From formal math perspective, Riemann Zeta function describes the probability density of prime number distribution in complex plane, i.e. when expressed by Ulam's spiral.

From AWT perspective Riemann Zeta function is significant from two dual reasons. It first, Ulam's spiral is closely related to Fibonacci spiral, which corresponds the patterns of closest packing of colliding particles and Golden mean ratio. Plant leaves and septum of snail/sea shells are minimizing the volume/surface ratio by the same way, like growing sphere formed by mutually coliding particles in diffusive (random walk) process.

Because numbers in vector space can be considered as a formal representation of colliding countable particles in N-dimensional space, we can see, how closely the number theory is related to particle physics and vice-versa.

Zeta function is therefore important in description of supergravity (SUGRA), which is general interaction between density gradients, formed by their shielding effect in N-dimensional space in analogy to Fatio de Duillier - Le Sage theory of gravity. The common gravity and Casimir force are projections of supergravity into 3D space from this perspective. The contributions of supergravity in higher dimensions converge to zero in accordance to surface/volume ratio dependence of N-dimensional hypersphere (i.e. hypersurface area) and the high dimensional residuals are promoting the complexity of observable reality.

The consequence is, inside of dense particle field the nested density fluctuations (clusters) are formed, but the number of cluster generations is strictly limited by geometry of their mutual interactions. After some three generations a less ore more chaotic particle superfluid is restored, as can be demonstrated by computer simulations. This behavior is related to many natural phenomena, from hydraulic sterilization over shaped warhead theory and viscoelastic properties of complex polymers (tixotropy of ketchup or Thinking Putty plasticine) and certain alloys (bismuth) under pressure to boson condensate and HT superconductivity theory. AWT explains the existence of three particle generations and the presence of superfluid condensate forming the vacuum inside of black holes by this way.

## Wednesday, February 11, 2009

## Tuesday, February 10, 2009

### Danger of positive approach

Few weeks ago, Lubos Motl has won the 2008 Weblog Award price for Best European (Non UK) Blog, which may become a surprise for someone, proponents of dual theories in particular. Whereas AWT is rather invariant/symmetric with respect to string /LQG duality, we can make an attempt for independent analysis of this result. The positive thing may be, Lubos is compatriot of mine, we even both born in the same city - which is not so difficult, after all, as the Czech Republic is really tiny country. Czech Republic is birthplace of many brilliant and intelligent people and beautiful women as well, which is partly due its location in central Europe on the crossroad of many trade routes, along which the mixing of various races can occur.

On the other hand, I'm not very sure, whether Lubos is a typical representative of Czech science, society the less - which is traditionally rather balanced in its opinions, if not opportunistic due it's sensitive geopolitic role of small boundary country between zones of interest of East an West Europe blocks. Buffer countries are often playing a role of branes, which leads to the fragmentation of state boundaries in this area. Aether foam gets more dense at place of density gradient due the potential energy content, where two dual space-time branes/gradients intersects/interfere mutually.

Whereas Weblog Award is rather representative competition, it's still based on results of surprisingly limited number of votes, because the first place in Best European Blog category was a matter of just some 700 voices. Which isn't really too much in the world of anonymous proxies, whereas

If so, where's the problem?

Even if we ignore the excentric and subjectively ugly design (typical for Motl's sites) and sometimes unstable behavior of scripts on his site (the purpose of which is to prohibit Motl's opponents in visiting and posting at times), we shouldn't neglect the fact, popularity of this blog is partially based on strongly biased opinions and ad hominem attacks, followed by personally motivated censorship of discussions, which manifest itself by sectarian character of people, which are allowed to post there (simillia simillibus curantur). From these reasons, Motl is often perceived as a controversial person in blogosphere. Personally, I do not believe, most of people, who voted in Weblog Award Poll didn't realize autistic and asocial character of "humble correspondent's" blog - the problem is, the system of voting didn't enable them to express their opinion. Negative voices simply don't count here.

This is a general property of contemporary voting systems, which enable only positive votes, which leads to high degree of populism in side of politicians and ignorance and lack of interests about negative aspects of politics on the side of publicity. Even morally controversial politicians may become successful in this system, if they're is sufficiently active in another areas, in self promotion of personality cult in particular. I believe, this MAY be one of reasons of society problems with its own political representations: voters simply have no veto privilege - they can be only partly responsible. In natural evolution such unbalanced approach to fitness function would suffer consequences, because it violates the equilibrium of supply and demand.

As I'm not expert in social sciences, I'm not informed, whether such approach was proposed or even tested in history and which reasons has lead people to consider only positive voting approach in anonymous elections. Maybe it could have adverse effects and it would lead to undesirable level of opportunism between politicians, I don't know. But as I've met in many cases, most trivial ideas were often ignored for long time just because of their simplicity or generally low asset, which can manifest only under high civilization density. Maybe it could even save Germany from nacism in the mid of 30's of the last century, which was rather inclined to Hitler's populism. If so, maybe the time of more dualistic/symmetric voting system just come up.

On the other hand, I'm not very sure, whether Lubos is a typical representative of Czech science, society the less - which is traditionally rather balanced in its opinions, if not opportunistic due it's sensitive geopolitic role of small boundary country between zones of interest of East an West Europe blocks. Buffer countries are often playing a role of branes, which leads to the fragmentation of state boundaries in this area. Aether foam gets more dense at place of density gradient due the potential energy content, where two dual space-time branes/gradients intersects/interfere mutually.

Whereas Weblog Award is rather representative competition, it's still based on results of surprisingly limited number of votes, because the first place in Best European Blog category was a matter of just some 700 voices. Which isn't really too much in the world of anonymous proxies, whereas

*Goggle*is doing a lot more than 1000*queries per second (*about 25*queries per second per*server*)*. Anyway, Motl's price is well deserved for his frenetic activity and it's even logical in certain extent, because his postings are often quite entertaining and informative and Reference Frame blog is one of few ones, which I'm visiting regularly. Because modern people are basically consumers, Motl's graphomania plays well with their needs, because average visitor can always find something new in his blog everyday.If so, where's the problem?

Even if we ignore the excentric and subjectively ugly design (typical for Motl's sites) and sometimes unstable behavior of scripts on his site (the purpose of which is to prohibit Motl's opponents in visiting and posting at times), we shouldn't neglect the fact, popularity of this blog is partially based on strongly biased opinions and ad hominem attacks, followed by personally motivated censorship of discussions, which manifest itself by sectarian character of people, which are allowed to post there (simillia simillibus curantur). From these reasons, Motl is often perceived as a controversial person in blogosphere. Personally, I do not believe, most of people, who voted in Weblog Award Poll didn't realize autistic and asocial character of "humble correspondent's" blog - the problem is, the system of voting didn't enable them to express their opinion. Negative voices simply don't count here.

This is a general property of contemporary voting systems, which enable only positive votes, which leads to high degree of populism in side of politicians and ignorance and lack of interests about negative aspects of politics on the side of publicity. Even morally controversial politicians may become successful in this system, if they're is sufficiently active in another areas, in self promotion of personality cult in particular. I believe, this MAY be one of reasons of society problems with its own political representations: voters simply have no veto privilege - they can be only partly responsible. In natural evolution such unbalanced approach to fitness function would suffer consequences, because it violates the equilibrium of supply and demand.

As I'm not expert in social sciences, I'm not informed, whether such approach was proposed or even tested in history and which reasons has lead people to consider only positive voting approach in anonymous elections. Maybe it could have adverse effects and it would lead to undesirable level of opportunism between politicians, I don't know. But as I've met in many cases, most trivial ideas were often ignored for long time just because of their simplicity or generally low asset, which can manifest only under high civilization density. Maybe it could even save Germany from nacism in the mid of 30's of the last century, which was rather inclined to Hitler's populism. If so, maybe the time of more dualistic/symmetric voting system just come up.

## Monday, February 09, 2009

### 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.

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.

### Are we getting dumber in our Universe?

This post is a reaction to recent report about a new study by James Flynn, by which teenagers in Britain should have lower IQ scores than their counterparts did a generation ago (via Reference Frame blog log, where dual opinion of Lubos Motl is presented), you can consider another study. It brought me another few recent reports in mind: the information about evaporation of kilogram meter prototype, dilatation of iridium meter prototype and Pamela Gay's report about violation of standard candle supernovae and many other speculations, too.

How all these apparently different areas MAY be related together? In concept of omnidirectional space-time expansion a strange thing appears: such expansion accelerates gradually, until light isn't able to follow it anymore. We can consider the remote Universe boundary or black hole event horizon as a place, where the light effectively freezes in gradually expanding universe.

By AWT we can imagine a consequences of Universe expansion easier from exsintric perspective dual to space-time expansions: every piece of matter appears like less or more dense blob of Aether density here, i.e. like piece of pre-expanded space-time from classical insintric perspective. The space-time expansion can be interpreted like compactification of vacuum foam as well. After then the difference between density of matter and density of vacuum would decrease during space-time expansion, the observable matter would dissolve in vacuum, because the surface tension forces keeping the particle together will not be strong enough to keep the particle of matter together anymore.

Such insight has a number of testable implications. Every material object will expand in gradually expanding space-time the more, the more compacted space-time it contains, i.e. the more dense is as well. The speed of light, as measured by standing photon waves in solid objects would decrease with compare to values, measured by standing wave in vacuum. This can be interpreted as a slowing of time. And every material object would dissolve into energy of vacuum, i.e. radiation in less or more distant perspective: the faster, the more heavy is - which is commonly observed at the case of massive stars. We can consider a nonzero speed of proton decay, as predicted by some theories in this connection.

As the result, observable matter would become more lightweight with compare to matter in distant past and it would expand as a consequence of gradual decrease of gravity constant. The Expanding Earth theory may emerge immediately, but this concept can be verified even by look into distant past. The frequency if cepheid supernovae explosions, considered as a standard candles will increase gradually, while luminosity of will decrease, because it proportional to total mass converted into radiation in each explosion. This dependence can explain the dark energy phenomena naturally, because the Hubble constant measurement depends on the measurement of relative brightness of cepheid supernovae explosions.

The above phenomena can be related to IQ declination problem of English population. Maybe IQ didn't decrease, but it was transformed into higher dimensions/low distance scope interactions accordingly to increased civilization mass/energy density. Inside of dense gas the interaction scope of particle decreases too: the particle interactions are much faster, but more temporal as well. The social and family relations of members in society would become weaker as well and more promiscuite.

The fast reactions and social IQ becomes more important for survival of each individual, then in the more sparse society. For example, most of teenagers can chat and to send SMS a much faster, then I can do. But theirs knowledge is both more superficial, both more specialized. Our civilization changes into single large nest of giant ants.

After all, we can observe it even in theoretical physics. Many contemporary physicists are brilliant specialists - but their knowledge of various subtleties of Victorian physics are very schematic and superficial. They're separated from reality by the same way, like from the rest of society. Without math support they cannot estimate and predict (nearly) anything correctly. The ability of non formal thinking is sadly lacking. Which is sad sometimes, as they're believe, their level of specialization gives them a qualification to advice people in other areas (like politics, economy, global warming and so on). While exactly the opposite becomes true often from obvious reasons.

By my opinion, this specialization is not a result of laziness or dumbness, but rather sort of adaptation to increasing volume of informations. Nearly nobody requires hand writing or mental arithmetic like square rooting today, to solve algebraic equations the less. After all, these tasks can be handled by hand computers and software tool easily, so I don't see a large problem here - we cannot simply handle everything. This situation increases importance of simple general ideas, from which many subtleties can be derived easily on demand. The importance of overcomplicated theories will decline by the same way, like the significance of command line and assembly languages decreased under income of moder high level object languages and GUI based operational system.

So experts have developed various IQ tests, the purpose of which is to measure an IQ in general way, but their metrics didn't change with time so fast, like the preferences of society. Therefore we are facing the same effects inside of our society like inside of our Universe - just in perspective few dimensions closer to human brain perspective. From internal perspective we can see, how our IQ grows, while it still collapses from exsintric perspective.

How all these apparently different areas MAY be related together? In concept of omnidirectional space-time expansion a strange thing appears: such expansion accelerates gradually, until light isn't able to follow it anymore. We can consider the remote Universe boundary or black hole event horizon as a place, where the light effectively freezes in gradually expanding universe.

By AWT we can imagine a consequences of Universe expansion easier from exsintric perspective dual to space-time expansions: every piece of matter appears like less or more dense blob of Aether density here, i.e. like piece of pre-expanded space-time from classical insintric perspective. The space-time expansion can be interpreted like compactification of vacuum foam as well. After then the difference between density of matter and density of vacuum would decrease during space-time expansion, the observable matter would dissolve in vacuum, because the surface tension forces keeping the particle together will not be strong enough to keep the particle of matter together anymore.

Such insight has a number of testable implications. Every material object will expand in gradually expanding space-time the more, the more compacted space-time it contains, i.e. the more dense is as well. The speed of light, as measured by standing photon waves in solid objects would decrease with compare to values, measured by standing wave in vacuum. This can be interpreted as a slowing of time. And every material object would dissolve into energy of vacuum, i.e. radiation in less or more distant perspective: the faster, the more heavy is - which is commonly observed at the case of massive stars. We can consider a nonzero speed of proton decay, as predicted by some theories in this connection.

As the result, observable matter would become more lightweight with compare to matter in distant past and it would expand as a consequence of gradual decrease of gravity constant. The Expanding Earth theory may emerge immediately, but this concept can be verified even by look into distant past. The frequency if cepheid supernovae explosions, considered as a standard candles will increase gradually, while luminosity of will decrease, because it proportional to total mass converted into radiation in each explosion. This dependence can explain the dark energy phenomena naturally, because the Hubble constant measurement depends on the measurement of relative brightness of cepheid supernovae explosions.

The above phenomena can be related to IQ declination problem of English population. Maybe IQ didn't decrease, but it was transformed into higher dimensions/low distance scope interactions accordingly to increased civilization mass/energy density. Inside of dense gas the interaction scope of particle decreases too: the particle interactions are much faster, but more temporal as well. The social and family relations of members in society would become weaker as well and more promiscuite.

The fast reactions and social IQ becomes more important for survival of each individual, then in the more sparse society. For example, most of teenagers can chat and to send SMS a much faster, then I can do. But theirs knowledge is both more superficial, both more specialized. Our civilization changes into single large nest of giant ants.

After all, we can observe it even in theoretical physics. Many contemporary physicists are brilliant specialists - but their knowledge of various subtleties of Victorian physics are very schematic and superficial. They're separated from reality by the same way, like from the rest of society. Without math support they cannot estimate and predict (nearly) anything correctly. The ability of non formal thinking is sadly lacking. Which is sad sometimes, as they're believe, their level of specialization gives them a qualification to advice people in other areas (like politics, economy, global warming and so on). While exactly the opposite becomes true often from obvious reasons.

By my opinion, this specialization is not a result of laziness or dumbness, but rather sort of adaptation to increasing volume of informations. Nearly nobody requires hand writing or mental arithmetic like square rooting today, to solve algebraic equations the less. After all, these tasks can be handled by hand computers and software tool easily, so I don't see a large problem here - we cannot simply handle everything. This situation increases importance of simple general ideas, from which many subtleties can be derived easily on demand. The importance of overcomplicated theories will decline by the same way, like the significance of command line and assembly languages decreased under income of moder high level object languages and GUI based operational system.

So experts have developed various IQ tests, the purpose of which is to measure an IQ in general way, but their metrics didn't change with time so fast, like the preferences of society. Therefore we are facing the same effects inside of our society like inside of our Universe - just in perspective few dimensions closer to human brain perspective. From internal perspective we can see, how our IQ grows, while it still collapses from exsintric perspective.

## Sunday, February 08, 2009

### 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.

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.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)