Global warming and galactic superwaves

CfA astronomer Doug Finkbeiner, together with two of his students, Meng Su and Tracy Slatyer, used NASA's Fermi Gamma Ray Telescope to study the diffuse gamma ray emission. They revealed humongous bubbles of high energy emission protruding about 50,000 light-years above and below the galaxy, and centered on its nucleus. Recently, it was confirmed independently from IBEX observations, the Sun going to enter soon a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas.

At the time of this prediction, astronomers believed that the cores of galaxies, including our own, become active ("explode") about every 10 to 100 million years and stay active for about a million years. Since our own Galactic core presently appears quiescent, they believed it would likely remain inactive for many tens of millions of years. Although in 1977, astronomer Jan Oort cited evidence that our Galactic core has been active within the past 10,000 years. In Ph.D. dissertation, Paul LaViolette hypothesized that galactic core explosions recur about every 10,000 years and last for several hundred to a few thousand years. He was the first to suggest such a short recurrence time for galactic core explosions and that our own Galactic core undergoes Seyfert-like explosions with similar frequency. In 1983 Paul LaViolette presented evidence to the scientific community indicating that galactic core explosions actually occur about every 13,000 - 26,000 years for major outbursts and more frequently for lesser events. The emitted cosmic rays escape from the core virtually unimpeded. As they travel radially outward through the Galaxy, they form a spherical shell that advances at a velocity approaching the speed of light.

LaViolette's research suggests that the Sun also became highly active as dust and gas falling onto its surface induced extreme flaring activity. Together with the radiation influx from the Sun's dust cocoon, this caused the Sun's corona and photosphere to inflate, much as is observed today in dust-choked stars called "T Tauri stars." These various solar effects caused atmospheric warming and inversion conditions that facilitated glacial growth which brought on ice age conditions. On occasions when the solar radiation influx to the Earth became particularly high, the ice age climate warmed, initiating episodes of rapid glacial melting and continental flooding. There is evidence that one particularly tragic solar flare event occurred around 12,900 years ago during a period when the Sun was particularly active. This involved the release of an immense coronal mass ejection which engulfed the Earth and induced a mass animal extinction. Details of this scenario are described in Paul LaViolette's book Earth Under Fire as well as in a series of journal articles he has published. Astronomical observations show the last major Galactic core explosion occurred as recently as 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.

LaViolette has an analysis of this evidence of a superwave event on his blog (YT video). The geometry of the bubbles coincide with a superwave event occuring approximately 26000 years ago, which is supported by evidence in the ice core record. Data obtained from polar ice core samples show evidence of this cosmic ray event as well as other cosmic ray intensity peaks from earlier times.

Do galaxies shrink with time?

Albeit Universe is expanding seemingly (Hubble 1929), the astronomers have found recently, the galaxies are actually shrinking with time. Because a true galaxy-size increase would be incompatible with standard cosmology, if not with the laws of gravity, authors indicate the presence of systematical errors in Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Albeit I do believe, this finding is actually consistent with particle dispersion model of Universe expansion, in which objects smaller then the wavelength of CMBR are expanding with time, but the objects larger then the CMBR wavelength are collapsing instead in analogy with capillary wave dispersion at the water surface.

In accordance with this model many phenomena related to red shift actually disappaer for CMBR wavelengths (CMBR photons cannot disperse with itself). Shrinking of galaxies is therefore consistent with AWT model of surface ripples dispersion at the water surface and with time symmetry of omnidirectional Universe expansion, predicted with AWT. The Universe should expand seemingly in light shorter then the wavelength of CMBR, which is known as a red shift (Hubble 1929).

In light of wavelengths larger then CMB wavelength a blue shift and attenuation of light with distance should be actually observed. The attenuation of distant radio source with distance has been already observed, too. Last July, US astronomers announced surprising results from a high-altitude balloon experiment called ARCADE-2, which had made careful measurements of the sky at radio wavelengths. The background radio emission, which is the component smoothly distributed across the whole sky, was several times brighter than anyone was expecting.

Aether Wave Theory cannot predict the absolute value of the gain observed in this moment - but it predicts, at the wavelength of CMBR this gain should be zero, which is what has been actually observed. Actually it's just a consequence of fact, for structures larger then the wavelenght of CMBR the gravity dominates over quantum effects (pressure of CMBR), so that such objects are collapsing. Because these objects are observable only with light of comparable wavelength, the Universe should appear collapsing, when being observed in radiowaves.

Regarding blue shift of radiowave source, it has been observed possibly, too as a Pioneer maser anomaly (compare the LaViolette's blueshifting prediction). Blue shift is notoriously difficult to observe, because of lack or reliable reference sources of known frequency (hydrogen vibration spectra of remote sources are absorbed heavily with interstellar gas). But some man-made objects are already remote enough to observe blueshift with artificial sources of radiowaves.

It means, the time arrow is actually violated, our Universe doesn't travel through time in one direction. One half of Universe expands due the pressure of radiation and its entropy increases. The second part (this one larger then ~2 mm) collapses with its gravity instead and its entropy goes down.

Clever individuals do not make the group smarter

This post is a reaction to the recent article (more details) in which individual brainpower contributes little to collective smarts. Instead, it’s social awareness -- the ability to pick up on emotional cues in others -- that seems to determine how smart a group can be.

When we write something new in internet discussion, we just get negative voting usually, because people aren't prepared to get new generally valid information from individuals at all. Instead of this, the more irrelevant and widespread is the internet meme in your answers, the higher score you get - because it's considered "witty". Actually you're just repeating things, which most of people are already expecting to listen unconsciously. Most of people don't expect to hear some revolutionary ideas at all - instead of this, they're feeling confounded, if not confused when being confronted with them. It should be pointed out, the poor language skills are making the sharing of emotions much more difficult, then the sharing of logical information. In addition, socially successful people tend to ignore logical arguments.

In another words, if you want to convince people for something clever or good, you have to manipulate them for it emotionally... Emotions, emotions, emotions...

Unfortunately it works in both directions, as Joseph Goebels knew already.

Actually, in dense aether theory a rather simple wave spreading model can be applied to this situation. This model renders human society like particle system, where every particle exhibits it's own surface gradient of information density, i.e. the intelligence. Theories, i.e. well accepted paradigms of human thinking correspond the density gradients at the water surface and the intelligent ideas are corresponding causual, i.e. tranverse waves in causual space, similar to ripples at the water surface. The emotional feelings correspond the longitudinal waves instead, similar to underwater sound waves.

The underwater waves are weaker but they're spreading in much faster way - whereas surface waves tend to bounce from every gradient of information density (i.e. intelligence). Very bright people are behaving like black holes in this model - they're collecting all informations freely, but their experience cannot be shared easily, because of total reflection mechanism at their surface gradient of intelligence density. With compare to it, very dumb people are behaving like mirror-like bubbles with respect to transverse waves instead: they're empty and they're even reflecting all causal information coming from outside.

A well known kind of symmetry between formal (IQ) and nonformal intelligence (EQ) exists here, though: dumb people are often quite sensitive emotionally and they can be manipulated easily in this way, whereas logical argument doesn't count very much for them. Instead of it, formally bright people are rather emotional nuts and they lack EQ and social skills often - compare the Sheldon Cooper character from The Big Bang Theory sitcom.

The only way, in which black hole can radiate it's information to outside is the gravitational waves, which appear like Howking radiation. This mechanism is relatively subtle though, which explains, why really intelligent ideas are propagating slowly to the rest of society. Nevertheless, they can be supported with sufficiently emotional propaganda. For example, string theory (which is actually quite incomprehensible for laymans) is promoted with shots of beauty violinists in play at Nova TV show.

Should journalists second guess the scientific truth?

This post is a reaction to recent article of Lubos Motl of the same name. It's not surprising, Motl supports his restrictive stance, regarding the rights to expression of private opinion from the side of journalists. But we shouldn't neglect the fact, with respect to climatic science Lubos is just an educated journalist like everyone else and he violates his own rules flagrantly, because he is trying to influent public meaning massively all the time. He is just trying to dispute rights of journalists to the same activity, which he dedicated most of his time - and because he uses Google Adsense on his blog, he's even earning some money for it like professional journalists.

In general, opinion of experts matters from intrinsic perspective only. But just because experts are specialized to narrow area of their private interest, they're not overmuch qualified in judging of their opinions in wider context - on the contrary, they tend to occupy their stances rather blindly - the more, the more they feel being an experts in given area. In this context the reading of articles The era of expert failure by Arnold Kling,  Why experts are usually wrong by David H. Freeman and Why the experts missed the crash by Phill Tetlock (in Czech) may be useful not only for Lubos Motl.

Niels Bohr: "An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field".

Higgs boson and fourth generation of quarks

This post is inspired by recent blog post of Tomaso Dorigo, who announced finding of Higgs boson with mass of about 150 GeV. By official media coverage it's just a rumour, that's got out of hand, as expressed by Fermilab's spokes'girl. More interestingly is, what's behind this rumour - and I don't mean over imagination or exploding ego of Mr. Dorigo, as Fermilab's Twitter post implies spitefully. Or do you really believe, Fermilab would give its official stance through Twitter? Such anonymous message is even much less reliable, then the original blogpost of Mr. Dorigo. But such way of  prematurely presentation of results and their vetoing indicates, how mainstream physics maneuvers between less or more opened tendency to announce findings as soon as possible for the sake of publicity and/or grant support ex una parte - and  the demonstrative expression of conservative skepticism on the other hand.

IMO Higgs boson is the same fuzzy unparticle stuff, like the virtual bosons responsible for Casimir force - their effective mass depends on surface geometry. Just at the case of Higgs boson the upper bound is limited by mass of top quark, so it can form a fuzzy signal, corresponding the dilepton channel of top quark decay, which was observed already. If even more massive quark exists, then its corresponding Higgs should indeed exist too and the whole concept of unique "God's particle" becomes fringe.

Mr. Dorigo himself putted the nail into coffin of Higgs boson by his previous announcement of fourth generation of quarks in 450 GeV range. Before finding of neutrino oscillation, the Standard Model contained 19 arbitrary dimensionless constants describing the masses of the particles and the strengths of the electroweak and strong forces. After the discovery of neutrino mass the new Standard Model requires 26 fundamental dimensionless constants, whose numerical values are, to the best of present understanding, arbitrary. Currently Standard Model is indeed incompatible with fourth generation of quarks or neutrinos, but thanks so high number of constants flexible enough to implement even higher particle generations. It's sort of regressive epicycle model keeping the Ptolemaic physics of modern era alive.

We can say, this finding is of approximatelly the same relevance like the previous finding of Higgs boson anounced (about three sigma in error level). And quess what? In this time the blog article was handled by NewScientist quite seriously and it got full coverage in media. The whole trick here is, most of physicists actually do not believe in concept of Higgs boson on background - despite the massive propaganda in CERN related media, the main purpose is to justify expensive experiments at LHC.

The title of recent another NewScientist article "In SUSY we trust: What the LHC is really looking for" (full version) illustrates clearly, physicists are aware of the conceptual problems of Higgs field concept. The article should be interpreted like: "Uhm, well, ... we actually don't believe, Higgs boson will be ever found at LHC - so we should concentrate to supersymmetry instead. ."

With respect to AdS/CFT duality the success or problems with particle search at Planck scale will be replicated/mirrored at cosmological scales (WIMPs detection) and vice-versa. Therefore it's not so strange, when dual situation recently appeared in media, when scientists started to speculate, (primordial) gravitational waves cannot be found at all due the "quantum-spread", which would render detectors of gravitational waves useless in the same way, like the LHC at quantum scale.

This is an example, how seemingly spontaneous scientific PR is basically working - layman public should trace subliminal messages of it for to get the realistic picture about opinion of this close sectarian community in the noise of PR journalism and propaganda.

Is the Universe Leaking Energy?

This post is an reaction to recent ScientificAmerican article, in which the idea of mass/energy conservation law for Universe at large scales is impeached.

In Aether Wave Theory (AWT, dense aether theory) Universe is completelly random stuff, similar to nested dense fluctuations of hypothetical dense gas (aether) and its energy content is basically stable at large scales. The red shift in visible light should be compensated with blue shift for radio waves in analogy to dispersion of light at the water surface, i.e. nothing really expands, neither is losing its energy in fact. This doesn't mean, laws of Universe are 100% valid - the Universe just appears like random noise at both quantum, both cosmological scales - so we cannot observe any trend in it at sufficiently global scale.

Because the effect of Universe expansion compensates with contraction just at the wavelength about 2 cm (human observer scale), we're observing the lack of dark energy and dark matter phenomena just during observation of Universe in microwaves (compare the post about cosmological time arrow  and reddit comment).

Quantum theorist explaining gravity is an ox(y)moron

This post is an reaction to ArXiv blog article New Quantum Theory Separates Gravitational and Inertial Mass. A typical problem with theoretical physicists is that they think that by presenting an alternative interpretation of a contradiction one can remove the contradiction.

Equations of quantum theory cannot describe gravity at all - on the contrary. By Schrödinger equation all wave packets of free particles should expand into infinity, not to collapse by gravity. We cannot switch 1 = 1 to 1 = -1 by any causal math because quantum theory reverses time arrow of general relativity.

In AWT we can reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics in two main ways:

1. By using of particle simulation of nested density fluctuations inside of very dense gas. At the certain level of condensation the resulting solution inside of dense particle clusters would become close to general relativity, while the solution of outside them would become close to general relativity.
2. We can solve wave equation in very high number of dimensions. After the solution in inner 3D slice of solution can be compared with quantum mechanics, in outer 3D slice it can be compared with general relativity.

Actually, in AWT the equivalence principle is violated by electrostatic or dipole forces, Casimir force etc. which are acting in extra-dimensions and nothing strange is about it. All these forces depend on different quantities, then just mass.

Higgs boson as an unparticle

The unparticle concept was proposed by Harward professor Howard Gorgi before few years. AWT introduces unparticles by concept of fractally nested density fluctuations inside of dense gas. For example clouds are scale invariant unparticle stuff, similar to Perlin noise. Recently D. Stancato & J. Terning have proposed unparticle character of Higgs bosone. Prof. Hawking reckons, that a number of "partner" particles will emerge, instead, thus making prof. Higgs upset by his stance.

This is not so difficult to understand, because from common perspective the unparticle hypothesis would effectively mean, no distinct Higgs particle signal will be ever found, until we achieve collider jets, composed of unique particles to demonstrate it - because Higgs field interaction would have a character of kink widespread over ultraviolet part of mass-energy spectrum. Could prof. Higgs deserve Nobel price, if it turns out Higgs boson is just some Unhiggs?

In more illustrative way, Unhiggs field is analogous to coat of virtual quarks, in which all elementary particles are surrounded at small distances. This coat glues particles together at smallest distances. Such unstable particles can still be observed by their collective effects, for example by jet suppression during particle collisions. Just because it's difficult to call them particles they're called an unparticles. It's responsible for so called Yukawa coupling, responsible for pairing and gluing of nucleons and quarks inside of atom nuclei, for formation of top-quark pairs, glueballs, pentaquark and another artifacts, which were observed recently at Tevatron.

From Standard model follows, the product of Higgs boson Yukawa coupling to the left- and right-handed top quarks have nearly the same rest mass (173.1±1.3 GeV/c2) like those predicted for Higgs boson (178.0 ± 4.3 GeV/c2). It means, Higgs boson was observed already at Tevatron as a product of top-quark coupling and identified by dilepton channel of top-quark decay.

In AWT such field exists at all scales and it manifests by Casimir force mediated by virtual photons at micrometer scale, or dark matter at megaparsec scale, for example.  It means, Higgs field has a scale invariant character of fuzzy unparticles, which are changing their size accordingly to carrier particles. The combination of trivial and topological band insulators within topological insulators and superconductors is bringing anyons and plektons - unparticles that behave neither according to purely Bose nor Fermi statistics.

The title of recent NewScientist article "In SUSY we trust: What the LHC is really looking for" illustrates clearly, physicists are aware of the conceptual problems of Higgs field concept. The article should be interpreted like: "Uhm, well, ... we really don't believe, Higgs boson will be ever found at LHC - so we should concentrate to supersymmetry, for not being blamed completely before publicity". The question is, whether physicists could admit openly before publicity, LHC is useless with respect to search of Higgs boson even by their own theories, if they wasted so much money in it.

This is a demo, how seemingly spontaneous scientific PR is basically working. Dual situation appeared recently in media, when scientists started to speculate, (primordial) gravitational waves cannot be found at all due the "quantum-spread", which renders detectors of gravitational waves useless. With respect to AdS/CFT duality the success or problems with particle search at Planck scale will be replicated/mirrored at cosmological scales (WIMPs detection) and vice-versa.

The similar U-turn we could expect later regarding estimations of LHC collider safety. The most problematic part of Unhiggs detection at LHC is the strangelet controversy: in contact with terresterial matter it could enable avalanche chain formation of clusters of particles, analogous to stable microscopic black holes predicted by Randall-Sundrum model. Recently A. Choptuik demonstrated, when extra-dimensions are involved, black hole could be formed with compare to existing CERN safety analysis, considering Hawking radiation as the only mechanism of black hole evaporation (1, 2, 3). In addittion, CERN considers, black hole could interact with its neighborhood via gravitational interaction only, thus purportedly neglecting their electromagnetic interaction, which is 10e+41 x stronger.

"Does that mean the LHC will make black holes? Not necessarily", Choptuik says. "The Planck energy is a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum. So the only way the LHC might make black holes is if, instead of being three dimensional, space actually has more dimensions that are curled into little loops too small to be detected except in a high-energy particle collision. Predicted by certain theories, those extra dimensions might effectively lower the Planck energy by a huge factor."

Well, if some extra-dimensions could wipe-out one quintillion factor (?!?) of LHC safety expected, can scientists admit, they're openly planning to verify theory, which predicts formation of stable black holes just by formation of black holes at LHC? Could CERN physicists ever admit, it could be qualified as an criminal act by the rest of society?

We should realize, CERN physicists just want to build and operate LHC collider despite of any risk, because it provides them safe and stable jobs and environment for scientific carrier. They're supported in their activities by lobby of private companies involved in technical support of LHC. We could say, high concentration of money in civilization leads to spontaneous formation of dense states of matter in simmilar way, like dense concentration of energy in universe. The desinformed rest of society underestimated these emergent relationships, which resulted into establishing of large groups of people, who are openly ignorant - if not even hostile - to further destiny of civilization.

AWT and CP symmetry violation

In AWT CP symmetry violation is a consequence of dispersion of energy through Aether foam with increasing number of dimensions. While the energy spread along space-time brane in symmetric way, with increasing mass/energy density the fragmentation of time dimensions occurs.  Quantum foam gets more dense with increasing energy density in similar way like soap foam under shaking and it changes itself into foam with small spherical bubbles similar to fluid, which results into collective motion of particles involved. The constituents of quark-gluon plasma are strongly coupled, causing their collective flow. This coupling is basically well known Yukawa coupling, which can be explained by presence of Higgs field. As I explained already here, formation of top-quark pairs can be interpreted like formation of Higgs bosons, which are of the same rest mass and mechanism of dilepton decay channel.

The fragmentation of quantum foam into smaller bubbles leads to fragmentation of time arrows and violation of jet symmetry during RHIC/LHC collisions of heavy atom nuclei. The same fragmentation can be observed near rotating black holes (Kerr solution leads to multiple event horiozons) and polarization of CMB at 40 MPc+ scale. The symmetry violation during jet formation could be explained by omnidirectional space-time expansion during torus spinning - the inner part of ring always rotates faster, so it's dragged into axis direction.

The violation of jet symmetry can be understood as an example of CP symmetry violation, which was observed first at the case of spin polarized and cooled cobalt-60 nuclei (1956), which are emanating electrons in asymmetric way. The same stuff we can observed at the case of jets of black holes (like the famous M87 and Centaurus A, which are asymmetric in similar way, like jets emanated by quark-gluon plasma during collider experiments. The second jet should be formed by jet of supersymetric particles, fotinos in particular. The absorption of jet demonstrates, how easily the QG plasma can be feeded by matter under formation of strangelets or even black holes.

In this connection it may be significant, CMB cold spot is unpaired too (if the observable Universe is formed by black hole, we could see through polar jet into hyper-universe). The observed parity violation of galaxies and CMB Doppler anisotropy should be correlated to CMB cold spot direction, too. Because jets of black holes are exaggerated example of gravity brightening, we could observe CP symmetry violation by difference of polar temperatures and curvatures at the case of giant rotating stars, too. In this connection it's interesting too, even Earth globe has a pear shape, which deforms Earth ellipsoid by elevation of about two hundred meters at north pole. It's interesting, Christopher Columbus considered it in 17th century already, while promoting westward voyage to Cathay (China) or Zipangu (Japan).

Is light of pulsar spreading in superluminal speed?

This post is a reaction to recent PW article Pulsar bursts move 'faster than light'. It's not true, this phenomenon was described in an astronomical object first - the same effect was disputed before years for motion of bright areas in jet of M87 galaxy, where it has supposedly the same explanation. As a dense aether proponent I appreciate readers, who are trying to think "out of box" - but in this case, this particular observation has really nothing to do with Aether and "violation of Lorentz symmetry" - but with peculiar way, in which light of pulsars propagates through environment filled by particles of interstellar gas. The animation bellow illustrates it by computer simulation:

This phenomena is related to way, in which light is propagating through so-called metamaterials. The uncertainty about exact source position is the reason, why we cannot talk about information exchange between observer and object, because the amplitude of light travels through interstellar gas in noncausual way. After all, it's not wave itself (group velocity), but an amplitude of light (phase velocity), which is traveling here by superluminal speed in analogy to motion of laser spot along surface of moon. The supersonic sound wave "spreading" was observed during spreading of ultrasound pulses through dense polystyrene dispersions in water, too.

A more intriguing question could be, whether longitudinal component of CMB noise - i.e. superluminal gravitational waves could be interpreted by analogous dispersion of light waves on Higgs field forming vacuum. In this moment I'm unable to decide, whether such perspective is relevant to reality and if it could lead to some new testable predictions. It could be somehow related to so called block-universe concept, by which reality in motion occurs by inhomogeneous spreading of information through Aether lattice at rest - which I personally consider biased toward atemporal perspective of Universe.

Lie E8 group and quantum criticality

Exceptional Lie E8 group shot to fame in 2007, when the US freelance physicist Garrett Lisi posted a paper on the arXiv preprint server suggesting that E8 could map out all known particles and their mutual interactions. However a well before in 1988 the Russian physicist Alexander Zamolodchikov showed that E8 symmetry could also describe the spectrum of spin excitations that occur in 1D Ising ferromagnets. Radu Coldea of Oxford University and colleagues at the Helmholtz Zentrum Berlin (HZB) have measured the energies of several of these quasiparticles by cooling the cobalt niobate to 40 mK and firing neutrons at it. When the experiment was done at zero magnetic field, five quasiparticles were spotted. Their energies are described by a mathematical formula derived three decades ago by Barry McCoy and Tai Tsun Wu.

Density of magnetic domains increases with increasing magnetic field in simmilar way, like density of gas fluctuations under pressure. At certain moment, the nested density fluctuations are formed in similar way, which we can observe during condensation of supercritical vapor. As the strength of the field was increased to the quantum critical value of 5.5 T, the ratio of energies of the first two quasiparticles approached 1.618. This number is the "golden ratio" and is precisely what should be measured if the quasiparticles are described by E8 – a prediction that was made more than 20 years ago by prof. Zamolodchikov.

As explained previously by concept of quantum foam, root system of E8 Lie group solves trivial question: "Which structure should have the tightest lattice of particles, formed by energy exchange of another particles?". And such question has perfect meaning even from classical physics point of view! Such question has a perfect meaning in theory, describing the most dense structure of inertial particles formed by energy exchange between another particles, which we can ever imagine, i.e. the interior of black hole, which is forming the vacuum. Therefore it's not so strange, both one of heterotic string theories, both Garretts E8 theory is dealing with E8 group and Horava's theory deals with quantum critical point. The animations bellow are illustrating, how most compact particle packing is related to golden mean ratio observed in critical point. By AWT the E8 is based on the geometry of most compact packing geometry possible and most dense particle packing happens when packing density along surface and volume becomes exactly balanced.

Golden mean ratio is closely related to densest particle packing in similar way, like the E8 group geometry. We can expect,  certain random arrangement of particles is more compact, then another ones, so energy spreads in slowest way and the cosmic space appears largest in it.  In natural systems golden mean minimizes the surface/volume ratio, i.e. it defines most effective object packing in situations, where many particles are involved. In such objects energy spreads in slowest possible way (because they're so compact), which means, these objects are most stable and atemporal, i.e. they're of highest fitness and they can survive easier. Human brain is just an engine for particularly slow but atemporal energy spreading (i.e. without dispersion). Solitons (not just those in human brain) consist of waves, where frequency and energy of components follows golden mean ratio, too. Evolution is analogous to travel in dispersive environment, so we can imagine particles and planets as a most compact solitons, which survived the travel through CMB noise in most successful way.

The most compact arrangement or repulsing particle corresponds so called Wigner phase inside of cold plasma crystals. Another system, which could exhibit E8 symmetry are nested density fluctuations, which occurs inside of condensing supercritical vapor temporarily. During this the nested density fluctuations of mutually repulsing particles should be formed, which leads into compact structure of kissing hyperspheres, described just by root vector system of Lie's E8 group.

We can apply the above principles to area of scientific research too. Research follows both information spreading along well defined gradients/surfaces of knowledge, i.e. formal theories, both intuitive holistic thinking through bulk of knowledge independently to existing theories (so called "crackpottery", but I rather call it a "mutations" in evolution of knowledge). After then the most effective strategy is just the approach, where the formal and intuitive approaches are balanced in golden mean ratio. So we shouldn't expect, only blind combinations of equations will lead to some TOE fast - intuitive insights and ideas are important here, too.

AWT and cellular automata model

This post is a reaction to recent NS article 'I'm an information pack rat', which deals with personality of Stephen Wolfram. But who first had the idea that the universe is a cellular automaton? Konrad Zuse? Edward Fredkin? Certainly not Stephen Wolfram. Apparently it's not the first case of foreign ideas "packed" by Wolfram [Jim Giles, Nature 417, 216 - 218 (2002)].

In 1969  Konrad Zuse published a book called Rechnender Raum (translated later as "Digital space") theorizing, that the universe was a cellular automaton. Juergen Schmidhuber discusses this on his website: Zuse's Thesis: The Universe is a Computer, that  Konrad Zuse had the idea that the universe is running on a grid of computers as early as 1967. On the other hand, Plamen Petrov, being unaware of Zuse's work at the time, earlier dubbed this idea Fredkin's Thesis. Recently Schmidhuber observed, "Even earlier, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (who not only co-invented calculus but also built the first mechanical multiplier in 1670) caused a stir by claiming that everything is computable". Although it's clear, that Leibniz did not formulate the notion of a cellular automaton as such.
 
On the other hand, apparently Wolfram does not intend to imply that the universe is a classical cellular automaton--at least if you read the fine print.  In the Notes for Chapter 9 on pages 1026 and 1027 of his book Wolfram does acknowledge the work of Zuse and Fredkin in a single sentence. Then he goes on to say that  "no literal mechanistic model can ever in the end realistically be expected to work." I take this to refer to classical cellular automata. In his usual modest way he says, "...what must happen relies on phenomena discovered in this book--and involves the emergence of complex properties..."


It is not the first time that Wolfram has annoyed complexity researchers, who feel that he routinely fails to recognize the contributions made by others. "He tends to acknowledge people in two-point type," says one researcher. Indeed, A New Kind of Science lacks conventional references to prior work - although scientists and mathematicians including Cook are acknowledged in the book's notes section.

No doubt, Stephen Wolfram is reinnnesance personality of modern era. But I don't share ideas concerning cellular automata model of reality - in my opinion the appearance of Universe follows from principles of energy & information spreading in completely random particle system, i.e. it's randomness at its very very best. The problem of Stephen Wolfram is, he is overspecialized and biased to complexity perspective - so I'm perceiving his ideas as abstract and ad-hoced. After all, completely random Universe requires less strong postulates from Occam's razor perspective.

But we still could understand such stance from perspective of Simillia simillibus observatur theorem of AWT: every expert tends to see Universe in the light of its own specialization. Relativist would see it relativistic, aetherists like me would see it through particle field and computer scientist and mathematician would see it as a huge simulation or cellular automata model. It's logical, because every density fluctuation of Aether would interact with another fluctuations, which are similar in shape, size, energy density and so on.

Does gravity not exist on behalf of holografic memory?

This post is a reaction to recent article On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton of dutch theorist Erik P. Verlinde. Albeit Verlinde is string theorist, his finding has basically nothing to do with string theory and it's logical connection to holographic model proposed is extremely vague here. When random gas exhibits entropic behavior, it still doesn't make it a hologram, some memory the less and it requires a huge portion of fantasy to interpret it in such a way.

Maybe string theory or holographic theory are related to entropy quantity in some abstract way (albeit I can see nothing entropic in their postulates with exception of vagueness) - but the connection of Aether gas concept to entropy is still much more straightforward and transparent (entropy quantity original derivation was based on Boltzmann gas concept). This is simply how analogy differs from vague homologies: by absence of additional manifolds in causal space.

"Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic".

If it smells like entropy, and it behaves like entropy, it's probably a Boltzmann gas...;-) We simply cannot have an abstract entropy quantity existing as such without underlying physical system (usually inertial particle gas or fluid), which maintains the laws of statistics. Emergence is just another postmodern word for ancient Aether model, described by gas (thermodynamics) or by fluid (hydrodynamics) models. Eric expressed it unvillingly in interview with the newspaper de Volkskrant:

"On the smallest level Newton's laws don't apply, but they do for apples and planets. You can compare this to pressure of gas. Molecules themselves don't have any pressure, but a barrel of gas has."

The same, just more vague conclusion former string theorist Lubos Motl got on his blog:

"I find it somewhat unlikely that "bulk physics" may be really derived without any "bulk physics".

While Motl's intuition was exceptionally right in this particular case, the above approach is exactly, what the string theory or quantum gravity did all the time (the formal strings or quantum loops, i.e. Aether density fluctuations are the same temporal aspect of dense gas behavior, like entropic character of energy shielding, i.e. the gravity). We should realize, comments of Mr. Motl aren't Aether theory motivated in any way - but by fact, Verlinde's rather insightful work has nothing to do with string theory. Mr. Motl just feels some competition of his pet string theory in the air. But the true insights concerning formal entropy models of elementary particles were achieved before few years in GUITAR theory of Quantoken.

Concerning "Newtonian physics", Newton believed, gravity force is indirectly proportional to distance with compare to R. Hooke, who claimed the inverse square law on background of former Alhacen's work. Just the Aether model of Newton's friend Nicolas Fatio de Duillier convicted Newton to change his opinion on behalf to inverse square law - we can see, Newton's physical intuition was far not so brilliant, as it's believed usually. Duillier's model was later extended by Le Sage and so far we have no other working theory of gravity based on physical, i.e. not completely abstract ad-hoced model, separated from observable reality.

The apparent inability of physicists to distinguish trivial particle system beneath all these noble abstract ideas about thermodynamics, entropy and emergent holographic scenarios is striking. Even worse, it's a sort of modern religion or political decision - supposedly the both. Other extrapolations of this work assigned to Verlinde (?):

"Gravity does not exist. The whole universe is a giant holographic memory that gets more and more filled with data as time evolves. This filling of the cosmic memory we interpret as gravity. What if the memory gets full? Than you find yourself in a black hole."

are bringing logical questions, whether these ideas are really consistent with present model of black hole as a physical singularity or whether gravity doesn't apply to interior of black hole, or whether it can not exist something, which we can measure reliably. After all, such naively abstract ideas separated from reality are typical for both many formal theorists of present era, both their layman interpreters.

Universe and the rainbow of black holes

The substantial portion of AWT analogies is based on geometrical convergence of low-energy and high energy density phenomena. Recently metamaterial foam models of vacuum gained a popularity, thus sopporting the AWT model. Concept of foam is quite general in AWT and it can bring a most general understanding of things like rest mass of photon and dependence of photon dynamic mass to wavelength,  CPT symmetry breaking and general appearance of the observable Universe.

In AWT foam structure is an emergent result of incoming light dispersion by field of CMB fluctuations (i.e. gravitational waves) and as such it depends on observational perspective - the more, the more is distant from local human scale. From AWT perspective Universe is quite random environment, and extremely low portion of energy can spread through it in pure transversal way, thus raising the existence of causal observational perspective of human creatures. This perspective is sampling the causal portion of Universe in such way, it ignores dispersion of radiation nearly completely.

In real life such perspective corresponds the observation of heavy rain, where droplets get so densely arranged, they could be considered a foamy system consisting of mixture of density gradients with both positive, both negative curvatures. This geometry corresponds the geometry of density fluctuations inside of dense gas or supercritical fluid, the structure of CMB noise and the graviton foam expected in early Universe (in AWT graviton foam is the CMB noise observed from sufficiently distant perspective - compare the Big Bang model of AWT).

Under normal circumstances, the outer surfaces of rain droplets with positive curvature are more pronounced, so that normal dispersion prevails and one rainbow is formed. But at the case of heavy rain the anomalous dispersion on inner surfaces of rain droplets becomes dominant and the secondary rainbow is formed.

Between primary and secondary bows the dark Alexander's band is formed. This dark are is named after Alexander of Aphrodisias, who first described it. It occurs due to the deviation angles of the primary and secondary rainbows. Both bows exist due to an optical effect called the angle of minimum deviation. Light which is deviated at smaller angles than this can never reach the observer. The minimum deviation angle for the primary bow is 137.5°. Light can be deviated up to 180°, causing it to be reflected right back to the observer. Light which is deviated at intermediate angles brightens the inside of the rainbow. The minimum deviation angle for the secondary bow is about 230°. The fact that this angle is greater than 180° makes the secondary bow an inside-out version of the primary. Its colors are reversed, and light which is deviated at greater angles brightens the sky outside the bow.

From AWT perspective the observation of primary rainbow corresponds the observation of large massive body, white hole surface in particular. The secondary bow corresponds the inner surface of foamy streaks of dark matter, consisting mainly of antimatter particles, heavily expanded during inflation. This perspective renders dark matter streaks as a symmetric phenomena of black hole surfaces. The Alexander band with no apparent dispersion itself corresponds the observation of space-time brane (a "transparent window"), forming cosmic space from insintric perspective. This model explains, the dispersion is restricted to narrow band, forming the physical surfaces of massive bodies, so that vacuum appears basically dispersion-less, but it appears dark (Olbers' paradox) at the price.

The absorption and refraction coefficients are related by Kronig-Kramers equations, named in honor of Ralph Kronig  and Hendrik Anthony Kramer. By these equations dispersion is volume phenomena of longitudinal waves and refraction the product of surface gradients, where transversal waves are involved. These functions are dependent to dimensional scale (i.e. wavelength) and phase shifted by half-period in causal space due the Lorentz/Wick rotation. Because hypersphere surface is first derivation of its volume, it basically means, dispersion curve is first derivation of absorption spectrum.

This simple dependence explains the symmetry breaking observed inside of our gradient driven reality, because the minimal speed (the position denoted by red circle on the above graph) of transversal energy spreading in dispersive spreading isn't exactly symmetric to position of absorption maximum. The requirement of minimal speed of transversal wave spreading follows from nearly infinite size of observable Universe. This effectively mean, symmetry violation is a consequence of the large space-time observed via density fluctuations of inhomogeneous environment and we can observe these fundamental connections even during rainy weather.

Is dark matter of large gallaxies supersymmetric to black holes?

This post is a reaction to recent NS article "Missing dark matter mystery in small galaxies". It's well known, large galaxies and galactic clusters are relatively abundant to dark matter with compare the smaller ones. This finding could have certain meaning in AWT cosmology, in which large gallaxies were formed by evaporation of central black holes, whereas smaller ones were formed rather by accretion (i.e. by classical mechanism with respect to contemporary cosmology). Another ideas presented in connection with this model  was dark star origin of gallaxies and the shielding effect of dark matter. This effect is understandable with respect to AWT mechanism, because of large content of antimatter considered in dark matter, which could have antigravity action at large distances. Presence of heavily ionized atom nuclei trapped makes dark matter detectable by X-ray telescopes, like Chandra.

It would mean, dark matter is in fact super-symmetric effect of black holes inside of galaxies. Without presence of central black holes the galaxies cannot contain material particles around it, because of no evaporation. This idea could have some meaning in holographic theory of Universe, too. This could explain both absence of dark matter outside, both black holes outside of small galaxies. 

But the whole subject is still quite speculative in this moment and additional observational data are required. Recently Hubble has found another evidence of dark matter presence near small galaxies. This study demonstrated, that the low-velocities of stars observed around dwarf galaxies are infact compatible with galaxy formation in dark-matter haloes. Stellar orbits in the outer regions of the resulting elliptical are very elongated, which can explain the observed velocities even in the presence of large amounts of dark matter.

AWT and theory of human conscioussness

This post is a reaction to recent NS article "You won't find consciousness in the brain". In AWT perspective human brain is essentially a condensate of consciousness. This is because every atemporal particle exhibits a traits of conscious behavior: they're moving accross density gradient of vacuum while sniffing for another density gradients via gravitational force/waves like for food, while avoiding the anti-gravity (pressure of radiation). In similar way bacteria or protozoa are following the density gradients of chemical energy concentration, while avoiding heat and another dangers. Analogously, human brain maintains number of solitons, i.e. selfreinforcing wave packets, which are spreading through it like particles of observable reality, which they simulate in advance - so we can say, human brain is sort of simulator of quantum foam, which manifest itself by foamy structure of dark matter at large scale. Therefore it's nothing strange, structure of neurons in simmilar to structure of dark matter streaks and the wavelength of neural solitons (so called human scale) correspond the wavelength of CMB radiation, into which is adopted for by "Similia simillibus observatur" principle.

The insintric property of solitons is, they're making their foamy environment more dense in similar way, like soap foam condenses under shaking temporarily. By Schrodinger equation the mass density of quantum string is proportional by its energy in each space and time interval by E=mc2 equation. You can play with this quantum wave aspect of foamy environment behavior by using Java applet hereing. So when two or more solitons met together, the third soliton will use this place preferably.

By recent studies neural solitons are sound waves supported by electrochemical activity of neural cell membranes. The membrane potential contracts the membrane, which is in elastic liquid crystal state. After sound wave arrival the membrane potencial is discharged by diffusion of ions via ion channels and the membrane surface follows a self reinforcing wave, i.e. a soliton. The whole process repeats itself in ~100 Hz cycle.

 

At the case of highly nonlinear neurons of vertebrates the foamy, extradimensional character of sound wave propagation is forced by internal structure of microtubules in analogous way, in which soliton character of signal in modern hollow-core optical cables is maintained. These fibers served for recent demonstration of quantum phenomena, like event horizons of black holes and Hawking radiation. It means, neuron wave is spreading like evanescent wave in this environment through whole diameter of neuron, thus increasing its nonlinear character under slowing of neuron speed at the price. This mechanism requires to keep temperature of nerves in a quite close range (corresponding the Lifshitz point of quantum criticality), where the liquid crystal nature of membranes is maintained. The cold blooded marine invertebrates are using different strategy and they're increasing speed and eliminating dispersion of solitons by huge diameter of neurons.

 

By excellent Hebbian theory of synaptic plasticity this aspect of soliton behavior is represented by principle "cells that fire together, wire together". When one cell repeatedly assists in firing another, the axon of the first cell develops synaptic knobs (or enlarges them if they already exist) in contact with the soma of the second cell. In this mechanism the principle of associative learning and long-term memory is realized. The process of synapses building is maintained during REM phase of sleep, because its based on dream simulation, where perceptions from outside are suppressed due the strong positive feedback of learning phase. In this way, our brain is gradually becoming terminal board hard-wired for optimal solutions of individual problems, represented by preferred paths of soliton spreading. Maybe the artificial W.I.K.I brain from famous I, robot movie isn't the matter of so distant future.

Schrödinger 1958: A physical scientist does not introduce awareness (sensation or perception) into his theories, and having thus removed the mind from nature, he cannot expect to find it there.

Mainstream physics and Cargo Cult science.

From Richard Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science” (also included in Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!):

"There have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on–with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.
The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before?
Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.
He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.
Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers that clues that the rat is really using– not what you think it’s using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running."

The similar mistake was done before 130+ years when comparing Michelson-Morley experiments concerning light spreading in vacuum to spreading of waves in material fields. By using of these experiments was deduced, vacuum doesn't behave like material field, because it doesn't exhibit a reference frame for motion (in fact it does it via weak Lense-Thirring effect in Aether density gradients and/or various supersymmetry phenomena due space-time expansion - but this is another story). But the conditions of both experiments weren't equivalent. The observation of light wave spreading by using of light waves in Michelson-Morley experiment is NOT an equivalent of observation of material wave by using of light waves, because two kinds of waves are involved in later experiment with compare to former one.

In such way, mainstream science did the similar mistake when interpreting M-M experiment, like Mr. Young did, because these two experiments weren't done in analogous way, i.e. under consistent arrangement. The physicists just believed, they're doing analogous experiments in similar way, like native people engaging in imitative behavior of "cargo cult". Only one person in Einsteinian era was supposedly capable to spot the difference, i.e. Oliver Lodge - but his opinions were widely ignored both by aetherists, both by mainstream science due his tendency to occultism and paranormal phenomena in his later age.

Anyway, it's crazy situation - at least from present perspective of the future of science history..