the result string theory anyway.

T-duality is the stand of (T)orroidal duality. We can imagine formation of such duality by torsion field inside of repulsing particle system or elastic fluid, which we would jump on like onto heavy urethane mattress. During which toroidal torsion deformations will be formed. At the moment, when the energy density/frequency of undulations exceed certain level, the inertia of environment must be taken into account and new daughter generation of smaller vortices perpendicular to original direction will be formed, and so on... In fluid mechanics this mechanism of vortex propagation is called Widnall's instability. From this follows, its a toroidal symmetry, which connect small and large distances by R-1/R relation. It's a continuous version of one to many duality, as expressed in following scheme:



Which conclusion follows from the above insights for string theory? Well, none specific. String theory is a theory of 1-dimensional quantum objects, which were later extended to N-dimensional quantum objects in M-theory. It's NOT theory of particle field or quantum loops or whatever else - and as such it's fully defined by its postulate set (or at least it should be..). It has no meaning to speculate, if description of T-duality or wordsheet in existing string theory is consistent or not, until it follows from string theory postulates in rigorous way. The introduction of quantum loops or particle field into string theory is indeed possible and string field theory or string net liquid concept takes account into it. But such theories aren't string theory anymore and they can lead to completely different predictions, then the AWT or string theory in its classical form and we cannot expect consistency in anything.

Until we believe, only zero-dimensional particles are acceptable building blocks of physics, no additional constrains or postulates of string theory are required to make such concept testable and predictable - or such theory becomes overloaded by its postulates, thus leading into new generation of fuzzy landscape of many possible solutions.

Does string theory link the ultracold with the superhot?

This post is a reaction to popular ScienceNews article about approach of string theory to duality observed inside of quark-gluon condensate, which author Tom Siegfried interprets as a "first testable prediction" of string theory. At first, it's not first testable prediction of string theory at all. String theory has made a number of testable predictions already (cosmic strings, primordial black holes, etc..) - they were just kept in quiet, simply because they weren't confirmed by experiments (1, 2), in which Casimir force was ignored as a gravity force in hidden dimensions.



Under normal situation such theory would be considered disproved already by common criterions of Popper's methodology - but this is indeed not a case of string theory, where too many important people and their money are involved. Nevertheless, even if we admit, Mr. Siegfried is right, string theory approach to description of quark-gluon condensate is just an ex-post interpretation, because the formation of quark-gluon condensate was observed before six years already at RHIC. By another words, it's a fabrication of predictability, which didn't exist before six years. With such approach we can say as well, constant speed of light or wave nature of light belongs the predictions of Aether theory, because Aether concept has existed a well before, it was ever used for interpretation of light spreading, predictions the more. But such manipulation of history isn't apparently enough for some string theory proponents.



By blog post of Lubos Motl, when experimenters studied the quark-gluon plasma formed by collisions of colliding golden nuclei, they "thought it would have to behave as a gas or plasma". The truth is, they didn't, of course - it's not so trivial to prove the formation of quark-gluon condensate (which is an original prediction of Quantum chromodynamics, in fact) in collider experiments and the experimental proof must be carefully planned and prepared in advance - so we should know, what to measure first. It was observed, that the material behaved as a superfluid, despite a trillion of degrees Celsius - which is what, these experiments were planned for. By Lubos, string theorists "already knew, why this thing would be observed" - the only problem is, they were pretty quiet about it before six years (or even ten years, when these experiments were planned actually). Just now some of them have realized suddenly, RHIC results may be interpreted by string theory - which is apparently not, what Mr. Motl wanted to say about it.

Well, the most crucial problem is, it's virtually impossible to explain this behavior by assumption, particles are formed by 1D strings. If you don't trust me, just try to reproduce the string theory based explanation for yourself in reproducible sequence of logical steps. If we cannot do it in logical way, it's apparent, we cannot derive it in formal math way either, because formal math is based on predicate logic - not vice-versa. After then we can say: sorry, but our stance is based on pure religion - no less, no more. While some connection between dualities of string theory and dual behavior of quark-gluon condensate may definitely exist here, the awareness of such connection isn't still a evidence of it, simply because we can expect, inside of our universe everything is connected with everything due the correspondence principle and general causal time arrow.

Fortunately, it's quite trivial to expect the superfluous behavior of quark-gluon condensate in simple and straightforward way without string theory - or even without Standard model - which is why these experiments were made, after all. When these particles are compressed, their repulsive forces will compensate mutually, which effectively leads into free chaotic motion of particles inside of droplet, i.e. into superfluous boson condensate state. And this is a quite common behavior, which is used for example for high pressure shaping of metals or in cumulative warheads, like bazooka, and nothing very surprising is about it - it's an explanation based on classical Newtonian mechanics. If nothing else, every more complex explanation is irrelevant here due the Occam's razor criterion ("pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"). In fact, the formation of superfluid inside of dense particle clusters is one of many trivial predictions of Aether theory - as every little child can understand immediately.


We are facing a too many lies and misinterpretations in this particular case, don't you think? The whole story follows from predictable situation, when after some forty years of development, string theory needs some testable results desperately. Therefore the ScienceNews article is a typical example of fabrication of success of troublesome theory, which doesn't exist in fact. Even more serious problem is, such approach is amoral, as it introduces a religious stance for whole rest of society, which is manipulated in this way. All these article readers are forced to believe in interpretation, which doesn't understand at all - while the most trivial explanation is covered just for easier life of some limited group of people. Which is basically, what every theology was designed for.

And that's the memo.

Consistence problem of string theory

The understanding, why formal theories, like string theory cannot lead to some particular solution is quite easy in AWT, if we use water surface model for illustration of Lorentz invariance. Beneath water surface the surface wave cannot spread by causal way. With respect to such wave spreading, underwater appears like void and empty space, while such environment definitely exists from more general perspective of some faster reference interaction. For example the motion of surface waves can be followed and observed easily by using of underwater sound waves, i.e. by using of sonar, because sound waves are spreading approximately 1000 x faster through underwater, then the surface waves.

As we can see, the fact, we cannot observe the (motion / reference frame) of environment by its own waves doesn't mean, this environment cannot exist from more distant (nonlocal) perspective. The explanation of wave character of light and many its properties would require us to believe in hypothetical environment for light wave spreading, although such environment cannot be detected by using of light directly.

The existence of such environment is related to existence of so called hidden dimensions of space-time. For real life example, surface waves are spreading along two-dimensional density gradient, which is forming water surface. While underwater is three dimensional environment. AWT explains the existence of surface gradient by compactification of it.

String theory considers as well, hidden dimensions of space-time are somehow compacted. While this assumption is consistent with Aether concept, I newer find an explanation of that claim in string theory literature, the illustration of it the less. It's evident, string theorists somehow guessed it or borrowed this explanation from particle environment concept unconsciously, while ignoring the rest of connections. The punishment was undeniable.

The existence of Aether corresponds the existence of hidden dimensions for surface waves, because underwater space exhibits an additional dimension, with respect to surface. Therefore every theory (like string theory), which is postulating existence of such additional dimensions is postulating the existence of some hidden environment as well - despite the fact, some proponents of these theories doesn't realize it apparently. Hidden dimensions for energy spreading through vacuum are equivalent the underwater dimensions for waves at water surface.

From AWT follows, Lorentz invariance is a result of strictly local perspective, every nonlocal perspective would violate Lorentz invariance, because such violation is just, what the existence of hidden dimensions means. In real life example, surface waves are dragged by underwater whenever we can consider the existence of such underwater, which becomes a reference frame.
Such conclusion makes string theory deeply inconsistent conceptually. It tries to prove the existence of hidden dimensions on background of Lorentz invariance, which is violating them. This is a simple consequence of fact, string theory proponents didn't understood the subject of their own research, trying to replace the understanding by formal regression of reality based on formal postulates and ideas, collected blindly from another theories.

No wonder, resulting theory has no meaningful solution, because it's based on assumptions, which are mutually contradicting each other from their very beginning for most of nonlocal perspectives (if not all). Instead of this, it leads to huge landcape of nearly infinite number of solutions, thus serving like ineffective and quite costly random number generator. String theorists can only hope, for some limited volume and nontrivial space-time topology the effects of Lorentz invariance will compensate the effects of hidden dimensions - but this is not exact just the approach, which we could expect from proclamativelly strictly rigorous physical theory.

Despite of this, many string theorists are apparently quite proud to their formal approach, tirelessly filling publications by various complex equations. I can tell you, today it's nearly impossible to publish string theory article in peer reviewed press without some formal equations. But for laymans should be warning the fact, we never met with some graphics representation or simulations of their results from obvious reasons - simply because such simulations can never exist! Their equations were be never solved explicitelly, neither plotted in their rigorous formal state. Believe it or not - even after forty years of intensive development nobody has seen even single one example of string modeled by string theory - only some pathetic hand-drawn illustrations copied from first textbooks. And we are talking just about numerical models by now, not about some testable predictions, relevant for physics. But string theorists somehow managed their situation for whole long forty years like alchemists of medieval era, promising Philosopher's stone (Lapis philosophorum) for the rest of society.

Isn't it amazing? I can assure you, this is a true real story of contemporary physics.

Unfortunately, as deeper analysis reveals, other formal theories like LQG theory suffers the same conceptual problems, just in less apparent way - as we can illustrate later. The frontier status of string theory only makes it's internal inconsistency more apparent, that's all. This is partially because string theory is based on special relativity, which is easier to comprehend - then more advanced postulates of general relativity, used in other quantum gravity theories.

The optimist sees the doughnut. Pessimist sees the hole in doughnut. Popper's methodology is apparently based on pessimist approach - it requires us rather doubt then to believe and to see the holes in every theory first. Beauty is always somewhat impractical an violated in symmetry - this is what makes it attractive. From single postulate we cannot construct a vector of logical implication. The theory based on fully consistent postulate set would become tautology undeniably. We could derive each postulate from another, thus effectively decrease their count to single one, after then. Therefore no formal math based theory can be completely selfconsistent and as such correct more, then observable reality.

Someone is saying, string theory is beauty and elegant theory. By my opinion, its product of complexity and predictability is suboptimal, as we have a more powerful formal theories already, like the ingenious Heim theory, which handles the concept of hidden dimensions as well, if not better. This doesn't change the fact, every theory brings a new perspectives into our understanding of reality and string theory is no exception. Anyway, from AWT follows, every theory, which expects Lorentz invariance and hidden dimensions at the same moment remains deeply inconsistent, simply because hidden dimensions manifest itself just by Lorentz invariance violation.

AWT and string theory

This post is a reaction to defense of string theory by Lubos Motl. It should be pointed out, such Don Quichotte stance is typical neither in context of limited string theorists group, whereas the most intelligent and productive ones - like Ed Witten - are already combining various concepts borrowed from other theories rather freely and without false sentiment to some particular theory. Simply because they're both technically, both mentally capable to do so. By AWT the optimal strategy in reality understanding is always balancing the formal and non-formal approach and its very pluralistic by its very nature.

Which is definitely not the strictly black and white view of people like Lubos Motl. Who even didn't understood, that the xkcq's cartoon picture advocated in his essay was ment as an apparent critique of his own defensive approach, based on arrogant mixture of attemps for biased demagogy and personal attacks often. His belief in selfevidence of string theory approach is simply so undeniable, it cannot be shaken by any logical argument, which should be punished with no mercy due "antiwhore" strategy. It's apparent, we are facing a very biased and secular (local) stance here - a sort of mental singularity.



This singular approach is an crystalline example of typical immature / expert stance, which makes Mr. Motl very useful for illustration of various boundary aspects of unparticle environment, the duality and supersymmetry principles in particular. From this principle follows, every revolution devours its own children in less or more distant perspective, string theory revolutions is no exception. Lubos stance is analogous the role of observer, who falls into black hole while applying a local Lorentz symmetry perspective in belief, it's just the space-time, what is deforming during this, not the path of light. By such way, he is allowed to keep is belief even though he is already spinning together with light in dense vacuum around black hole.



In real life such observational perspective would vaporize into accretion radiation together with its proponent, because laws of emergent geometry are undeniable: every isolated stance violates itself or the stance of other experts in less or more distant perspective, or they couldn't be more local, then the any other stance. By such way, the stances of many experts always tends to vanish mutually like interaction action of many isolated particles, only their common points (ironically just these most superficial ones) can cumulate under emergence of new ideas.

So, what problem really is with string theory? Well, none basically - with only exception, string theory is (not) a TOE by the same way, like any other strictly explicit and formal theory. In AWT the string concept has a strong and fundamental resemblance to dense particle gas fluctuations. By such way, AWT explains, what these strings and branes are and how they can emerge in our perspective. The stringy shape appearance of Aether density fluctuations is just a product of distant space perspective, which vanishes all higher dimensional geometries into quantum chaos, so that only 1D strings or 2D branes remains. The same effect we can observe inside of dense supercritical fluid, which appears to be full of strings. By such way, string theorists have guessed the geometry of fundamental pieces of observable reality without having a single idea about its emergent nature, required by less or more hidden causality of things.



No wonder, the idea of string was revealed just during study of interactions in very dense nuclear fluid (quark gluon plasma), where the stringy character of both particle fluctuations, both their interactions is most apparent. The strong point of string theory is, it revealed its highly dimensional character quite soon. The weak point of string theory was, it didn't recognized their emergent and implicit nature, by which each string consist of many daughter strings, which appears like pin-point particles from more distant perspective.



By AWT we aren't required to bother with formal details of whatever formal theory, because such theory is always defined by its postulate set and the formal predictions of it can be estimated by logical way. The another problem of string theory is, it was never strong in definition of its postulate set - it's rather a vague cluster of mutually less or more consistent sub-theories, weakly related by common methodology. Because it served as a grant and money source for many brilliant mathematicians, nobody has care, whether these methodologies are truly consistent mutually for many years. Nevertheless, some common aspects can still be traced here. For example, because string theory is proclamativelly based on Lorentz invariance postulate of special relativity theory, it can never predict Lorentz invariance violation by strictly rigorous way. From this reason the obstinate tendency of Lubos Motl to defeat the concept of Lorentz invariance appears a much more readable: every apparent violation of Lorentz symmetry would violate the string theory concept as well.


But string theory isn't just about Lorentz symmetry, it's a matter of quantum mechanics too, being one of dozens of quantum field theories, in fact - no less, no more. By AWT quantum mechanics is dual to relativity theory in Lorentz invariance postulate, which is strictly radiative time arrow based, so it violates it by introduction of many time arrows in concept of quantum uncertainty. If we accept, special relativity is less general approach, then general relativity, then the string theory based on combination of quantum mechanics and special relativity is apparently less general approach then for example quantum gravity approach based on combination of of quantum mechanics and general relativity. But the more general position of general relativity over special relativity remains questionable, though. We should rather talk about less or more distant perspective, then in terms of globality and locality here, because they could induce a false idea, more global theory is always better. Which is not generally true: more general theory is more separated for directly testable reality as well. And this relation has become another problem of string theory.



While experimental evidence of hidden variables theory was experimentally refused by violation of Bell inequalities, it's even quite strange, the very same quantum theorists are promoting theory, based on parameters in hidden dimensions, because this approach is exactly, what theory of hidden parameters means.

The relative success of string theory in mid of 80's of last century was rather product of good viral marketing due presence of some attractive persons in it (Eduard Witten, Brian Greene), then the testability and predictability, because every theory based on mutually inconsistent postulate set becomes poorly conditioned and it will diverge into tautology singularity or into landscape of infinitely many alternative solutions. This problem is common for every quantum field theory, quantum gravity in particular and string theory is facing it by the same way, like loop quantum gravity by introduction of ad hoced lower dimensional artifacts like strings, branes, quantum loops and spin networks. While string theory was first theory, which has used such approach, it plays a ungrateful role of pathfinder, who is predestined to become overcomed by more general approaches soon or later.



Dual approach of LQG - which is about twenty years younger, then string theory, by the way - is slightly more distant (but still not general) from this point of view. LQG is based on exsintric perspective, while string theory remains insintric, describing only properties of condensed space-time artifacts (i.e. particles), whereas LQG handles even the structure vacuum as well and it can predict the Lorentz symmetry violation. But LQG remains more adherent to limited ad hoced number of dimensions of our space-time in its formalism. As we can see, the strong point of every theory becomes a weakest point of other plural theories at the same area. Both string theory, both LQG theory appears like forks of quantum gravity theory and AWT can be considered both as a zero dimensional string field theory, both infinitely dimensional loop quantum gravity theory from this perspective.

The physicists soon recognized redundancy of low dimensional geometric constrains in gauge group theories (no matter, if they're called strings, branes or spin loops or foam) and they converted in less or more non-compact reformulations of quantum field theory based on various SO subgroups of Lie exceptional group, which are of pronouncedly emergent character. This trend culminated by Lisi Garrett's proposal of his ES TOE from end of 2007. AWT just makes another step further in this approach by logical elimination of ad hoced of gauge group concept from field theory, thus making description of reality fully driven by pure emergence.