tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post628688327246825380..comments2023-12-27T00:49:31.972-08:00Comments on Aether Wave Theory: AWT and supersymmetryZephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-9439379453112541652014-04-27T11:26:21.869-07:002014-04-27T11:26:21.869-07:00Theories need to be consistent. But they also need...<a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/04/26/306747481/why-won-t-susy-come-home" rel="nofollow">Theories need to be consistent</a>. But they also need to be falsifiable: this is where <br />theorists do need to be consistent. If you can't test a scientific hypothesis, what are you doing, exactly?Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-53114142047173352662014-04-16T05:31:44.283-07:002014-04-16T05:31:44.283-07:00Does Physics Have a Problem?, A crisis in physics...<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-physics-have-a-problem/" rel="nofollow">Does Physics Have a Problem?</a>, <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetry-and-the-crisis-in-physics/" rel="nofollow">A crisis in physics?</a> <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7323" rel="nofollow">BICEP2 does not favor GUT and low SUSY</a> If supersymmetry doesn't pan out, scientists need a new way to explain the universe.<br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-28933162877244064392014-04-10T07:16:37.350-07:002014-04-10T07:16:37.350-07:00'Perfect' Electron Roundness Bruises Super...<a href="http://news.discovery.com/space/perfect-electron-roundness-bruises-supersymmetry-131219.htm" rel="nofollow">'Perfect' Electron Roundness Bruises Supersymmetry.</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-15580370058064678282014-04-10T07:15:26.079-07:002014-04-10T07:15:26.079-07:00Thorium put to use, kills a few more versions of S...<a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/thorium-put-to-use-kills-a-few-more-versions-of-supersymmetry/" rel="nofollow">Thorium put to use, kills a few more versions of Supersymmetry</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-45371802796358688892014-04-10T07:13:07.476-07:002014-04-10T07:13:07.476-07:00Researchers at the LHCb detector have measured the...Researchers at the LHCb detector <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-20300100" rel="nofollow">have measured</a> the decay between a particle known as a Bs meson into two particles known as muons. It is the first time that this decay has ever been observed, and the team has calculated that for every billion times that the Bs meson decays it only decays in this way three times. If superparticles were to exist, the decay would happen far more often. This experiment is one of the "golden" tests for supersymmetry, and it would appear that this hugely popular theory among physicists has failed. The result is at a statistical level of "3.5 sigma" - meaning that there is a one-in-4300 chance that the team would see the same "bump" in their data if the decay were not happening. This level makes the find worth further investigation, but falls well short of the 5-sigma level of certainty required for a formal discovery.<br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-21230329554105592092014-04-10T07:08:21.815-07:002014-04-10T07:08:21.815-07:00This article implies, that the SUSY requires time-...<a href="http://phys.org/news/2014-04-kind-supersymmetry-shown-emerge-naturally.html" rel="nofollow">This article</a> implies, that the SUSY requires <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry" rel="nofollow">time-reversal symmetry</a> breaking to work. If the dark matter is attributed to WIMP particles predicted with SUSY, it would mean, that the T-symmetry breaking is widespread phenomena, because the dark matter accounts for 83 percent of the matter in the Universe. But in fact the T-symmetry breaking was never observed experimentally even at the way more sensitive experiments and its breaking would broke even the theories, on which supersymmetry is based. Such an insight would render the SUSY as an intrinsically inconsistent theory.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-49774521699818749022012-09-20T10:08:11.117-07:002012-09-20T10:08:11.117-07:00It’s ironic that the solution to the absence of SU...It’s ironic that the <a href="http://conference.ippp.dur.ac.uk/getFile.py/access?contribId=11&sessionId=2&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=332" rel="nofollow">solution to the absence of SUSY</a> is to add even more stuff: composite 3rd generation or Higgs, R-parity violating couplings, scalar gluons, or new singlets. This is what the "parametrization" is called: adding new layer of epicycles to the model, which is dysfunctional already.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-2815838402173850102012-08-24T06:57:10.680-07:002012-08-24T06:57:10.680-07:00As in Dirac's case, this doubling of the numbe...As in Dirac's case, this doubling of the number of particles was disconcerting, and it was initially hoped that perhaps <a href="http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/specr/6/node2.html" rel="nofollow">the neutrino could be the supersymmetric partner of the photon</a>. Now it is known that this is impossible, but in contrast to Dirac's case, no discovery of supersymmetric partners has quickly followed.<br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-52697992261218733742012-08-24T06:55:23.513-07:002012-08-24T06:55:23.513-07:00As in Dirac's case, this doubling of the numbe...As in Dirac's case, this doubling of the number of particles was disconcerting, and it was initially hoped that perhaps the neutrino could be the supersymmetric partner of the photon. Now it is known that this is impossible, but in contrast to Dirac's case, no discovery of supersymmetric partners has quickly followedZephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-44615657449175097512011-12-30T01:10:16.822-08:002011-12-30T01:10:16.822-08:00IMO the neutrino is lightest neutralino (photino) ...IMO the neutrino is lightest neutralino (photino) at the same moment in context of supersymmetry theory. Photons have different mass depending on their wavelength, so that their superpartners should behave in the same way. The mass of superpartners is the lower, the mass of original particles is higher and vice-versa. At the CMBR density scale the properties of both particles will be exchanged - the photons will change into fermion (tachyons) and the neutrinos will change into massive Goldstone bosons.<br /><br />Superluminal neutrinos fit well the basic concepts of AWT. In AWT the neutrinos are the solitons of superluminal gravitational waves in the same way, like the photons are solitons of transverse waves of light. We cannot argue the property of neutrinos (which are massless in Standard Model) just with Standard Model. If Standard Model would be correct, we could never observe the things like the oscillations of neutrinos, for example. So if we are still observing it, it just means this model is already wrong regarding the neutrino questions.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-49615118337112391662010-01-06T18:55:09.356-08:002010-01-06T18:55:09.356-08:00/*...Distler and Garibaldi have shown that Lisi.../*...Distler and Garibaldi have shown that Lisi's theory doesn't work...*/<br />They cannot change the indicia, on which E8 theory is based (predictions of particle generations from rotation of E8 geometry). It's like evidence of heliocentric model by order of Venus phases: maybe this model is inconsistent with epicycle algebra (and probably it really is) - but this inconsistency is the evidence of its validity, in fact.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-7346325514636806952010-01-06T15:18:51.843-08:002010-01-06T15:18:51.843-08:00Unfortunately, my knowledge in math are too limite...Unfortunately, my knowledge in math are too limited as to know if the Distler-Garibaldi Theorem is a no-go theorem that applies to the Lisi's Theory. Maybe Distler and Garibaldi have shown that Lisi's theory doesn't work. But I have a small hope, yet. Don't blame me for dreaming, it's free. ;-)Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-20828979232044349692010-01-06T04:11:57.624-08:002010-01-06T04:11:57.624-08:00Hi Zephir,
Off topic. As it seems to me, that you...Hi Zephir,<br /><br />Off topic. As it seems to me, that you like very much the pseudo-scientific theories, I have thought that the following <a href="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.5189v1.pdf" title="" rel="nofollow"><i>theory</i></a>, based on the four colour theorem, would be of interest to you. In this theory the mass of the Higgs boson is predicted, and is equal to 125,992 MeV. The formula is M(H0) = (M(Z) + M(W+) + M(W-))/2 (Pg. 56). Very easy, doesn't it?<br />From now, I'm going to refer to it, like Four Colour Theory.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-83786248083408759702010-01-05T01:32:43.999-08:002010-01-05T01:32:43.999-08:00It doesn't matter, you're fan of Garrett L...It doesn't matter, you're fan of Garrett Lisi. Science is not Ibiza concert.<br /><br /><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658" rel="nofollow">There is no "Theory of Everything" inside E8</a>,<br /> <a href="http://www.liegroups.org/zuckerman/Lisi-Zuckerman-09.pdf" rel="nofollow">latest lecture</a> of A.G.L.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-21279287709549139692010-01-04T09:14:09.447-08:002010-01-04T09:14:09.447-08:00Doesn't matter what you wrote. I'm a fan o...Doesn't matter what you wrote. I'm a fan of Garrett Lisi.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-36672025812740324732010-01-03T12:54:37.725-08:002010-01-03T12:54:37.725-08:00When you compress dense particle gas, a foamy dens...When you compress dense particle gas, a foamy density fluctuations similar to strings will emerge. These strings are conceptual basis of string theory.<br /><br />The dense system of these strings is similar to nested foam, which is analogous to spin network of quantum gravity. <br /><br />The density fluctuations of this foam can be approximated by the densest geometry of kissing hyperspheres, i.e. by E8 geometry. This is conceptual basis of Lisi Garretts theory.<br /><br />As you can see, all these theories are particular cases of much more simpler, general concept based on behavior of dense Boltzmann gas. You can derive all the above theories from this model, at least conceptually.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-32627315187343853512010-01-03T12:45:17.440-08:002010-01-03T12:45:17.440-08:00Your way is thinking is too emotional, labile and ...Your way is thinking is too emotional, labile and unbalanced, like the thinking of women. You started to adore AWT as a great theory, you finished with hate. The very same curve follows your opinion regarding string theory and now E8 theory is in first phase. I'd recommend you to consider both weak, both strong points of theories less dramatically and not to replace understanding of theories by your emotional feeling.<br /><br />Lisi is indeed a brilliant scientist, but what he basically did was, he took the E8 model from string theory and extrapolated it in another direction on background of accidental observation. You can never find an explanation, why he used just E8 lattice from good reasons - it's because string theorists have used it a long time before! <br /><br />The same thing Einstein did, when he separated particular aspect of Aether theory (Lorentz transform) and extrapolated it into relativity theory. So Lisi is a new Einstein because he did the very same achievement and mistake at the same time. Now Garrett pretends, E8 theory is fully independent on string theory, but this stance is somewhat analogous to stance of Einstein, who pretended, special relativity is independent to work of Aetherists.<br /><br />In AWT development of theories occurs like condensation of bubbles inside of gradually condensing ocean of knowledge. String theorists piled ideas cluelessly - and at the certain moment one many potentially successful concepts of string theory (i.e. E8 group model) popped out into new independent theory. But unfortunatelly, just because this theory is so "independent", it cannot become a ToE. You cannot have ToE which is separated from other theories and explaining them at the same time. The truth is somewhere inbetween, as usually.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-56864132577250054382010-01-03T12:22:42.743-08:002010-01-03T12:22:42.743-08:00/*..Yes, where is the problem?..*/
The problem is,.../*..Yes, where is the problem?..*/<br />The problem is, your perceiving reality through perspective, which is biased from average of intersubjective opinion. Such perspective is therefore only 4% relevant to the intersubjective opinion. AWT is trying to find perspective, which could be acceptable poorly, but for everybody. I mean, a common ground of understanding.<br /><br />/*..metaphysics without logic is only bullshit like AWT..*/<br />Not at all, it's a fundamental logics. Where is the logics behind concepts of constant speed of light, photons, supersymmetry? These concept follows from emergent coincidence of complex equations, but to explain them logically is problem of quite different cathegory. You should have a quite robust conceptual model of reality in your mind to be able to explain them at logical level.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-86793698046784438022010-01-03T04:02:20.166-08:002010-01-03T04:02:20.166-08:00“... Jeez, are u gay? ...“
Yes, where is the prob...“<i>... Jeez, are u gay? ...</i>“<br /><br />Yes, where is the problem?<br /><br /><br />“<i>… The fact, it cannot be formalized easily makes no problem for me. …</i>“<br /><br />The physics without math is like a unicorn without horn. The metaphysics without logic is only bullshit like AWT, only a moving gas in your mind.<br /><br /><br />“<i>… You're behaving like fanatic in similar way, like some string theorists. …</i>“<br /><br />No, Zephir, no. I'm defending the reality, the string theorists are defending the fiction.<br /><br /><br />“<i>… Lisi is just trying to distinguish himself from string theory …</i>“<br /><br />Lisi has nothing to do with the string theorists, he is studying the nature. On the contrary, string theory belongs to the realm of the fiction physics.<br /><br /><br />“<i>… I can see caveats of string theory or E8 theory from AWT …</i>“<br /><br />You see nothing.<br /><br /><br />“<i>… It cannot compute mass of particles from first principles in the same way, like SM or string theory. I just adheres to E8 model. …</i>“<br /><br />The words of the master: “<i>The theory is very young, and still in development.</i>“Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-86607615939369657172010-01-02T12:41:05.988-08:002010-01-02T12:41:05.988-08:00/*..E8-Theory is a realistic theory of nature unli.../*..E8-Theory is a realistic theory of nature unlike ST..*/<br />Why do you think so? It cannot compute mass of particles from first principles in the same way, like SM or string theory. I just adheres to E8 model.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-80331109733482187892010-01-02T12:36:45.179-08:002010-01-02T12:36:45.179-08:00/*..don't mix the things, E8-Theory with Strin.../*..don't mix the things, E8-Theory with String Theory and Lisi with the string theorists....*/<br />Why not? Correspondence principle requires seamless integration of all existing theories into continuous manifold in causal space-time. No theory could exist separately, or it's simply wrong, being isolated from the rest of reality (like you at times). You're behaving like fanatic in similar way, like some string theorists. <br /><br />After all, real ToE should be able to explain/reconcile all working theories as well - not just observable reality itself. E8 theory cannot explain AWT, but AWT can explain E8 - causal time arrow plays for me. Lisi is just trying to distinguish himself from string theory proclamativelly under hope, it will help him to promote his theory easier. Every promoter of new theory is trying to keep his theory more different in the eyes of the rest of society, then it really is. <br /><br />But E8 group still has a deep meaning even in context of string theory, which appears to be more general from this perspective, as it works both with E8, both with relativity and quantum theory. E8 theory appears too specialized from this perspective. Specialized theories can often predict particular phenomena easier/better, then these more general ones - but they're more difficult to extend at the price.<br /><br />Approach of AWT is quite different, holistic and universal one. It doesn't assume about reality very much, but it tries to explain and correct existing theories - not to fight against them blindly. I can see caveats of string theory or E8 theory from AWT perspective - but I see the ways, in which these theories could be plugged into AWT, too. I've no reason to fight against theories, which are bringing new connections into our understanding or reality.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-50521281901715552282010-01-02T12:15:01.522-08:002010-01-02T12:15:01.522-08:00/*..Once it has been completed, E8-Theory will be .../*..Once it has been completed, E8-Theory will be the true ToE...*/<br />From AWT follows, whatever logical theory could be elaborated into recursively nested implicit level, thus becoming effectively a ToE. It's just less or more workconsuming and effective. <br /><br />/*..Moreover, Garret is a very nice guy, a true theoretical physicist (like Einstein or Smolin)...*/<br />Jeez, are u gay? You're just demonstrating again, how deeply you're influenced by personal sympathy, not by theory outcome itself. It's evident, modern formal theories are converging together, thus vanishing and dissolving mutually. <br /><br />Lisi's theory has still future before it, so if you're interested into carrier of proffesional physicist, you can focus on it. But from my perspective it's apparently ad-hoced, geometrical and atemporal - so it can predict nothing about character of energy wave spreading and or dynamics of particle interactions. It still needs to handle quantum or wave mechanics separately to explain many phenomena around it. And because we are NOT living inside of symmetric lattice similar to E8 root system, it's evident, it remains the very same approximation of reality, like other formal theories. I don't want to adhere / spend my life with theory, which is apparently limited/specialized from it's very beginning.<br /><br />Only model of colliding fluctuations inside of Boltzmann gas is flexible enough to be able to explain all subtleties of observable reality at all dimensional scales - at least conceptually. The fact, it cannot be formalized easily makes no problem for me. Observable reality doesn't care, if we can model it in atemporal way by math language, or not. It simply is, like turbulency in fluids.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-18091257561933861642010-01-02T10:26:31.284-08:002010-01-02T10:26:31.284-08:00And please, don't mix the things, E8-Theory wi...And please, don't mix the things, E8-Theory with String Theory and Lisi with the string theorists. E8-Theory is a realistic theory of nature unlike ST or supersymmetry which are only fiction physics. Moreover, Garret is a very nice guy, a true theoretical physicist (like Einstein or Smolin), meanwhile, many string theorists are too arrogant to admit that they have lost the game.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-52794883440201237392010-01-02T10:10:08.665-08:002010-01-02T10:10:08.665-08:00...and I am not naive, I am linving in the real wo......and I am not naive, I am linving in the real world. On the contrary, you is who is living in an imaginary world that is ruled by AWT, Heim's Theory and similar crap.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-55821176196265884492010-01-02T10:03:57.555-08:002010-01-02T10:03:57.555-08:00Dear Zephir,
Lisi is trying to predict the mass o...Dear Zephir,<br /><br />Lisi is trying to predict the mass of the elementary particles using a elementary particle dubbed axion. As you well know, E8-Theory is very young. Much of the work must be still done, in order to complete it. Once it has been completed, E8-Theory will be the true ToE.<br />Heim's theory is a piece of crap. Tons of rubbish, no more.Ciudadano Kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09678281314664352341noreply@blogger.com