čtvrtek 18. září 2008

Aether and formal mathematics

A common objection of AWT opponents, which I can met in discussions, is: "Your theory has no math, so it cannot be a physics at all". Well, at first, no such rule really exists, as here exists a number of physical articles without formal math at all. And the AWT isn't (just) about physics, it can describe the sociological or biological phenomena by geometry based approach as well. And at last, I'm using a logic in my derivations, and the logic is (fundamental) part of math, so it's not even true, the AWT uses no math. At the moment, the derivation of my conclusions are reproducible, the formal math is simply not needed.

The physical models often enable to derive the predictions, which are difficult to handle (or even to express) by formal math, for example the order of Venus phases from heliocentric model (after all, how we can express mathematically the simple information, the Earth revolves around Sun and not vice-versa?). At such cases, the picture of geometry is much more illustrative.

From this point of view it's not accidental, the common illustrations of modern physical theories (like string theory) are mostly quite schematic and pathetic. Such drawings illustrate nothing, but the fact, their authors have no true physical insight into real situation - so they cannot imagine/picture even their own models.

But here are more substantial objections against formal approach in physics. The true is, the consecutive ("step-by-step") logic of formal math describes the heavily parallelized physics of multiparticle systems poorly. Even the gravitational system of five bodies is (nearly) impossible to describe by formal math and the resulting description would be so complex, so that nothing useful can be derived from it. This is the reason, why we have no deterministic description of phenomena in multiparticle system, like the turbulence. This forces the formally thinking physicists to use the probabilistic interpretation instead - like at the case of quantum mechanics - although such system remains deterministic apparently - it's just more complex, then the consecutive formal math can handle (while we know already, we can model the quantum mechanics phenomena by discrete particle models, even experimentally).

By such way, the formally thinking physicists are effectively mentally blocked from understanding, our Universe can be interpreted by multiparticle system for last two hundred years. Their formal math and way of thinking is simply incompatible with this trivial idea - even at the case, the illustrative understanding of such system can be quite simple. This is dual approach to philosophy, which cannot describe some connections by using of formal math, even at the case, such description can be quite simple. It's evident, the optimized approach in reality understanding should involve both strategies (the formal and non-formal one) in balanced ratio.

Of course, the above problem just illustrates the limits of math and formal thinking - not the limits of AWT concept. We should simply face the fact, here exists a wide group of phenomena and geometries, the handling of which by formal math is noneffective with respect to their understanding - that's all. This doesn't say, the formal math is nonsense - it's simply inappropriate tool for deterministic / reproducible description of such systems.

From general perspective, the AWT is extrapolation of free fermion models of string field theories to zero dimension. These models are nothing very new in physics, as some physicists have assumed already, the strings are composed from more fundamental particles (so called preons) already. The one-dimensional strings are just the lowest number of dimensions, which the formal math can handle without problem, while avoiding the singularities. The concept of environment composed from zero dimensional particles is naturally singular from formal math perspective, so the formal math cannot use it. It can be replaced by concept of one or more-dimensional strings partially - but here's a technical problem: such approximation leads to landscape of 10E+500 possible solutions (which roughly corresponds the number of 0D particles involved in this model of observable Universe) - so it's unusable from practical reasons. But the system of many particles can be handled without explicit models, for example by computer simulation:

From such particle model is evident, the system enables the only single way of Aether compactification, leading to dynamic foam of higher-dimensional density fluctuations (i.e. "strings" and "branes") naturally - so no giant landscapes of possible solutions, no ad-hoc assumption of strings, no assumption of (unexplained yet) relativity and quantum mechanics postulates is required here at all - and we can derive all these postulates from geometry of simple particle concept instead. By such way, AWT is highly motivated approach, which follows Occam razor criterion, minimizing the number of postulates in theory.

Aether and sectarian community

At the moment, we understood the significance of Aether particle models in physics we should put the question: if this concept can help the mainstream physics understanding so well, why the mainstream physicists are ignoring this concept so obstinately even at the case, they become familiar with it? Aren't these people sufficiently intelligent and creative to intercept such ideas?

Not at all, their stance is highly substantiated. The true is, the mainstream physics as a whole has changed into conservative, closed sectarian society in certain extent, by the same way, like the Holy Church of medieval era. Here are even some common aspects of both societies: for example, the Holy Church had managed its Malleus maleficarum, while the mainstream proponents have their Crackpot index, i.e. the list of less or more formal rules, which enables the mainstream proponents to distinguish the "truth" from "crackpot and fringe science" without thorough analyzing of true content of subject.

For every sectarian comunity is characteristic its biased approach to mistakes due its closed surface asymmetry. While the normal gnoseologic approach based on evolution considers the presence of mistakes as a nonvital, but unavoidable mutations in thinking, the sectarian society avoids to accept that and it covers its conceptual mistakes, whenever possible. The missunderstanding and false refusal of Aether concept is such a mistake, but not the only one. We can face the same behavior of mainstream towards the false refusal of cold fusion or the existence of many "paranormal" phenomena. At the moment, such concepts are throwen out, it becomes quite difficult for mainstream science community to reconsider or even admit them again - their refusal simply becomes an integral part of ideology. While with respect to Poppers methodology the scientific method is completely symmetric: because every hypthesis/theory should be considered untrue by definition, every negation of hypothesis is another hypothesis, which should be handled with caution as well.

Another well pronounced aspect of sectarian society is its adherence to internal formal rules ("scientific method"), which the thinking of individuals must follow (the formal thinking in particular), while ignoring the way of thinking of the rest of society - despite the fact, the formal thinking makes the understanding of concept more difficult in many cases. For sectarian communities is characteristic the long "incubation period" for novices (a "novitiate"), connected with thorough brain washing and repeated formal examines of "ready state" of novices, as practiced in high schools. By analogous way, the learning of physics involves a long term studies of its formal approach without true understanding of subject at its natural, intuitive level.

The character of contemporary educational system is adjusted by the way, the students can never met with such intuitive understanding of physics for years, so they cannot handle and use it at all during their further scientific carrier. This approach establishes the state of psychical dependence on subject, because the novices are simply worrying about abilities, which have spent so lotta of time and effort by learning of. No wonder such people will try to ignore the non-formal approach in physics obstinately whenever possible, and their educational activities in physics will remain constrained to formal description, but not explanation of subject, the finding of new paradigms the less.

But the formal approach has even its common sociological aspects - not only the strictly individual ones. Every sectarian community cultivates its specific language and formal approach (Latin words, formal math), which enables it to communicate by less or more fluous ways internally, but it enables to separate it from the rest of society by creation of less or more artificial information barriers. It prohibits the rest of society to understand, what the mainstream scientists really doing for public taxes, and to determine, if it can be useful or even safe for the rest of society at all (expensive and dangerous LHC experiments as an example). This artificially kept absence of feedback simplifies the scientists the asking for new and new money for research, while keeping their sovereignty over choice of the further subject of research. We can say, the contemporary scientists are druids and medicine mans of modern era, whose trying to keep their way of understanding of reality in secret. This can be another reason, why the common scientists aren't very happy from Aether concept, as it reveals clearly, the complex and highly formal way of physics interpretation is unsubstantiated. If they admit the Aether concept, then just in the form of sufficiently obscured way, like "vector/scalar field", or something similar less comprehensible one.

Such approach is nothing strange or new from AWT perspective. Inside of each multicomponent system (like the scientific society composed of many people) an emergent phase transition occurs, which is followed the formation of droplets and other artifacts separated from the rest by density gradient of information. Such droplets exhibits the behavior of boson condensate, which means the information is shared internally a much easier, then with their neighborhood, which is the manifestation of censorship of close-minded totalitarian and sectarian society. By such way, the mainstream science serves as an islands of communism and totalitarian thinking with respect to rest of society, not just because of its mandatory way of sources privatization without free market feedback, but because of its way of information handling, too.

The formation of boson condensate state is the manifestation of low energy state (i.e. cooling or informational crisis) and its typical behavior is, the droplets of resulting phase cannot dissolve in its environment, being quantized. Instead of this, the small droplets will evaporate without change of their state on behalf of these larger, more successful ones (the evaporation of rain droplets, or Hawking evaporation of black holes as an exaggerated example). By the same way, most of people, when facing the lack of arguments, it cannot change theirs stance, while insisting on it obstinately - until they're defeated by weight of arguments. This is the source of thixotropic and brittle behavior of sectarian communities toward foreign ideas (a sort of Meissner effect of boson condensates) - while from inside perspective (where these ideas remains separated by phase interface) they're appear superfluous, smoothly communicating and internally consistent.

 John A. Wheeler: We live on an island of knowledge surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.