Friday, April 17, 2009

Does gravity change with time?

AWT is fully consistent with ekpyrotic cosmology, while branes are generally considered a density gradients of Aether. Which basically means, observable Universe passes through density gradient of Aether, which results in omnidirectional space-time expansion. Because of fractal foam nature of branes and time dimension, it's probable, this expansion would change it's direction in less or more distant perspective, but it will never repeat in the same way. It means, AWT is somewhere between aperiodic (i.e. Friedman's cosmology, for example) and cyclic cosmology.

Brane cosmology is directly testable both in space, both in time dimension, because it manifests both in foamy structure of dark matter, both in gradient of space-time expansion, i.e. by the Doppler anisotropy of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). From time perspective we should observe a change of gravity constant with time, because observable portion of Universe passes through more and more dense Aether gradually (we can interpret it like fall into giant black hole). This behavior leads to new interpretation of classical theory of expanding Earth, but it can be tested in even more straightforward ways.

Because observable matter has a greater density, then the vacuum, we can consider it as a pieces of pre-collapsed Aether foam. During space-time deforms, these peaces would behave like more stiff and the density difference between Aether foam forming matter and vacuum will cease to zero. Because the gravity force and gravity constant depends on this density difference, it will decrease too with time. We can even observe it in real time for example by gradual decrease of mass of kilogram prototype - as it virtually dissolves in collapsing vacuum (compare the proton decay, as predicted by Standard model).

We should realize, we cannot detect the change in light speed in expanding space-time, until we use measure based on standing waves of light (i.e. laser resonator in contemporary SI system of units) for meter definition. But when we use a solid rod as a reference measure, we could detect change of light speed related to this measure - after then the gravity constant would remain constant, just the light speed will change - so we shouldn't detect any change in fine structure constant anyway. By some theorists change in speed of light is interpreted as a disappearance of time from our Universe, but such interpretation is apparently dual to variable light speed concept and/or accelerated space-rip, as interpreted by other cosmologists.

The more dense vacuum is, the less stable are all material objects in it, the smaller amount matter is sufficient for phase transition of stellar mass. Therefore the decrease of gravity constant is followed by gradual decrease of luminosity of periodic flashes of type Ia supernovae cefeids (so called the standard candles), which would appear more remote and frequent, then those in constant gravity field. From this perspective the speed of Universe expansion would remain constant (i.e. no dark energy should be required) - just the gravity constant or speed of light will change. These insights render our Universe a much more dynamic, then we ever expected before - but we should realize, they're plural and as such they shouldn't be mixed mutually.

The annual motion of Earth in Aether density gradients should manifest by subtle annual changes of gravity constant or light speed, too. This possibility was opened recently and it can be tested easily by correlation of annual changes in gravity constant to spatial orientation toward Virgo cluster and Rubin-Ford anisotropy.

More dense vacuum in direction to Virgo cluster should increase the speed of heavy element decay, because it weakens all attractive forces, not just the gravity. This annual change in decay rate of heavy elements was observed recently at the case of Si-32 and Ra-226 elements, which was correlated to Earth-Sun distance and possibly the catalysis of decay by solar neutrino flux. Again, the correlation of these observations with CMB anisotropy can help us decide, which explanation is more relevant here. As we can see, even quite rough logical approach brings a number of testable predictions and connections here.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

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.