AWT, emergence and particle - unparticle duality

This post is a reaction to two recent articles (1, 2) from HEP arXiv section (via KFC's blog), which are illustrating conceptual problems of formal approach of mainstream physics clearly.

These article quoted lacks the definition of emergence, duality, particle and unparticle concepts too much to be able to claim the things like "particles are dual to unparticles" or "quantum mechanics is of emergent nature" reliably. By my opinion it's even impossible to propose relevant formal description of concepts without robust definition of them at the semantic level. Without it no formal derivation can be interpreted and used by another theories. By AWT Universe is formed by infinitely dense environment, the observability of which corresponds the system of nested density fluctuations inside of dense gas (a condensing supercritical fluid in particular).



By AWT, our Universe could appear like fractal cloud similar to Perlin noise and after then every particle or artifact inside of our Universe becomes a sort of unparticle, observed from perspective of another one. This perspective introduces a sort of causality into chaotic view of our Universe, because only causal gradients (a “particles”) is what we can observe from this chaos.

Double relativity (DR) is based on dynamical relationship of two systems of reference: when one system of reference has been immobilized, it temporarily becomes an absolute point of reference. In this moment, at least two cases of DR were proposed so far, based on de Sitter and Poincaré invariant space-time group accordingly. Poincaré spacetime group appears slightly less general, being based on Lorentz symmetry of special relativity, while de Sitter spacetime group relies to equivalence principle of general relativity.

Therefore I still don’t see any evidence for particle - unparticle duality here: particles are always a subset of unparticles by DR, not a dual representation of it. And if it appears so from perspective of DR, then the DR is demonstrating its limits in this point, which is probably given by fact, it's a formal theory and the particle - unparticle duality is relevant for infinitely dense particle field, i.e. singular case of every formal theory. By AWT only infinitely implicit ("fractal") theory can become an equivalent of infinitely dense Aether and/or abstract unparticle model. This leads to requirement of triple, quadruple,... etc. relativity naturally. Only {inside of such/exsintric perspective of} "infinite relativity" the particle and unparticle models can become dual completely.

Second article suffers by similar causal problem, because by its name quantum mechanics can be virtually everything, until we define, what the “Emergent Phenomenon” really is. By AWT every “deeper level dynamics” is nothing else, then the particle dynamics of in many other deeper levels of particle fluctuations, i.e. the unparticle dynamics. Therefore unparticle geometrodynamics appears like best way, how to formalize emergence concept. But because it wasn't formalized yet, we cannot use it for derivation of any testable conclusions, predictions the less. Without predictions every article about "emergent physics" becomes just a metaphysics based on formal math up to level, we can talk about duality of rigor and postmodern philosophy. This is because the predictability of both formal, both nonformal hypothesis vanishes mutually and ceases to zero with increasing scope. Nonformal approach of philosophy becomes a quite powerful tool there, because both philosophy, both formal math is based on predicate logics.

Mainstream science uses positivist approach very often from pragmatic reasons by the same way, like medicinemans of ancient era have used their tools to keep their significance in the eyes of the rest of society. It handles the phenomena by formal way of various regression of reality without worrying, whether they're valid at the robust logics level - i.e. whether they're not an apparent nonsense, to say it by less diplomatic way. Such approach is analogous to epicycle solution of conceptual problems of geocentric model and it corresponds to solving of homework assignation without understanding of problem at the abstract level first. After all, the contemporary learning system purportedly trains new scientists to formal way of reality description, not understanding. This positivist approach my be a consequence of fact, scientists are payed for filling of publications with equations - but not for explanation of subject - so they just adopted to this situation.

From AWT perspective the unparticle concept is still ad hoced, as we can see it in the nested field of nested fluctuations of Boltzmann gas . We can paraphrase here a proverb "The optimist sees the doughnut; the pessimist the hole":

Where physicist sees a particle, mathematican can see a pure geometry only.

But can a "pure geometry" interact with/observe/describe a pure geometry? I really don't think so - or the Universe is one big cheap illussion and we're observing anything. Here's still some fifth element hidden behind particle concept. By my opinion it's a consequence of seemingly trivial fact, we are only part of Universe. Why?

If we could reveal a general explicit rule in sequence of prime numbers or in Fibonnacci spirals inside of growing pile of particles, we could postulate a very general emergence group, which would become nonlocal and very universal by such way. But I don't think, such group exists at all. If we are formed by pure geometry, then we should admit, then the pure geometry can observe/interacts with itself. Such identity would violate Goedel's theorems, Aether concept, virtually everything, what we know about reality so far.

Therefore the question is, why Universe is always larger, then our observable scope? I can feel, the limited speed of information spreading could answer this question, at least partially.

AWT and definition of intelligence

By AWT correct - i.e. physically relevant - definition of intelligence is rather important, as it can give us a clue about direction of psychological time arrow.

From certain perspective every free particle appears like quite intelligent "creature", because it can find the path of the optimal potential gradient unmistakably even inside of highly dimensional field where interactions of many particles overlaps mutually. Whereas single particle is rather "silly" and it can follow just a narrow density gradient, complex multidimensional fluctuations of Aether can follow a complex gradients and they can even avoid a wrong path or obstacles at certain extent. They're "farseeing" and "intelligent". Note that the traveling of particle along density gradient leads into gradual dissolving of it and "death". The same forces, which are keeping the particle in motion will lead to its gradual disintegration of it.

The ability of people to make correct decisions in such fuzzy environment is usually connected with social intelligence. We can say, motion of particle is fully driven by its "intuition". They can react fast in many time dimensions symmetrically (congruently), whereas their ability to interact with future (i.e. ability of predictions) still remains very low, accordingly to low (but nonzero) memory capacity of single gradient particle. Nested clusters of many particles are the more clever, the more hidden dimensions are formed by. Electrochemical waves of neural system activity should form a highly nested systems of energy density fluctuations.

Neverthelles, if we consider intelligence as "an ability to obtain new abilities", then the learning ability and memory capacity of single level density fluctuations still remains very low. Every particle has a surface gradient from perspective of single level of particle fluctuations, so it has an memory (compacted space-time dimensions) as well. Therefore for single object we can postulate the number of nested dimensions inside of object as a general criterion of intelligence. The highly compactified character of neuron network enables people to handle a deep level of mutual implications, i.e. manifolds of causual space defined by implication tensors of high order. Such definition remains symmetrical, i.e. invariant to both intuitive behaviour driven by parallel logics, both conscious behaviour, driven by sequential logics.

Every highly condensed system becomes chaotic, because intelligent activities of individual particles are temporal and they're compensating mutually here. By such way, the behavior of human civilization doesn't differ very much from behavior of dense gas, as we can see from history of wars and economical crisis, for instance. The ability of people to drive the evolution of their own society is still quite limited in general. We can consider such ability as a criterion of social self-awareness. The process of phase transition corresponds learning phase of multi-particle system.

Interesting point is, individual members of such systems may not be aware of incoming phase transition, because theirs space-time expands (the environment becomes more dense) together with these intelligent artifacts. At certain moment the environment becomes more conscious (i.e. negentropic), then the particle system formed by it and phase transition will occur. The well known superfluidity and superconductivity phenomena followed by formation of boson condensate can serve as a physical analogy of sectarian community formation, separated from the needs/feedback of rest of society. Members of community can be internally characterized by their high level of censorship (total reflection phenomena with respect to information spreading) and by superfluous homogeneity of individual stance distribution, followed by rigidity and fragility of their opinions (i.e. by duality of odd and even derivations in space and time) from outside perspective.

AWT explains, how even subtle forces of interests between individuals crowded around common targets cumulate under emergence of irrational behavior gradually. Because such environment becomes more dense, the space-time dilatation occurs here and everything vents OK from insintric perspective. As the result, nobody from sectarian community will realize, he just lost control over situation.

For example, people preparing LHC experiments cannot be accused from evil motives - they just want to do some interesting measurements on LHC, to finish their dissertations, make some money in attractive job, nurse children, learn French, and so on… Just innocent wishes all the time, am I right? But as a whole their community has omitted serious precautionary principles under hope, successful end justifies the means.

Particle model explains, how even subtle forces of interests between individuals crowded around common targets cumulate under emergence of irrational behavior gradually. For example, nobody of this community has taken care about difference in charged and neutral black holes in their ability to swallow surrounding matter. As a result, nobody of members of such community realizes consequence of his behavior until very end.

And this is quite silly and unscouscios behavior, indeed.

AWT and LHC safety risk

The LHC "black hole" issue disputed (1, 2, 3) and recently reopened (1, 2, 3) is manifestation of previously disputed fact, every close community becomes sectarian undeniably and separated from needs of rest of society like singularity by total reflection mechanism. Ignorance of fundamental ideas (Heim theory) or discoveries (cold fusion, surface superconductivity, "antigravity") on behalf of risky and expensive LHC experiments illustrates increasing gap between priorities of physical community and interests of the rest of society.

The power of human inquisitiveness is the problem here: as we know from history, scientists as a whole never care about morality, just about technical difficulties. If they can do something, then they will do it - less or more lately, undeniably. No matter whether it's nuclear weapon, genetically engineered virus and/or collider. Which makes trouble at the moment, the results of such experiments can threaten the whole civilization. We should know about this danger of human nature and we should be prepared to suffer consequences. Max Tegmark’s “quantum suicide” experiment doesn't say, how large portion of the original system can survive its experiment.

So, what's the problem with LHC experiments planned? Up to this day, no relevant analysis, evaluating all possible risks and their error bars is publicly available. Existing safety analysis and reports (1, 2) are very rough and superficial, as they doesn't consider important risk factors and scenarios, like formation of charged black holes or surface tension phenomena of dense particle clusters. There's an obstinate tendency to start LHC experiments without such analysis and to demonstrate first successful results even without thorough testing phase. Because the load of accelerator was increased over 80% of nominal capacity during first days impatiently, the substantial portion of cooling system crashed due the massive spill (100 tons) of expensive helium and monitoring systems of whole LHC are in extensive upgrade and replacement to avoid avalanche propagation of the same problem over whole accelerator tube in future.

Up to these days, publicity has no relevant and transparent data about probability of supercritical black hole formation during expected period of LHC lifetime and about main factors, which can increase total risk above acceptable level, in particular the risk associated to:

1. Extreme asymmetry of head-to-head collisions, during which a zero momentum/speed black holes can be formed, so they would have a lot of time to interact with Earth with compare to natural protons from cosmic rays. The collision geometry is has no counterpart in nature, as it's a product of long-term human evolution, not natural processes.
   
   
2. Avalanche-like character of multi-particle collisions. When some piece of matter appears in accelerator line, then whole content of LHC will feed it by new matter incoming from both directions by nearly luminal speed, i.e. in much faster way with compare to collisions of natural cosmic rays appearing in stratosphere
   
   
3. Proximity of dense environment. With compare to stratospheric collisions of gamma rays, the metastable products of LHC collisions can be trapped by gravitational field of Earth and to interact with it in long term fashion. Some models are considering, the black hole can move in Earth core for years without notion, thus changing the Earth into time-bomb for further generations.
   
   
4. Formation of charged and magnetic black hole. As we know from theory, real black holes should always exhibit nonzero charge and magnetic field as the result of their fast surface rotation. While force constant of electromagnetic force is about 10^39 times stronger then those of gravitational interaction (and the force constant of nuclear force is even much higher), the omitting of such possibility from security analysis is just a illustration of deep incompetence of high energy physics and it looks rather like intention, than just omission. It's not so surprising, as every introduction of such risk into safety analysis would lead into increasing of LHC risk estimations in many orders of magnitude, making them unfeasible in the eyes of society.
   
   
5. Formation of dense clusters of quite common neutral particles, which are stable well outside from LHC energy range (presumably the neutrons). This risk is especially relevant for ALICE experiment, consisting of head-to-head collisions of heavy atom nuclei, during which the large number of free neutrons can be released in the form of so called neutron fluid. The signs of tetra-neutron existence supports this hypothesis apparently. The neutron fluid would stabilize neutrons against decay due its strong surface tension by analogous way, like the neutrons inside neutron stars. The risk of neutron fluid formation is connected to possible tendency to expel protons from atom nuclei in contact with neutron fluid, thus changing them into droplets of another neutron fluid by avalanche like mechanism, which was proposed for strangelet risk of LHC originally.
   
   
6. Surface tension effects of large dense particle clusters, like the various gluonium and quarkonium states which CAN stabilize even unstable forms of mater, like neutral mesons and other hadrons up to levels, they can interact with ordinary matter by mechanism above described under formation of another dense particle clusters, so called strangelets (sort of tiny quark stars, originally proposed by Ed Witten). The evidence of these states was confirmed recently for tetra- and pentaquark exotic states. By AWT the surface tension phenomena are related to dark matter and supersymmetry effects observed unexpectedly in Fermilab (formation of di muon states well outside of collider pipe), as we can explain later. If this connection will be confirmed, we aren't expected to worry about strangelet formation anymore - simply because we observed it already!

With compare to black hole formation, the risks of strangelet and neutron fluid aren't connected to collapse of Earth into gravitational singularity, but to release of wast amount of energy (comparable to those of thermonuclear fusion), during which of most of matter would be vaporized and expelled into cosmic space by pressure of giant flash of accretion radiation.

As I explained already, cosmic ray arguments aren’t wery relevant to highly asymmetric LHC collisions geometry, so it has no meaning to repeat them again and again. This geometry - not the energy scale - is what makes the LHC collisions so unique and orthogonal to extrapolations based on highly symmetrical thermodynamics. It’s product of very rare human evolution. Whole AWT is just about probability of various symmetries.

So we are required to reconsider LHC experiments in much deeper, publicly available and peer reviewed security analysis. We should simply apply scientific method even to security analysis of scientific experiments - no less, no more. By my opinion, these objections are trivial and mostly evident - but no safety analysis has considered them so far from apparent reason: not to threat the launch of LHC. So now we can just ask, who is responsible for this situation and for lack of persons responsible for relevant safety analysis of LHC project of 7 billions € in total cost?

Safety is the main concern of LHC experiments. You can be perfectly sure, LHC experiments are safe because of many theories. After all, the main purpose of these experiments is to verify these theories.

Isn't the only purpose of LHC to verify it's own safety at the very end? Is it really enough for everybody?

AWT and Bohmian mechanics

This post is a reaction to recent L. Motl's comments (1, 2, reactions) concerning the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM), the concept of Louis de Broglie pilot wave in particular (implicate/explicate order is disputed here). Bohm's holistic approach (he was proponent of marxistic ideas) enabled him to see general consequences of this concept a way deeper, the aristocratic origin of de Broglie. It's not surprising, Bohm's interpretation has a firm place in AWT interpretations of various concepts, causual topology of implications and famous double slit experiment in particular. After all, we have a mechanical analogy of double slit experiment (DSE) presented already (videos), therefore it’s evident, QM can be interpreted by classical wave mechanics without problem..

AWT considers pilot wave as an analogy of Kelvin waves formed during object motion through particle environment. Original AWT explanation of double slit experiment is, every fast moving particle creates an undulations of vacuum foam around it by the same way, like fish flowing beneath water surface in analogy to de Broglie wave.

These undulations are oriented perpendicular to the particle motion direction and they can interfere with both slits, whenever particle passes through one of them. Aether foam gets more dense under shaking temporarily, thus mimicking mass/energy equivalence of relativity and probability density function of quantum mechanics at the same moment. The constructive interference makes a flabelliform paths of more dense vacuum foam, which the particle wave follows preferably, being focused by more dense environment, thus creating a interference patterns at the target.

By AWT the de Broglie wave or even quantum wave itself are real physical artifacts. The fact, they cannot be observed directly by the using of light wave follows from Bose statistics: the surface waves are penetrating mutually, so they cannot be observed mutually. But by Hardy's theorem weak (gravitational or photon coupling) measurement of object location without violating of uncertainty principle is possible. What we can observe is just a gravitational lensing effect of density gradients (as described by probability function), induced by these waves in vacuum foam by thickening effect during shaking.

Other thing is, whether pilot wave concept supplies a deeper insight or even other testable predictions, then for example time dependent Schrödinger equation does. By my opinion it doesn't, or it's even subset of information contained in classical QM formalism. This doesn't mean, in certain situations pilot wave formalism cannot supply an useful shortcut for formal solution (by the same way, like for example Bohr's atom model) - whereas in others cases it can become more difficult to apply, then other interpretations.

AWT and definition of observable reality

When comparing contemporary physical theories, a natural question can emerge immediately: if AWT is proclamativelly more general, then for example various quantum field or quantum gravity theories, shouldn't it lead to even more solutions, then these theories can supply? And if the vagueness is the main objection against these theories, why we should take care about AWT, after then?

The true is, AWT can lead into virtually infinite number of solutions, because even in quite limited particle system the number of possible states increases by extremely fast way. But AWT introduces a gradient driven reality concept, which is probability driven. Many results of particle-particle collisions aren't simply probable, because they're too rare. Therefore we can see only density gradients inside of dense particles system, not a particles or intermediate states as such. The concept of gradient driven reality is apparently anthropocentric, but it can be derived from AWT concept independently, because only artifacts, which were created by long term evolution of high number of mutations, i.e. by causal time events can interact with reality by gradient driven way.

The probability based approach based on particle statistics brings a rather strict restriction into number of possible solutions of every fuzzy theory. String theorists are aware of this opportunity, so they're trying to apply a statistical approach onto landscape of string theory predictions as well. But because the number of predictions of string theory (~10E+500) roughly corresponds the number of particles states inside of observable portion of Universe, then such approach is phenomenologically identical to AWT, if we simply omit whole intermediate step related to tedious string theory formalism (which is serving like random number generator only) - and if we apply Boltzmann statistics to these states directly.

By such way, the AWT wins over formal theories in simplicity (i.e. by Occam's razor criterion), just because it introduces a gradient driven definition of observable reality into physics, thus reducing the number of possible observable states in it: every object can be observed only and if only it contains some space-time gradient from sufficiently general perspective. For example, the (movement of) density gradients inside of condensing supercritical vapor can be observed, while the molecules (motion) itself not. The single Aether concept i.e. material conditional (antecedent) is sufficient for such decision, if we apply an observability criterion (consequent), thus introducing basic implication vector, which the AWT is based on: if Universe is formed by chaotic/particle environment, then every fluctuation evolved/emerged in it via (number of) causal events would see only the (same number of) causal gradients of it. (... and we can predict an appearance of this observable reality by unique way). By such way, we can always see exactly the part of Universe, which has served for our evolution (space-time emergence) and the observable scope of reality expands gradually. This is the way, how Bohm's implicate/explicate order may be undertood in context of AWT, because implication vector defines a time arrow of causual space-time curvature and subsequent compactification of it here.

The testability of AWT insintric perspective is provided by nonscalar implication vector, which is based on nonsingular (zero or infinite) order of axiomatic tensor.  Outside of this perspective AWT remains tautology inherently, whis is given by fact, no assumption can consider itself, or less generally, that no object of observation can serve both like mean, both like subject of the same observation in the same time and space point. Aether concept itself remains a tautology, as it cannot be proven by observation and causual logic without violation of this logic in less or more distant perspective by the same way, like God concept.

It can be demonstrated easily, many conceptual problems of contemporary science simply follows from the fact, the scientists have no clue, what is observable and what not, because of lack of relevant definition of observable reality. By such way, many possible combinations would simply disappear from testable predictions, if we apply the gradient driven statistics or Lagrange/Hamilton mechanics, which is based on it. In particular, the misinterpretation of results of M-M experiment just follows from the fact, scientists didn't realize, the motion of environment isn't observable by waves of this environment. The refusal of deBroglie /Bohmian mechanics is misunderstanding of the same category: scientists didn't realize, deBroglie wave cannot be observable by light wave (so easily), being a wave of the same environment, so that the lack of experimental evidence of deBroglie wave cannot serve as an evidence against Bohmian mechanics.