tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57495178695236310202024-03-19T01:34:39.649-07:00Aether Wave TheoryZephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-27038619957429006022011-01-04T20:06:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:46:33.061-07:00Why Scientific 'Truth' So Often Turns Out Wrong.This post is motivated with John Allen Paulos's article <a class="title loggedin click" href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/decline-effect-scientific-truth-turns-wrong/story?id=12510202" target="_blank">The Decline Effect and Why Scientific 'Truth' So Often Turns Out Wrong.</a> <br /><br />In AWT this phenomena can be of real emergent nature and it manifests itself with switching of intersubjectively accepted opinion into dual perspective, whenever the density of facts increases up to certain level. It's analogous to dispersive spreading of waves at the water surface, which is switching its character with distance from longitudinal into transverse waves and back into longitudinal waves again. It corresponds the layered fractally nested character of Universe and observable reality.<br /><br />For example, from terrestrial perspective the epicycle model of solar system appears relevant. With increasing scope this model has been replaced with heliocentric model but now the evolution of galactic arms can be described with epicycle model again. It's just the number of observable objects, which makes epicycle or heliocentric model more relevant.<br /><br />After all, the acceptation/refusal of aether model is of the same emergent evolution. Before some time old Greeks believed in Aether, later (Newton) this concept has been replaced with concept of absolute space. In 19th century the aether based models were quite popular again, but they're were replaced later with relativity model of space-time. Now the aether model is <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-ancient-physics-was-reborn.html">returning into physics again</a> with model of Higgs field, which is responsible for particle mass.<br /><br />The emergent character of observable reality can be understood by example of compression of gas, which is changing into fluid or even solid during this. The density fluctuations of newly formed phase are behaving like another generation of gas particles and when the compression continues, they're condensing and changing into nested fluid phase and solid again. The newly formed phase is embedded into previous generation of matter and this process can be repeated many times.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/supercritical2.gif" /></div><br />I presume, the same evolution occurs during pilling and condensation of facts into theories in hyperdimensional causal space. I Czech we have a proverb: "<i>Stokrát nic umořilo osla</i>" which roughly means "<i>A hundred times nothing killed the donkey</i>". The meaning of this proverb is, even the smallest chores are tiresome (if there is too many).Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-12325662964679315892010-12-05T11:45:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:46:33.061-07:00Global warming and galactic superwaves<div class="usertext-body"><div class="md">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, <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/05/sun-may-soon-plunge-into-hot-clo.html">it was confirmed </a>independently from IBEX observations, the Sun going to enter soon a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas.</div><div class="md"></div><div class="md"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Fermi_bubble_art_labels.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Fermi_bubble_art_labels.jpg" border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/galaxy/galaxy_bubbles.gif" /></a></div><br />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 <a href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0503/0503158.pdf" rel="nofollow">Ph.D. dissertation</a>, Paul LaViolette <a href="http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Galactic.html" rel="nofollow">hypothesized</a> 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.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2010/11/10/0001248067/bubble_fermi.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="242" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/galaxy/galaxy_bubbles1.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-EUF.html" rel="nofollow">Earth Under Fire</a> 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.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Fig2.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img align="top" border="0" height="400" naturalsizeflag="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/galaxy/galactic_explosion.gif" width="346" /></a></div>LaViolette has an analysis of this evidence of a superwave event on his blog (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wIMYlKzYTig#t=7s">YT video</a>). 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.</div></div>Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-87213767203771449052010-10-03T07:10:00.000-07:002011-08-08T16:46:48.434-07:00Clever individuals do not make the group smarterThis post is a reaction to the <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-10/01/intelligent-individuals-group-smart">recent article</a> (<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130247631">more details</a>) in which <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2009-04/21/wired-infiltrates-the-intelligent-people-social-network">individual brainpower</a> 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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news198776761.html" rel="nofollow">much more difficult</a>, then the sharing of logical information. In addition, socially successful people <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news122212997.html" rel="nofollow">tend to ignore</a> logical arguments. <br /><br />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...<br /><br />Unfortunately it works in both directions, as Joseph Goebels knew already.<br /><br />Actually, in dense aether theory a rather simple wave spreading model <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/awt-and-definition-of-intelligence.html" rel="nofollow">can be applied </a> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />A well known <a href="http://www.earthlingcommunication.com/blog/why-smart-people-have-poor-communication-skills-and-what-to-do-about-it.php" rel="nofollow">kind of symmetry</a> 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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/" rel="nofollow">Nova TV show</a>.Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-50280153305012207222010-09-27T04:58:00.000-07:002011-08-08T16:46:48.434-07:00Should journalists second guess the scientific truth?This post is a reaction to <a href="http://tinyurl.cz/01jy">recent article</a> 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.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/religion_science/story.jpg"><img border="0" height="239" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/society/science_religion.gif" width="300" /></a> </div><br />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 <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/15/the_era_of_expert_failure_107170.html">The era of expert failure</a> by Arnold Kling, <a href="http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_experts_are_usually_wrong_LsjnnoKdgoOoH5QJHmT5QO">Why experts are usually wrong</a> by David H. Freeman and <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/17/pf/experts_Tetlock.moneymag/index.htm">Why the experts missed the crash</a> by Phill Tetlock (<a href="http://zpravy.idnes.cz/pozor-na-predpovedi-expertu-temer-jiste-se-myli-ftq-/kavarna.asp?c=A090109_151136_kavarna_bos">in Czech</a>) may be useful not only for Lubos Motl.<br /><br />Niels Bohr: "<i>An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field</i>".Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-42694301660351526072010-07-17T05:43:00.000-07:002011-08-08T16:46:48.435-07:00Higgs boson and fourth generation of quarks<div style="text-align: left;">This post is inspired by recent <a href="http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/rumors_about_light_higgs">blog post</a> 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, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/7888012/Higgs-boson-discovery-rumours-false-say-Tevatron-scientists.html">as expressed</a> 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 <a href="http://twitter.com/FermilabToday/status/18396561721">Fermilab's Twitter post</a> 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.</div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.pd.infn.it/%7Edorigo/mssm_hbb_bgs.jpg"><img border="0" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/nuclear/higgs/higgs_boson.gif" /></a></div><br /><br />IMO Higgs boson is the same <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2010/02/higgs-boson-as-unparticle.html">fuzzy unparticle stuff</a>, 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.<br /><br />Mr. Dorigo himself putted the nail into coffin of Higgs boson by his <a href="http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/four_things_about_four_generations">previous announcement</a> 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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627622.700-matter-the-next-generation.html">was handled</a> by NewScientist quite seriously and it got full coverage in media. The whole trick here is, most of physicists actually <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jun/05/cern-lhc-god-particle-higgs-boson">do not believe</a> 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. <br /><br />The title of recent another <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427341.200-in-susy-we-trust-what-the-lhc-is-really-looking-for.html">NewScientist article</a> "<i>In SUSY we trust: What the LHC is really looking for</i>" (<a href="http://serpentexit.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-susy-we-trust-what-large-hadron.html">full version</a>) illustrates clearly, physicists are aware of the conceptual problems of Higgs field concept. The article should be interpreted like: "<i>Uhm, well, ... we actually don't believe, Higgs boson will be ever found at LHC - so we should concentrate to supersymmetry instead</i>. ."<br /><br />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 <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ya3q2hm">appeared in media</a>, when scientists started to speculate, (primordial) gravitational waves cannot be found at all due the "<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527453.700-quantum-spread-threat-to-hawkings-bet.html">quantum-spread</a>", which would render detectors of gravitational waves useless in the same way, like the LHC at quantum scale. <br /><br />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.Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-68337352875932638012009-02-10T17:01:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:39:20.115-07:00Danger of positive approachFew weeks ago, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luboš_Motl">Lubos Motl</a> has won the <a href="http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/">2008 Weblog Award</a> price for <a href="http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-european-blog/">Best European (Non UK) Blog</a>, which may become a surprise for someone, proponents of dual theories <a href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=1525">in particular</a>. Whereas AWT is rather invariant/symmetric with respect to string /LQG duality, we can make an attempt for independent analysis of this result. The positive thing may be, Lubos is compatriot of mine, we even both born in the same city - which is not so difficult, after all, as the Czech Republic is really tiny country. Czech Republic is birthplace of many brilliant and intelligent people and beautiful women as well, which is partly due its location in central Europe on the crossroad of many trade routes, along which the mixing of various races can occur.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/physists/MotlAward.gif" /><br /><br />On the other hand, I'm not very sure, whether Lubos is a typical representative of Czech science, society the less - which is traditionally rather balanced in its opinions, if not opportunistic due it's sensitive geopolitic role of small boundary country between zones of interest of East an West Europe blocks. Buffer countries are often playing a role of branes, which leads to the fragmentation of state boundaries in this area. Aether foam gets more dense at place of density gradient due the potential energy content, where two dual space-time branes/gradients intersects/interfere mutually.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/brane.gif" /><br /><br />Whereas Weblog Award is rather representative competition, it's still based on results of surprisingly limited number of votes, because the first place in <a href="http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-european-blog/">Best European Blog</a> category was a matter of just some 700 voices. Which isn't really too much in the world of <a href="http://www.fresh-proxy-list.net/list%20of%20proxies.html">anonymous proxies</a>, whereas <em>Goggle</em> is doing a lot more than 1000 <em>queries per second (</em>about 25 <em style="font-style: italic;">queries per second per</em><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>server<em>)</em>. Anyway, Motl's price is well deserved for his frenetic activity and it's even logical in certain extent, because his postings are often quite entertaining and informative and <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/">Reference Frame blog </a>is one of few ones, which I'm visiting regularly. Because modern people are basically consumers, Motl's graphomania plays well with their needs, because average visitor can always find something new in his blog everyday.<br /><br />If so, where's the problem?<br /><br />Even if we ignore the excentric and subjectively ugly design (typical for <a href="http://www.kolej.mff.cuni.cz/~lmotm275/">Motl's sites</a>) and sometimes unstable behavior of scripts on his site (the purpose of which is to prohibit Motl's opponents in visiting and posting at times), we shouldn't neglect the fact, popularity of this blog is partially based on strongly biased opinions and <a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/jokes/bolubos_short.doc">ad hominem</a><a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/jokes/bolubos_short.doc"> </a><a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/jokes/bolubos_short.doc">attacks</a>, followed by personally motivated censorship of discussions, which manifest itself by sectarian character of people, which are allowed to post there (<span style="font-style: italic;">simillia simillibus curantur</span>). From these reasons, Motl is often perceived as a controversial person in blogosphere. Personally, I do not believe, most of people, who voted in Weblog Award Poll didn't realize autistic and asocial character of "humble correspondent's" blog - the problem is, the system of voting didn't enable them to express their opinion. Negative voices simply don't count here.<br /><br />This is a general property of contemporary voting systems, which enable only positive votes, which leads to high degree of populism in side of politicians and ignorance and lack of interests about negative aspects of politics on the side of publicity. Even morally controversial politicians may become successful in this system, if they're is sufficiently active in another areas, in self promotion of personality cult in particular. I believe, this MAY be one of reasons of society problems with its own political representations: voters simply have no veto privilege - they can be only partly responsible. In natural evolution such unbalanced approach to fitness function would suffer consequences, because it violates the equilibrium of supply and demand.<br /><br />As I'm not expert in social sciences, I'm not informed, whether such approach was proposed or even tested in history and which reasons has lead people to consider only positive voting approach in anonymous elections. Maybe it could have adverse effects and it would lead to undesirable level of opportunism between politicians, I don't know. But as I've met in many cases, most trivial ideas were often ignored for long time just because of their simplicity or generally low asset, which can manifest only under high civilization density. Maybe it could even save Germany from nacism in the mid of 30's of the last century, which was rather inclined to Hitler's populism. If so, maybe the time of more dualistic/symmetric voting system just come up.Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-32072580362134061982009-02-05T15:56:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:39:20.115-07:00AWT and evolution of life<p>By AWT the life is the highly organized form of matter existence, whose properties and abilities are determined by extremely high degree of nested condensation from space-time perspective. Therefore the life formation occurs always near phase interface, where the highest density of space-time gradients can occur due mutual interference of energy waves constituting both phases. The highest concentration of gradients promotes the evolution of maximal complexity, so we can expect the life formation exactly at the middle of dimensional scale of Universe on high dimensional fractal coast of lakes at islands of ancient oceans, covering surface of planets inside of galaxies forming fractal surface of black holes, where solid, fluid and gaseous phase can met together.<br /></p><img style="width: 241px; height: 195px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/gradient.jpg" /> <p>Because life is space-time artifact, not just spatial one, the high density of temporal events, i.e. mutations is required to enable the gradual evolution of complexity. This requires an environment, capable of periodic changes and enabling the dissipation of energy in each step. Periodic and tidal waves of ancient oceans can provide such dissipation, because they're paced slowly enough to enable natural selection. Earth rotation and rotational axis inclination, presence of sufficiently massive Sun and Moon provides another level of periodicity due tidal forces, thus increase randomness of evolutionary process.<br /></p><p>By AWT the life evolution follows an ancient Oparin's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Life#Haldane_and_Oparin:_The_Primordial_Soup_Theory">coacervate theory</a>. Coacervates are tiny oily droplets, which are precipitating spontaneously from saturated solutions of various organic compounds, the racemic mixtures of amino-acids and sugars in particular. Under high concentration and some shaking so called reverse micelles or even double layered liposomes can be formed. Such liposomes can behave like walking droplets, <a href="http://focus.aps.org/story/v15/st7">described recently</a>:<br /></p><p></p><p></p><p><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/surface/surface.jpg" /></p><p>We can imagine, such droplets were precipitated from waves of ancient lakes at places, where organic compounds were pre-concentrated by wind and solar radiation and they were thrown at coast surface, covered by various surfactants. The droplets are attracted to them, so they started to climb around coast, collecting these materials in their cells. The most successful droplets become so large by such way, they fragmented into smaller ones under impact of next breaker wave, and whole process has repeated many times. Blastulation can be considered as a rudiment of this process by now.</p><p><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/dropplets/runner.gif" /></p><br />During this the less successful ("low fitness") droplets disappeared gradually on behalf of those better ones, which have collected the proper surfactants into their liposome bodies. Later the concurrence has lead into preference of droplets, which were not only able to collect surfactants, but even to collect the chemicals, able to synthesize them inside of cells. These droplets has become able to digest food after then, so they become hunters of less successful droplets, not just passive collectors of matter from outside. Of course, such competition has accelerated the evolution a much.<br /><br />And this saga continues till now...<br /><p>Note that in this early stage of life evolution the inheritance was provided by physical mechanism completely, simply by dividing of cells together with their interior and surface membranes. By AWT the evolution of life follows exactly the evolution of inorganic matter in more nested dimensional scales, i.e. no ribonucleic acids, chromosomes or other contemporary subtleties were required here. We can consider, this mechanism could be reproduced in vitro under proper conditions without problem. Recently living examples of walking droplets were found: a single-celled <a href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2374/giant-grape-amoebas-found-rolling-seafloor">giant amoebas</a> of very ancient origin.</p><img style="width: 267px; height: 241px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/biology/giant_ameba.jpg" /><br /><br />From AWT follows, such amoebas were first unicellular organisms by the same way, like <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news152976776.html">sponges of foamy structure</a> can be considered as a first multicellular animals. After all, the tissue of higher organisms is rudiment of foam with flat surface as well. The smaller structures (structures bellow <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/awt-and-human-scale.html">human scale</a> of about 1,7 cm) are having concave structures (organelles), while larger tends to become convex (trees, fungi), because they're kept together by surface tension forces. Therefore first organisms were relativelly large from their very beginning, because electromagnetic interaction itself doesn't provide necessary level of complexity and inheritance at molecular level.<br /><p>Concerning the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism">creationist approach</a> to life formation, the "intelligent constructer" idea is dual to Aether concept and it can be replaced by it easily. From remote space-time perspective every gradualistic evolution becomes discontinuous stepwise artifact by the same way, like event horizon of black holes, when observed from large distance. Every logical explanation is concentrating non-causal assumptions on background, so it becomes a sort of religion. The belief doesn't differ from adherence to causal logics too much, because both approaches tends to tautology by gradual elimination of postulates.<br /></p><p>Deism can be understood as an religious approach to Occam's razor criterion, whereas AWT is driven by causual logic. For deeper understanding of God concept we should understand creator paradigm better. Currently it seems, it's just our civilization, which created the black hole, where we are living now. Maybe the moment of final understanding of God becomes the very end of civilization at the same moment, maye quantum uncertainty <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide">will protect us</a> from such destiny. Should we kill people like Zephir a well before they can bring an apple of ultimate understanding of reality? Or can just these people prohibits us from destiny of quantum suicide experiment?<br /></p>Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-75612386748627827462009-02-05T15:16:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:39:20.115-07:00AWT, Genesis and precambrian explosionBy AWT elementary particles are small living creatures, which follows energy density gradients (food) of their life environment. Bosons are males, whereas fermions are females. They've a genetic information encoded in helical structure of density gradients inside their body like other living organisms, they consist of foamy tissue composed of bilayers with different surface tension and superhydrophobic behavior, they're tactile and sensitive to heat and mechanical stimulation like other animals.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/particle_foam_mov.gif" /><br /><br />In general, the she-fermions are more communicative particles, usually rather attractive having mass (some can become quite corpulent). In general, they're loving company and most of all they prefer to exchange food & energy with bosons.<br /><br />Instead of this, bosons are a movable, unstable and volatile particles. They usually bouncing from one she-fermion to another by high speed. Whenever boson obtains a sufficient energy (fitness), it succeede in mating and it is allowed to exchange its information with fermion. After such collisions a new small particles can emerge, which have structure and property signatures of both parents at the same time.<br /><br /><img style="width: 237px; height: 177px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/collision.gif" /><br /><br />From this point of view it seems, atom nuclei or black holes are nested closely packed globular colonies of these creatures, similar to "Globe animalcule" (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvox">Volvox globator</a>) chlorophytes. This algae can serve as a brane model of strings, being formed by 2D foam.<br /><br /><img style="width: 236px; height: 176px;" src="http://www.membrana.ru/images/gallery/1117021192.jpeg" /> <img style="width: 176px; height: 176px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/honeycomb.gif" /><p>By <a href="http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis">Genesis</a> formation of life occurred in six steps, non-uniformly distributed in space-time scale, but equidistantly separated in entropy density scale ("days"). The first stage was a formation of space and time ("<span style="font-style: italic;">heavens and the earth</span>") inside of graviton condensate ("<span style="font-style: italic;">darkness over the deep and God's breath</span> (Aether) <span style="font-style: italic;">hovering over the waters</span>" (waves?)). Gravitons are ambivalent particles, serving both like boson, both like fermions due the supersymmetry.<br /></p><p><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/space_dim2.gif" /></p><p>During <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang">Big Bang event</a> (''<span style="font-style: italic;">let there be light</span>") phase transition of space-time has occurred, followed by separation of first generation of bosons, i.e. photons ("<span style="font-style: italic;">God separated the light from the darkness</span>") in process of so called inflation, which resulted into condensation of black hole dome, forming observable generation of Universe ("<span style="font-style: italic;">let there be a dome in the midst of the waters</span>"), i.e. the vacuum in particular ("<span style="font-style: italic;">God called the dome Sky</span>").<br /></p><p>By AWT <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion">cambrian explosion</a> was a result of analogous phase transition, a condensation of genes following from fast cooling. Around 5<span class="plainlinksneverexpand" style="white-space: nowrap;">30 million years ago</span> Earth passed by so called "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth">Snowball Earth</a>" episode, i.e. by cryogenian period of strong cooling by the same way, like the Universe during inflation. During this a existing oceans were covered by thick layer of ice. This shock change of climate was followed by massive extinction, during which remaining organisms were forced to increase speed of their evolution and to exchange genes even in diaspora. The diaspora has lead into evolution of sexual reproduction, which is effective (and quite pleasant) method, how to increase gene mixing speed.<br /></p>The speed of evolution and mutation must remain always balances in accordance to life conditions. Prokaryota still rely to horizontal gene transfer, simply because they can divide fast. Sexual reproduction is too mutagenic and energetically expensive for tiny organisms with fast paced live cycle (protozoa), so they using it only in under unfavorable conditions.<br /><br />Large organisms can reproduce sexually, but sometimes tend to parthenogenesis under good life conditions: for example sharks are living in very stable conditions, so they don't evolve fast, they don't require mutations, so they're cancer resistant and hammerhead shark can reproduce asexually. A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endometriosis">endometriosis</a> and/or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infertility">male associated infertility</a> can be understood as an attempt for evolutionary adaptation of human organism to wealthy life conditions, where the sexual reproduction leads to unnecessary high mutagenity. Good social conditions leads to unisex life style and male population <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><a href="http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=25790">will decline</a> gradually in analogy to mixture of particles, which undergoes the gradual evaporation of smaller particles on behalf of large ones with lower social tension.Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-65472862916070826252009-02-01T22:41:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:39:20.115-07:00Experimental constraints are there on the scale of spatial structure<P>what sort of experimental constraints are there on the scale of spatial structure like that</P><P></P><P>By AWT this constraint doesn’t exist, but here are less or more significant conceptual limits. For example the rest mass of photon appears zero, but when the wavelength size of photon becomes comparable to observable Universe, the photon cannot move inside it furthemore. After the energy of photon becomes equivalent to its rest mass. Such mass appears low (~10 E-61 kg), but here are even stronger limit. When the wavelength of photon becomes comparable to wavelength of CMB, every photon dissolves in CMB noise, which corresponds the graviton noise of previous Universe generation. By such way, the minimal rest mass of photon is quite large, but it’s limited by observability of photon, not by existence of photon as such.<br /><br />If some civilization could have look inside of large black hole, he would probably see the same things, which we can observe around us, but it would probably dissolve, if it could visit us. But such civilisation can construct a giant microscope, as large as whole black hole and it can use focused gravitational waves to observe the life inside. After then such civilization could see more, then the single generation of Universe because of tunnelling of information through event horizon. Therefore the observational limit is just a matter of observational scope, by my opinion.<br /><br /><br /><br /></P>Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-83645724255665328792009-02-01T19:21:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:39:20.115-07:00Lorentz symmetry and String theory<p><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-size:100%;">This post is a polemic to Motl's somewhat nervous </span><a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/02/computational-universe-vs-lorentz.html"><span style="font-size:100%;">defense of Lorentz symmetry</span></a><span style="font-size:100%;"> (LS), as quoted by italics. It hope, it may be interesting for someone. By AWT the confrontation of ideas in dialectic discussion is driving tensor of new ideas: full agreement cannot serve as a both subject, both object of further thinking and extrapolations.</span></span></p><p><span style="color:#000000;"><em><span style="font-size:100%;">Moshe Rozali wrote a very sane text about the importance of LS for the search for the fundamental laws of Nature: </span><a href="http://diracseashore.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/the-universe-is-probably-not-a-quantum-computer/"><span style="font-size:100%;">The Universe is probably not a quantum computer.</span></a><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">I agree with every word he wrote. He says that many people who are following the physics blogosphere want to believe that their area of expertise is actually sufficient to find a </span><span style="font-size:100%;">theory of everything.</span></em></span></p><p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">.. by the same way, like string theorists and many others.. By AWT whatever theory of your personal preference can become a TOE, if you make it infinitely implicit, i.e. if you compose it from as from minimal number of postulates, as possible. The complex theories mixed from high number of postulates, like string theory would be </span><span style="font-size:100%;">strongly handicapped by such way, of course.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="color:#000000;"><em><span style="font-size:100%;">So Seth Lloyd of the quantum computing fame wants to believe that the world is a quantum computer. Robert Laughlin wants to imagine that quantum gravity is an example of the fractional quantum Hall effect. Other people have their own areas of expertise, too. Peter Woit wants to believe that a theory of everything can be found by mudslinging and defamations while Lee Smolin wants to believe that the same theory can be found by selling caricatures of octopi to the media (following some subtle and not so subtle defamations, </span><span style="font-size:100%;">too).</span></em></span></p><p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">..and string theorists are believing in vibrating strings. And so? Live and let live. The world of coexisting theories illustrates the space-time world, being a low energy density projection of it into causual space.</span></span></p><p><em><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Moshe Rozali correctly tells them that if they are going to ignore the Lorentz symmetry, a basic rule underlying special relativity, they are almost guaranteed to fail. Lorentz symmetry is experimentally established and even if it didn't hold quite accurately, it holds so precisely that a good theory must surely explain why it seems to work so extremely </span><span style="font-size:100%;">well in the real world.</span></span></em></p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Lorentz symmetry is violated by quantum mechanics heavily, it's simply based on dual approach be more specific. By AWT even gravitational lensing is rather </span><span style="font-size:100%;">quantum mechanics phenomena, then the relativity phenomena. To defend Lorentz symmetry you're simply required to fight against quantum mechanics and vice-versa.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">It still doesn't mean, Universe computes something for somebody.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><em><span style="color:#000000;">Moreover, the state-of-the-art theories of the world are so constrained - i.e. so predictive - exactly because they are required to satisfy the Lorentz symmetry.</span></em></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Quantum mechanics is based on zero or infinite many radiative time arrows. It's invariant to LS (and other postulates of relativity, based on radiative time arrow causality), while still remains </span><span style="font-size:100%;">predictive. Aether theory is invariant to both, while still remains predictive. In fact, just because both LS, both quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent </span><span style="font-size:100%;">apparently, here's a question, why not to start once again from complete beginning.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color:#000000;"><em>Because of this symmetry, quantum field theories only admit a few marginal or relevant deformations. If you assume that they make sense up to extremely high energy scales, you may accurately predict all of their low-energy physics as long as you know a few important parameters. Such a "complete knowledge" of physics in terms of a few parameters would be impossible in non-relativistic theories.</em></span></span></p><p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">The same is true for relativistic theories. The emergence concept is still required to seamlessly connect both these branches of </span><span style="font-size:100%;">physics.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></p><p><em><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-size:100%;">String theory is even more constrained than quantum field theory: it has no adjustable dimensionless non-dynamical parameters whatsoever. In some sense, you may view string theory as a tool to generate privileged quantum field theories with some massless spectrum and infinitely many very special, selected massive fields with completely calculable </span><span style="font-size:100%;">interactions. So all the Lorentz constraints that apply to quantum field theory can do the analogous job in string theory, too.</span></span></em></p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">String theory is like every other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quantum_field_theories">quantum field theory</a> in this point. It's true, most of formalism was developed under cover of string theory, because </span><span style="font-size:100%;">string theory has a good marketing, best experts and some nice faces in front of it. But these approaches can be used in many other theories and the best string theorists, like Ed Witten are doing so </span><span style="font-size:100%;">without any frustrations. </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><p><em><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-size:100%;">However, in string theory, the character of LS is even more direct. The very short distance physics of string theory is pretty much guaranteed to respect the LS. Whenever you look at regions that are much smaller than all the curvature radii of a D+1-dimensional spacetime manifold, the dynamics of a closed string reduces to a </span><span style="font-size:100%;">collection of D+1 free scalars on the worldsheet which manifestly preserves the Lorentz symmetry. And one can show that the interactions respect it, too.</span></span></em></p><p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">String theory is based on combination of quantum mechanics and special relativity. From this point of view is apparently less general, </span></span><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">then any theory based on combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity, like LQG. It's just one of evolutionary steps of physics, no less, no more. It opened many </span></span><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">research perspectives, while quantum gravity has opened others.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color:#000000;"><em>Open strings may violate the LS spontaneously, for a nonzero B-field or a magnetic field on the brane, and one can enumerate a couple of related ways to spontaneously break the Lorentz symmetry with the presence of branes and their worldvolume fields. But none of these pictures ever hides the fact that the fundamental theory behind all these possibilities is Lorentz-invariant.</em></span></span></p><p><span style="color:#000066;"><span style="font-size:100%;">This is just one of many perspectives possible. Some others can see an infinitely fractal Universe based upon quantum mechanics units or even particle units. But fractal geometrodynamics, as expressed by double relativity based on Poincare, Cartan and deSitter groups is still in the game as well.</span></span></p><p><span style="color:#000000;"><em><span style="font-size:100%;">There's a lot of confusion in the public about the fate of the LS in general relativity. Be sure that the LS is incorporated into the very heart of </span><span style="font-size:100%;">general relativity. </span><span style="font-size:100%;">General relativity generalizes special relativity; it doesn't deny it. General relativity can be defined as any collection of physical laws that respect the rules of special relativity (including Lorentz invariance) in small enough regions of spacetime - regions that can, however, be connected into a curved manifold. All breaking of LS in </span><span style="font-size:100%;">general relativity can always be viewed as a spontaneous breaking by long-distance effects and configurations.</span></em></span></p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Every generalization is predestined to violate its roots less or more lately. My personal understanding is, general relativity has nothing </span><span style="font-size:100%;">to do with LS at all, being even much more general, then many relativists (specially those special ones) may be willing to admit. Anyway, general relativity has </span><span style="font-size:100%;">nothing to do with string theory, which doesn't uses postulates of general relativity at all. This belongs into realm of quantum gravity.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><p><em><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-size:100%;">In fact, even in spacetimes with a lot of curved regions - such as spacetimes with many neutron stars or even black holes - one can use the tools of special relativity in many contexts: either in very small regions that are much smaller than all the curvature radii, or in regions that are much larger than stars and black holes. In the latter description, </span><span style="font-size:100%;">the stars and black holes may be viewed as local point masses or tiny disturbances that follow the laws of relativistic mechanics at much longer distances, anyway.</span></span></em></p><p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">That's perfectly right. And the large systems of such particles are following a quantum or newton mechanics at another distances, and so </span><span style="font-size:100%;">on.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></p><p><em><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-size:100%;">So if someone completely neglects Lorentz invariance, the player that became so essential in 1905, he shouldn't be surprised if theoretical physicists simply ignore him or her. It is not necessary for a theory to be Lorentz-invariant from the very beginning. But a theory only starts to be interesting as a realistic theory of our world after one proves that </span><span style="font-size:100%;">Lorentz invariance holds exactly (or almost exactly).</span></span></em></p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">It was just Einstein in 1917, who completely omitted Lorentz invariance from further thoughts. Just because string theory has chosen </span><span style="font-size:100%;">Lorentz invariance as one of its postulates doesn't means, this approach is the only universal approach to physics. Even Einstein has recognized it - so why not some string </span><span style="font-size:100%;">theorists?</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><p><em><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-size:100%;">I am personally convinced that theories that try to break Lorentz invariance by small effects are not well-motivated. But even if I insist on the things that have been established only, the "at least almost accurate" Lorentz symmetry that has been demonstrated is an extremely powerful constraint on any theory. If you invent a random theory for which no </span><span style="font-size:100%;">reason why it should be Lorentz-invariant is known, it is extremely likely that the LS doesn't work at all and the theory is therefore ruled out.</span></span></em></p><p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">The small breaking of Lorentz invariance we can observe as a quantum chaos. It's not a consequence of violating it, rather applying it </span><span style="font-size:100%;">in many concurrent time arrows. Because every particle itself is Lorentz invariant, the mutual interaction of many particles brings a causal uncertainty into global view. The </span><span style="font-size:100%;">theory based on small effects is Kostelecky theory, for example.</span></span></p><p><span style="color:#000000;"><em><span style="font-size:100%;">There are actually approaches to string theory that are not manifestly Lorentz-invariant. For example, the BFSS matrix model, or M(atrix) theory, is a 0+1-dimensional quantum field theory - a U(N) gauge theory with 16 supercharges. You can also say that it is a quantum mechanical model with many degrees of freedom organized into large Hermitean matrices. It </span><span style="font-size:100%;">resembles non-relativistic quantum mechanics, with some extra indices and a quartic potential.</span></em></span></p><p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Every theory should be defined by its postulate tensor, string theory is no exception. No theory, which is based on Lorentz symmetry can derive the violation of this symmetry by </span><span style="font-size:100%;">rigorous way.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="color:#000000;"><em><span style="font-size:100%;">There is no a priori reason to think that such a seemingly non-relativistic theory - whose symmetry actually includes the Galilean symmetry known from non-relativistic physics - should be Lorentz-invariant. Except that one can defend and "effectively prove" this relativistic symmetry by arguments based on string dualities. Although it can't be completely obvious from the very beginning, the original BFSS matrix model describes a relativistic 11-dimensional spacetime of M-theory. But the relevance of the matrix model for M-theory </span><span style="font-size:100%;">only began to be studied seriously when arguments were found that these two theories were actually equivalent. </span><span style="font-size:100%;">You simply can't expect your non-relativistic model to be equally interesting for physicists if you don't have any evidence that your model respects Lorentz invariance - or if it even seems very likely that it cannot respect it. Physicists would be foolish to treat your theory on par with QED or the BFSS matrix model because it seems excessively likely </span><span style="font-size:100%;">that your theory can't agree with some of the basic properties of the spacetime we know.</span></em></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">This is not true. In AWT the LS is provided by fact, no object can serve both like subject, both like mean of </span><span style="font-size:100%;">observation at the same space and time (a singular case of observation, based on zero degree causal tensor). Therefore Aether concept cannot violate Lorentz symmetry locally by its definition.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><em><span style="color:#000000;">Emergence and the role of Lorentz symmetry in the grand scheme of things.</span></em></span></p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">That's right, but the emergence has no relevant explanation in physics without Aether concept, not a string theory. And they're both theorems of AWT. Aether concept doesn't uses neither require any other ad hoced concepts.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> While emergence is required both for explanation of relativity, both quantum mechanics, I believe, we can avoid LS safely for future by the same way, like prof. Einstein did. <br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><em><span style="font-size:100%;">The comments above should be completely uncontroversial. But let me add a few more speculations. </span><span style="font-size:100%;">Because space is emergent in string theory, the LS - a symmetry linking space and time - has to be emergent, too. This symmetry of special relativity is telling us </span><span style="font-size:100%;">that things can't move faster than light in the newly emergent geometry. What is this constraint good for? Is Nature trying to tell us something deeper than that?</span></em></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">The claim "space is emergent in string theory" simply mean, space is composed of many tiny strings. If you cannot realize it, then you simply don't know, what the emergence is based on. The Nature is just trying to tell us, it doesn't matter, which concept you're use in large quantity, it always loses its conceptual subtleties and becomes a pin-point singularity, i.e. "particle" from sufficiently distant space time perspective. This is what the Aether approach is based on: on particle abstract. The symmetry you're disputing just illustrates, the LS has its principal limits in anti deSitter space. From perspective of observer </span><span style="font-size:100%;">sitting inside of dense fluctuation of Aether the energy will spread outside of black hole by superluminal speed without problem. </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><em><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Well, I am confident that special relativity is important for life as we know it because motion is very helpful for animals and the equivalence of all inertial frames is the simplest (and maybe the only plausible) method for Nature to guarantee that the very motion won't kill the animals. Imagine that you would feel any motion - you would probably </span><span style="font-size:100%;">vomit all the time and die almost instantly. ;-)</span></span></em></p><p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Stop trolling. Special relativity is important for life of (special) relativists and some fundamentalist string theorists only. Some </span><span style="font-size:100%;">people can become quite naturalistic, when defeating their pet theories...;-)</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><em><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-size:100%;">The Lorentz symmetry and the Galilean symmetry were the two most obvious realizations of the equivalence of all inertial frames that Nature could choose from, and She chose the LS because it treats space and time more democratically than the Galilean symmetry. (I could probably construct more robust anthropic arguments even though they would </span><span style="font-size:100%;">probably not be based on the motion of animals only - simply because the low value of "v/c" for animals indicates that the finiteness of "c" is not necessary for life itself.)</span></span></em></p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Nature doesn't choose the LS, the Prussian academy under Planck leadership has chosen it as its paradigm to avoid </span><span style="font-size:100%;">influence of Poincare's Sorbonne. This is a difference...;-)</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><p><em><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="font-size:100%;">But in the previous two paragraphs, we were talking about the 3+1 large dimensions of spacetime only. String theory has additional dimensions that can emerge in various ways and that are dual to each other - and the LS applies to all these dimensions as long as they become larger than the curvature (and compactification) radii. In some sense, </span><span style="font-size:100%;">that's quite shocking.</span></span></em></p><p><span style="color:navy;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Emergence isn't miracle, it has very simple reason in AWT. Some physicists are becoming a cocooned creationists apparently, because they tend to use the concepts without their firm reasoning. This is a consequence of less or more hidden belief into reality, not the reality understanding by logical implications based on analogies.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;">The conclusion is, LS violation isn’t supposed to be weak at all. If we consider, particles of matter are all formed by the same vacuum, like the rest of cosmic space, then the LS violation is responsible for refraction index of both black holes, both elementary particles, everything. If LS would be complete universal, we would see anything from Universe - simply because it would be nothing to deflect path of light.<span style="color:#000000;"><br /></span><span style="color:#000000;"><br /></span><span style="color:#000000;">We can call this missunderstanding by proverb “</span><em><span style="color:#000000;">The darkest place is under the candlestick</span></em>”. Many scientists are spending money and their lives by obstinate search for LS violation - whereas they’re virtually sitting on it all the time. This just illustrates, why is it so important to understand subject at nonformal, conceptual level. It can save the money for all of us.<span style="color:#000000;"><br /></span><span style="color:#000000;"><br /></span><span style="color:#000000;">Every quantum mechanics phenomena is just a manifestation of nearly singular Lorentz symmetry violation from this perspective. Not saying about weaker effects, like CMB, gravitational lensing, photon-photon interactions and pair formation, GZK limit, dark matter… Virtually, if we can observe at least something, then the LS is violated there. We can see just this portion of curved space-time, because the places, where LS remains valid well are transparent for us by definition. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color:#000000;">The same, just dual problem exists with quest for hidden dimensions. Because scientists are refuting Aether concept, we are forced to pay them for development of alternative models and for proposal of experiments, which could confirm the presence of hidden dimensions, albeit every quantum chaos or complex long distance interaction is demonstrating them clearly. Such ignorance may appear funny, but it's an innefective and expensive game for the rest of society, because these scientists can get involved in more usefull things.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color:#000000;">To be sarcastic regarding string theory, I’d say, it tryies to describe by using of LS just this part of Universe, which violates it most pronouncedly. But this paradox is logical, because we can never use the same aspect of reality both the object of observation/ description, both the mean of observation/description. We can see, the same logics, which introduces the Aether can be used even for Lorentz symmetry at the another level of reasoning. Theoretical description is dual to experimental observation in this sense. The reality is partly real, partly the consequence of theories and observable reality forms the boundary of both approaches.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;">Anyway, quantum gravity suffers the same conceptual problem, being dependent on equivalence principle instead of LS. It just means, it becomes wrong/singular in different part of conformal space-time: it can describe the LS violation of free space, assuming a “stringy structure” for it, while it’s missing the complex multidimensional structure of particles.<span style="color:#000000;"><br /></span><span style="color:#000000;"><br /></span><span style="color:#000000;">Whereas string theory depends on LS, it cannot predict the LS violation phenomena by rigorous way, because it doesn’t care about vacuum structure (with exception of string field theory and some other boundary approaches) . But it can describe well the complex structure of particles as such. These nice theories are AdS/CFT dual in fact, being separated by one derivation of Aether gradient in its description (they're mutualy orthogonal each other via Lorentz symmetry group).</span></span></p>Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-58544416745449276522009-02-01T04:18:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:39:20.116-07:00AWT, emergence and particle - unparticle duality<p>This post is a reaction to two recent articles (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.2694">1</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3907">2</a>) from HEP arXiv section (via <a href="http://arxivblog.com/">KFC's blog</a>), which are illustrating conceptual problems of formal approach of mainstream physics clearly. </p><p>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 <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/12/aether-and-structure-of-reality.html">observability of which</a> corresponds the system of nested density fluctuations inside of dense gas (a condensing supercritical fluid in particular).<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/perlin1.jpg"><img style="CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 140px" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/perlin1.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />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.</p><p>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. </p><p>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.</p><p>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 <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/12/aether-and-emergence-concept.html">emergence concept</a>. 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. </p><p>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.<br /></p><p>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 "<em>The optimist sees the doughnut; the pessimist the hole</em>":<br /><br />Where physicist sees a particle, mathematican can see a pure geometry only. </p><p>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? </p><p>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.<br /></p><p>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.</p>Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-29939392432969616212009-01-29T15:25:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:39:20.116-07:00AWT and definition of intelligence<p>By AWT correct - i.e. physically relevant - definition of intelligence is rather important, as it can give us a clue about direction of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#The_psychological.2Fperceptual_arrow_of_time">psychological time arrow</a>.</p><p>From <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-much-universe-appears-clever-for-us.html">certain perspective</a> 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.<br /></p><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/gradient_follow.gif" /><p>The ability of people to make correct decisions in such fuzzy environment is usually connected with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_intelligence">social intelligence</a>. 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.</p><p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/speckle_movie.gif"><img style="" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/speckle_movie.gif" border="0" width="160" height="160" /></a><br /></p><p>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.<br /></p>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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness">self-awareness</a>. The process of phase transition corresponds learning phase of multi-particle system. <p>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. </p><p>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.<br /></p><p>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 <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.5515">has omitted</a> serious <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle">precautionary principles</a> under hope, successful end justifies the means. </p><p>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 <a href="http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf">has taken care</a> about <a href="http://www.lhcfacts.org/">difference in charged</a> 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. </p><p>And this is quite silly and unscouscios behavior, indeed.</p>Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-16780645927782744072009-01-29T12:43:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:39:20.116-07:00AWT and LHC safety risk<p>The LHC "black hole" <a href="http://news.google.com/news?ned=us&hl=en&ned=us&scoring=n&q=lhc+cern+destruction+OR+destroy+OR+%22end+of+the+world%22+OR+lawsuit+OR+doom+OR+doomsayers&btnG=Search">issue</a> disputed (<a href="http://www.lhcfacts.org/?cat=44">1</a>, <a href="http://lhcdefense.org/">2</a>, <a href="http://lhcconcerns.com/">3</a>) and recently reopened (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.2948">1</a>, <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126926.800-how-do-we-know-the-lhc-really-is-safe.html">2,</a> <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0609055">3</a>) is manifestation of <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/11/is-science-like-democracy.html">previously disputed</a> 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 (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Quantum_Theory">Heim theory</a>) or discoveries (<a href="http://arxivblog.com/?p=664">cold fusion</a>, <a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0268-1242/18/3/319/">surface superconductivity</a>, "<a href="http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/08/04/6900035EugenePodkletnov/">antigravity</a>") on behalf of risky and expensive LHC experiments illustrates increasing gap between priorities of physical community and interests of the rest of society.</p><p>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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide">“quantum suicide” experiment</a> doesn't say, how large portion of the original system can survive its experiment.<br /><br /></p><p><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/wulfmorgenshalter1.gif" /></p><p>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 <a href="http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf">safety analysis</a> and reports (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3349">1</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381">2</a>) are very rough and superficial, as they doesn't consider important risk factors and scenarios, like formation of <a href="http://www.lhcfacts.org/">charged black holes</a> 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 <a href="https://edms.cern.ch/file/973073/1/Report_on_080919_incident_at_LHC__2_.pdf">crashed due the massive spill</a> (100 tons) of <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080102093943.htm">expensive helium</a> 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.</p><p>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:<br /></p><ol><li>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.<br /><br /></li><li>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<br /><br /></li><li>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.<br /><br /></li><li>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.<br /><br /></li><li>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 <a href="http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/noyau.htm">tetra-neutron existence</a> 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.<br /><br /></li><li>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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangelets">strangelets</a> (sort of tiny quark stars, <a href="http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v30/i2/p272_1">originally proposed</a> by Ed Witten). The evidence of these states was confirmed recently for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraquark">tetra</a>- and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaquark">pentaquark</a> exotic states. By AWT the surface tension phenomena are related to dark matter and supersymmetry effects <a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36514">observed unexpectedly</a> 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! </li></ol><p>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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion">thermonuclear fusion</a>), during which of most of matter would be vaporized and expelled into cosmic space by pressure of giant flash of accretion radiation.<br /></p><p><img style="WIDTH: 320px; HEIGHT: 174px" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/experiment.gif" /> </p><p>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.<br /><br />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? </p><p><em>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.</em><br /></p><p>Isn't the only purpose of LHC to verify it's own safety at the very end? Is it really enough for everybody?<em></em></p>Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-33324480793591983212009-01-27T16:22:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:39:20.116-07:00AWT and Bohmian mechanicsThis post is a reaction to recent <a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/superstring/inquiry.gif">L. Motl's comments</a> (<a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/01/anti-quantum-zeal.html">1</a>, <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/01/bohmists-segregation-of-primitive-and.html">2,</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/search/http%3A%2F%2Fmotls.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F01%2Fbohmists-segregation-of-primitive-and.html?sub=jscosmos">reactions</a>) concerning the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation">Bohm interpretation</a> of quantum mechanics (QM), the concept of Louis de Broglie <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave">pilot wave</a> in particular (<a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/awt-and-definition-of-observable.html">implicate/explicate order</a> is disputed <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/awt-and-definition-of-observable.html">here</a>). 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 <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/12/awt-and-double-slit-experiment.html">double slit experiment</a> (DSE) <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news78650511.html">presented already</a> (<a href="http://ftp.aip.org/epaps/phys_rev_lett/E-PRLTAO-103-065952/">videos</a>), therefore it’s evident, QM can be interpreted by classical wave mechanics without problem..<br /><br /><img alt="Single-particle interference observed for macroscopic objects" src="http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2006/Walkerphoto%281%29.jpg" /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/fish_flowing.gif" /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><img style="width: 318px; height: 236px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/quantum_split.jpg" /><br /><p>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 <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news151164690.html">Hardy's theorem</a> 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 <a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/simulace/incompressible/index.htm">thickening effect</a> during shaking.</p><p><img style="width: 319px; height: 166px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/splash-ripples.jpg" /><br /></p>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.Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-20666451518158515922009-01-15T21:07:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:38:25.836-07:00AWT, theories and Gödel's incompleteness theoremsBy AWT the scientific (i.e. causality logics based) theories are simply density fluctuations of Aether scale invariant environment like others. Human understanding is energy density driven, and the theories are accelerating the speed of energy/information propagation through environment (a human society) by the same way, like the asymmetric density fluctuations (a gradients) are accelerating the asymmetric energy spreading in transversal waves through particle environment.<br /><br />Being a physical artifacts, even the seemingly abstract theories have independent tangible impact to observable reality. For example, the aerial view bellow illustrates the appearance of two neighboring countries (Austria and former Czechoslovakia), which differs just only by their theories of social arrangement, not by natural conditions. The appearance of landscape in country, which is applying socially oriented theory leading to less diversity is apparently less divergent as well. It still doesn't mean, the more divergent theory is necessarily better, though, because it's suited just for more rich and divergent environment - but this is another story.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/boundary.gif" /><br /><br />Because the scope of density fluctuations inside of nested field of density fluctuations is always limited, the scope of theories must remain limited as well. This is because every theory is based on at least single causal/logical connection between two or more axioms/postulates/assumptions, i.e. an implication tensor definning the cardinality and compactness/consistency of formal logic system built upon implication. But the consistency of two different postulates can be never confirmed with certainty - or we could replace them by single one and we could never have some implication between them anymore, but a tautology. By such way, the scope of every logics is limited, because it remains based on insintrically inconsistent axioms - or we couldn't have some logics at all. In particular, at the moment, when TOE defines a time arrow, it becomes tautological, because validity of every implication depends on time arrow vector of antecedent and consequent. Such conclusion leads us to the understanding, every Theory Of Everything (a TOE based on no assumptions) is necessarily tautological by its very nature by the same way, like dual concept of God - and as such not very useful in causual perspective for the rest of society.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%83%C2%B6del">Gödel's incompleteness theorems</a> (GITs) show that, for any sufficiently complex set of mathematical systems, one of the following two statements is true. Either<br /><ol><li>There are true statements, expressible within the mathematical system, that cannot be proven from the axioms of that mathematical system. Or:</li><li>There are false statements, expressible within the mathematical system, that can be proven from the axioms of that mathematical system.<br /></li></ol>Most mathematicians lean towards (1), because (2) would basically imply that formal math is BS (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invalid_proof">causual bifurcations</a> related to imaginary numbers or division by zero are particularly good for it). But (1) is just a limitation upon what can be proven by mathematics: There are true statements, which you can perfectly describe in mathematical terms, which cannot be proven by mathematics.<br /><br />Whole GITs are about this dilemma, but the explanation of AWT appears more intuitive and general. GITs were derived for theory of natural number set based on eleven axioms of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_arithmetic">Peano algebra</a>, which is supposedly best defined human theory (of countable units) so far. The existence of other theories is based on more fuzzy logic, including the definition of theory itself. We can still consider AWT theory more general, then any other number theory, because the (natural) number concept is based on countable units, i.s. singular zero-dimensional particles colliding mutually in infinitely dimensional space, whereas the differential calculus is based upon concept of Aether density gradients driven observable reality.<br /><br />Without particle concept the number concept is unthinkable - until we accept, we are composed just from pure numbers - which doesn't appear very probable, because number theory is product of human evolution and as such is much younger, then the Universe - not vice-versa. By such way, the AWT is working even at the case of singular geometry and fuzzy algebras.<br /><br />Donald Rumsfeld: "<span style="font-style: italic;">As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know</span>."Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-23120045503366034902009-01-03T09:51:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:38:25.836-07:00AWT and human scale<div style="text-align: left;">By AWT the Universe appears like being formed by infinitely nested field of density fluctuations of Aether. The human brain is one of such fluctuation, due its large time scale it can interact/observe a huge portion of space-time both into past of Universe expansion (the cosmic scale), both into future of it (the Planck scale). Because of symmetry of mutual interaction, human scale appears exactly at the middle of observable space-time scale. The human scale is defined by the average size of neurons inside of human brain (lowest entropy observable inside of our Universe generation) or by wavelength of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation">cosmic microwave background</a> radiation (CMB) (about 1.7 cm), which is apparently chaotic (highest entropy density observable). Under furthersome conditions, the violation of Lorentz symmetry can be observed by naked eye as a Brownian motion at Planck scale or like gravity lensing at cosmic scale - due CPT symmetry violation the Planck scale appears more close to human scale, then the cosmic one.<br /></div><br />The wavelength 1.7 cm is invariant with respect to AdS-CFT duality, because it corresponds the wavelength, when the character of energy spreading changes from longitudinal waves to transversal one. From AWT perspective the CMB corresponds the <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/93834/capillary-wave">capillary waves</a> at water surface, which are spreading along it by the lowest speed at wavelength of 1.73 cm from exsintric perspective, enabling to interact with as large space-time, as possible and allowing the most advanced evolution of matter inside it. Classical quantum mechanics cannot handle gravity (phenomena) at all and quantum noise blurs in CMB noise above human scale by the same way, like relativity is limited by CMB noise (GZK limit, CMB Doppler anisotropy, etc.) in its predictions.<br /><br />From cosmological perspective, the wavelength of CMB (1,7 cm) corresponds the outer diameter of Universe or the wavelength of Hawking radiation of tiny black hole, whose lifespan corresponds the age of our Universe generation (13.7 GYrs) - so we can say, the CMB is Hawking radiation of the black hole, which we are living in, i.e. red-shifted radiation of most distant quasars. The foamy character of energy spreading enables to see the event horizons of our Universe <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/12/aether-and-structure-of-reality.html">both from inside, both from outside</a> via CMB radiation (i.e. the event horizons of most distant quasars observable). The larger (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave">gravitational waves</a>) or shorter waves (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray">gamma </a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray">radiation</a>) are of limited scope with compare to CMB due the dispersion (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin_limit">GZK limit</a>) in analogy to capillary waves spreading at water surface (compare the celerity curve bellow). The energy density of 3D space-time (roughly given by third power of Planck constant, i.e. 1oE+96 J/m<span style="font-size:85%;">3</span>) corresponds the mass density of black hole, which is forming it.<br /><br /><img src="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Waves/imgwav/wavcvslength.gif" /><br /><br />From AWT follows, every Aether fluctuation of diameter bellow 1.7 cm will dissolve into photons and neutrinos, while the larger objects will collapse into heavier objects and evaporate by the same way. The black holes of diameter bellow 1.7 cm can evaporate via Hawking radiation during observable Universe lifespan, while these larger ones will evaporate by accretion radiation - so we can say, such objects are the most stable objects inside of observable Universe generation and accretion radiation is AdS-CFT dual to Hawking's one (massive objects bellow 1.7 scale falling into event horizon would appear like tiny quantum fluctuations from distant perspective outside of black hole due the immense space-time compactification around it). The density of largest black holes existing inside of observable Universe (with 10+9 times the mass of the sun, which has a radius of event horizon about 109 km) should be comparable with human scale (1 kg per dm3).<br /><br />Curvature instability is scale invariant. During Big Bang event, all particles were formed by supersymmetric gravitons, the average size of which corresponded the wavelength of CMB photons. During universe evolution the larger gravitons condensed into particles and objects of observable matter, while the smaller fluctuations have evaporated into antiparticles of matter, which were dispersed by its repulsive gravity into clouds of dark matter, surrounding the objects of normal matter. The same criterion can be applied for planet and planetoids formation or even for predators-prey relationship of biosphere. Only pieces larger then some 1.7 cm can serve as a nuclei for accretion and subsequent gravitational growth, or they would become dispersed by radiation pressure of CMB photons. The smaller pieces of matter tends to condense as a whole in large clusters, instead (large means > 1.7 cm).<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/spacetime/photon_length0.gif" /><br /><br />From AWT follows, the size of photons is given by interference of light wave with graviton background of Planck length scale, forming the quantum foam background of universe. From interference condition follows, the size of wave packet is equal to their wavelength size exactly at the 1.7 cm scale, which effectivelly means, microwave photons are serving both like particles, both like waves, i.e. by the same way, like gravitons in previous generation of Universe, expanded during inflation or like graviton waves in future generation of Universe before its gravitational collapse. The photons of larger wavelength cannot exist, because they tend to condense spontaneously with these smaller ones into solitons of negative rest mass (axions, or so called tachyon condensate).<br /><br />Even tiny droplets and bubbles in mixtures tends to shrink and evaporate bellow 1.7 cm scale, while larger droplets and bubbles expands and fragments. The least stable droplets of 1,7 cm diameter (liposomes) could started the evolution of life at shallow places of ancient oceans (i.e. inside of multiphase environment of the largest possible complexity). The repeated breakdown by surf waves enabled them to compete for collection and/or (later) production of surfactants, which enabled them to remain as stable, as possible. Whole evolutionary process lasted whole Universe age, because AWT makes no conceptual difference between evolution of inorganic matter and organic life. Therefore it's nothing very strange, the quantum nature and size of neural standing waves corresponds the size of Universe scope, perceivable just by these waves (i.e. quantum gravity standing wave, forming the observable Universe generation). The increasing density of Universe resulting from vacuum foam collapse corresponds the expansion of the scope of human consiusness, capable to comprehend an increasing space-time portion of Aether chaos complexity during time.<br /><br />The anthropocentric question, whether 1.7 cm distance scale is adjusted by evolution or it just enables the best visibility of Universe remains a tautology by Aether theory, because from AWT follows, every object which is product of less or more long term evolution has tendency to remain adapted to its environment and vice-versa. The scope of observable Universe always depends on entropy density of observer (i.e. number of time events/mutations involved) - the primitive organisms can see their Universe smaller, the more intelligent larger accordingly.<br /><br />Lord Byron: "<span style="font-style: italic;">Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction</span>."Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-42718272071038448332009-01-02T13:35:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:38:25.836-07:00Motivations of Aether Wave TheoryAWT isn't based on some mysticism at all - on the contrary. AWT is based on Boltzmann gas model - it's a basic system for definition of thermodynamical energy, instead. Furthermore, this model isn't ad-hoce at all. It's based on the understanding, from sufficiently distant perspective every object appears like pin-point particle. And every complex interactions in such system can be modeled by system of colliding particles. For example, people are complex objects, but if we would observe them from sufficient altitude, they would appear and behave like chaotic 2D gas composed of colliding particles. It's natural reduction of virtually every physical system.<br /><br />Despite its conceptual simplicity, this system becomes irreducibly complex with increasing of particle density, because it forms fractaly nested density fluctuations composed of density fluctuations. Such behavior can be both simulated by computers, both modeled by dense gas condensation (supercritical fluid at the right picture) and the resulting complexity is limited just by computational power. Which means, AWT principle enables to model systems of arbitrary complexity just by recursive application of trivial mechanism. If nothing else, we should consider this model because of its simplicity and the fact, nobody did propose it for modeling of observable reality, yet.<br /><br /><img style="width: 134px; height: 135px;" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/motion.gif" /> <img style="width: 127px; height: 134px;" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/foam_part.gif" /> <img style="width: 133px; height: 133px;" src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/supercritical2.gif" /><br /><br />The main reason for reintroduction of Aether theory back into mainstream physics is better and more consistent and universal understanding of fundamental connections of reality. Most of these motivations weren't never presented by mainstream physics and they're forming the theorems, i.e. testable predictions of AWT at the same moment, because they can be derived from ab-initio simulation of nested density fluctuations of Boltzmann particle gas. This list bellow will be extended by new ideas occasionally.<br /><ol><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Explanation of energy spreading by light<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">The spreading of inertial energy requires inertial environment. We cannot use the energy concept for light waves spreading, while ignoring mass concept, the mass-energy equivalence in particular. </span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Explanation of wave character of light.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Only system of mutually colliding particles can spread energy in waves, vacuum shouldn't be any exception.</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Explanation of finite frequency of light.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Only system of nonzero mass density can spread waves of finite frequency, as follows from wave equation.</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Explanation of high light energy density/frequency achievable.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Classical models of luminiferous Aether were based on sparse gas model of Aether, which cannot spread the waves of energy density corresponding to gamma or cosmic radiation frequency.</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Explanation of light speed invariance.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Light speed invariance is consequence of Aether concept and the fact, the light speed is the fastest energy spreading observable (if wee neglect the gravity waves, which are too faint to be observable), so we can use only light for observation of reality, the light speed/spreading in particular.</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Explanation of absence of reference frame for light spreading in vacuum.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">If we use the light for observation of light spreading in luminiferous Aether, it's motion/reference frame can be never locally observed just by using of light waves, because no object can serve as a subject and as a mean of observation at the same moment.</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Explanation</span><span style="font-style: italic;">/prediction</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> of transversal character of light waves</span>.<br /><span style="font-size:85%;">In particle environment, only transversal waves can remain independent to environment reference frame by the same way, like motion of capillary waves at water surface.</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Explanation/prediction of foamy structure of vacuum.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Only foam structure composed of "strings" and "(mem)branes" can spread energy in transversal waves through bulk particle environments (string and brane theories) and/or provide the properties of elastic fluid, composed of "spin loops" vortices (LQG theory).</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Explanation/prediction of two vector character of transversal light waves.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Only nested foam structure can promote the light spreading in two mutually perpendicular vectors of electrical and magnetic intensity (<a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/abeliandef0.gif">1</a>, <a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif">2</a>). The formation of nested density fluctuations can be observed experimentally during condensation of supercritical fluid (<a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/supercritical2.gif">1</a>).</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Explanation/prediction of uncertainty principle.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">The transversal character of surface waves is always violated on behalf of underwater waves. Inside of inhomogeneous particle system the energy is always spreading in both transversal, both longitudinal waves, thus violating the predictability/determinism of energy spreading and introducing an indeterminism into phenomena, mediated/observed by using it.</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Explanation/prediction of particle/wave duality.<br /></span>E<span style="font-size:85%;">very isolated energy wave (a soliton) increases the Aether foam density temporarily by the same way, like the soap foam gets dense during shaking due the spontaneous symmetry breaking. As the result, every soliton spreads like less or more pronounced gradient/blob of Aether density and it bounces from internal walls of surface gradient of such blob like standing wave packet, i.e. particle (<a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/simulace/incompressible/index.htm">1</a>).</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Explanation/prediction of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctuations">virtual particles</a>.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">The concept of virtual particles, which appear and dissapear temporarily in vacuum is typical behavior of density fluctuations inside of every gas or fluid and physics knows no other way, in which such behavior can be realized.</span></li><li><span style="font-style: italic;">Explanation/definition of time dimension and space-time concept.<br /></span>...</li></ol><p>"..<em>People have often tried to figure out ways of getting these new concepts. Some people work on the idea of the axiomatic formulation of the present quantum mechanics. I don't think that will help at all. If you imagine people having worked on the axiomatic formulation of the Bohr orbit theory, they would never have been led to Heisenberg's quantum mechanics. They would never have thought of non-commutative multiplication as one of their axioms which could be challenged. In the same way, any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present, and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation..</em>."</p><p>Paul A.M. Dirac, in Development of the Physicist's conception of Nature, In The Physicists conception of Nature ed.Jaghdish Metra, D. Reidel, 1973., pp 1-14.<br /></p>Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-89530553535804654902008-12-28T19:43:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:38:25.836-07:00Duality of relativity and quantum mechanicsThe dual (invariant to R-1/R transform) character or general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) was expressed in 1997 in form of so called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldacena_duality">Maldacena duality</a>, based on <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%28anti-de-Sitter%20space/conformal%20field%20theory%20correspondence%29,">AdS-CFT correspondence</a> (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9902131">1</a>). This duality is based on fact, every relativity phenomena can be perceived as quantum mechanics phenomena, when observing from exsintric perspective instead of insintric one. As a classical example can serve the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens">gravitational lens</a> phenomena, which appears like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_aberration">relativistic aberration</a> from perspective of internal observer, while it manifests itself like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle">quantum uncertainty</a> phenomena violating Lorentz symmetry postulate from outside perspective (<a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/10/awt-and-lorentz-symmetry-violation.html">1</a>, <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/11/was-relativity-proven-by-quantum.html">2</a>).<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/light_gravity.gif" /><br /><br />It can be demonstrated easily, QM <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/11/dual-approach-to-aether-theory.html">is dual</a> to relativity via duality of gravity to omnidirectional universe expansion. It's not so well known (mainstream science covers it), quantum mechanics suffers serious experimental problem in general, because it predicts, every free particle should expand into infinite volume by solution of time dependent Schrödinger equation. This discrepancy can be explained by potential of gravity field, which keeps the particle "at place". The problem is, gravity itself cannot be derived from QM by any way. The omnidirectional collapse of space-time would have the very same effect, though.<br /><br /><img style="width: 359px; height: 160px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/relativity/grqm1.png" /><br />GR suffers the very dual problem, as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler">J.A.Wheeler</a> has demonstrated by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_%28physics%29">geon concept</a> (<a href="http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.97.511">1</a>) of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrodynamics">geometrodynamics</a>. Geon is hypothetical closed artifact, formed just by gravity waves spreading by graviton field. Every particle or black hole can be considered a geon from certain perspective. Albeit from GR follows, such geon should collapse into singularity by its own gravity, which can be prevented by omnidirectional space-time expansion. By such way, validity of GR can be saved by concept of space-time expansion by the same way, like validity of QM depends on space-time collapse.<br /><br />This apparent paradox can be reconciled by concept of black hole/gravastar (i.e. graviton or "dark energy" star), forming our Universe generation. The gravitational collapse of such object is followed by gradual increasing of its internal density, which manifest itself as a omnidirectional space-time expansion from internal observer perspective, i.e. perspective of observer, which is formed by standing waves of such environment. The single concept can therefore explain the conceptual problems of both GR, both QM at the same moment.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/spaceevol.gif" /><br /><br />By such way, we can understand the gravity action as an acceleration force in terms of omnidirectional expansion inside of Aether density gradient. Such gradient makes a gradient of expansion speed, i.e. the gravity force. Such approach has even it's own testable predictions, for example in slowing of speed of light or by gradual expansion and dissolving of kilogram/meter prototypes from long-term perspective (<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm">1</a>, <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news64.html">2</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20744160/">3</a>) and its closely related to dark matter and dark energy phenomena.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/collapse_matter.gif" /><br /><br />Now we can understand as well, why numeric prediction of cosmological constant by GR differs by two hundreds orders of magnitude from those predicted by QM. QM follows the model of collapsing universe, while GR considers the concept of expanding universe on background.Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-41285503275910853422008-12-27T07:27:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:38:25.836-07:00Big Bang and Olbers paradox<p>Classical explanation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers">Olber's paradox</a> is, the dark matter between stars prohibits us to see the light of stars filling whole night sky. Such explanation is relevant for most distant active gallactic nuclei (AGN), observable only in infrared due the dust cover (so called the spherical dust galaxies <a href="http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3309141.html?page=1&c=y">revealed</a> by Spitzer infrared telescope).<br /></p><p><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/astronomy/Olbers_Paradox.gif" /> <img style="WIDTH: 203px; HEIGHT: 150px" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/astronomy/spitzerhubble.jpg" /></p><p>If we consider the finite speed of light, then the fact night sky is black would mean, the Universe can be larger, then the finite speed of light allows. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory">Big Bang theory</a> considers, light emanated by primordial matter was of very high frequency, therefore it can be observed as a CMB by now. If we consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Principle">cosmological principle</a> of uniform isotropic universe, then the presence of CMB supports rather idea of infinitely large Universe, from which only the visible portion of light can be perceived. Radiofrequency part of CMB is forming a thermal noise of matter at the zero temperature (ZPE). As we can see, Olber's paradox cannot be used as an evidence of finite Universe and Big Bang theory reliably. AWT is assuming, observable Universe generation appears like rather common AGN from outer perspective, therefore our Universe doesn't differs very much from another quasars (white holes), which are observable inside of our Universe by Copernican principle.<br /></p>Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-86388693102112107022008-12-06T11:49:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:37:27.821-07:00AWT and double slit experiment<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment">Double slit experiment</a> (DSE or DSX) is an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEzRdZGYNvA">iconic experiment</a> of quantum mechanics, because it illustrates well quantum delocalization and collapse of wave function phenomena and you can play with it in <a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/simulace/schrodinger.htm">Java applet herein</a>. While mechanical analogy of DSE <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news78650511.html">exists already</a>, the AWT explanation of DSE experiment is quite easy and it follows exactly the macroscopic experiment.<br /><br /><img class="imglft" title="Single-particle interference observed for macroscopic objects" style="width: 174px; height: 168px;" alt="This photo shows the droplet bouncing through one slit while its trajectory is deflected by the interference of the reflected waves from two slits." src="http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2006/Walkerphoto%281%29.jpg" /> <img style="width: 226px; height: 169px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/quantum_split.jpg" /><br /><br />By AWT vacuum has a foamy structure of Aether density fluctuations and every object is moving through vacuum foam like boat or fish beneath water surface. Such fish creates a typical undulations of water surface - a ripples, which are always perpendicular to the fish motion direction. In quantum physics such undulations are called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis">de-Broglie wave</a>.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/fish_flowing.gif" width="320" height="200" /><br /><br />At the water surface, the surface waves are increasing a density of density fluctuations, thus leading into formation of turbulence. In vacuum, such shaking increases a density of vacuum foam in direction, by which particle is moving, so that the speed of light remains invariant for such object. From outside perspective we could observe a relativistic contraction of such object. This connection illustrates a close relation of quantum mechanics and relativity:<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/relativity/lightspeed.gif" /><br /><br />Note that the deBroglie wave propagates through vacuum by speed of light, it always advances particle location like ripples spreading from swimming duck. While pin-point particle cannot pass through both slits at the single moment apparently, its deBroglie wave can do that without problem under formation formation of typical flabelliform interference patterns.<br /><br /><img style="width: 160px; height: 160px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/normaldifr.gif" /> <img style="width: 159px; height: 159px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/quantumdiffr.gif" /><br /><br />Because every shaking makes vacuum foam <a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/simulace/incompressible/index.htm">more dense</a>, the vacuum density becomes non-uniformly distributed around particle, when passing through double slit. This affects particle motion accordingly, because by AWT every particle consist of standing wave packet and it propagates along foam branes like wave. All waves are focused by more dense environment, so that path of particle motion prefers the directions of flabelliform patterns. At the case of repeated experiment, the particle traveling through random undulations of vacuum foam follows the wave interference patterns at target. Note, that such interpretation doesn't require mutual interaction of individual particles during experiment - path of particle spreading remains affected by interference even at the case, when only single particle gets involved into experiment.Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-13122534866266689672008-12-02T11:55:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:37:27.821-07:00Aether and structure of observable realityBy AWT the observable reality appears as being formed by nested density fluctuations of hypothetical inhomogeneous environment of infinite mass/energy density, i.e. the Aether. By such a way, AWT doesn't explain, what the reality is, it just extrapolates the criterions of observability well known from everyday reality. Inside of dense particle environment, everything, what we can observe are density fluctuations, i.e. the gradients - from this the concept of gradient driven reality follows. In addition, just these density fluctuations can serve for causal energy spreading in transversal waves, the longitudinal waves follows Huygens principle, so they cannot serve as a causal base of information (for longitudinal waves every event has an infinite number of parallel consequences).<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/supercrit.gif" /><br /><br />Fortunately, it's rather easy to imagine the behavior of infinitely dense particle system, because it can be modeled by dense gas system or cold plasma crystals, both modeled by using of computers and nested foam structure of neural network is adapted to parallel processing (an intuition), being an Aeter simulator. The fundamental system here is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas">ideal gas</a>, following <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell-Boltzmann_distribution">Boltzmann-Maxwell distribution</a> in infinite number of dimensions. The extrapolation of density fluctuations to infinite density leads to concept of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain">Boltzmann brain</a>, proposed by assistant of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann">Ludwig Boltzmann</a> reportedly. By this idea whole universe appears a single giant fluctuation of Aether. Surprisingly, this model is very well defined and conditioned, because here's the only way, by which such dense gas can condense into more complex structures. Therefore we can expect, with increasing gas density the solution would converge by well defined way, the only problem is, we can model such system with limited precision by real systems or computers by using of contemporary technology. In this post we can just emphasize some common aspects of very dense particle system behavior.<br /><br />The most fundamental aspect of observable reality is hidden in question, how we can see at least something from infinitely dense chaos? The reason is somewhat anthropic: we are highly causal phase of Aether borrowed from long term causal evolution, so we can see just a causal portion of chaos (this one mediated by transversal waves) and such portion is infinitely tiny with compare to rest of chaos: the infinitely small portion of infinitely huge and dense environment is just the observable part of reality. Inside of such small portion of reality the information can propagate by the limited speed (the speed of light in particular), so we can see just a limited number of different states of chaos in each moment. The limited number of chaos is always stochastic by the same way, like dense field of limited number of points consisting of limited number of colors: a scale invariant density fluctuations appears here:<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/noise20.gif" /> <img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/noise30.gif" /><br /><br />As the result, the particle concept in it's true singular nature of zero dimensional objects colliding in infinitely dimensional space is limited just to very fundamental level of Aether, which remains unreachable for causal observation by definition. All other parts of reality will be composed by less or more dense particle fluctuations, which are having a character of scale invariant nested density fluctuations (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0703260">unparticles</a>), similar to fractal clouds and/or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perlin_noise">Perlin noise</a>, composed of octals (Perlin noise is fundamental fractal here):<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/perlin_noise.jpg" /><br /><br />The observation through thick layer of Aether would lead into gradual dispersion of transversal waves and the formation of density gradients and/or even singularities, which will manifests itself like phase transform with respect to time dimension. With increasing gradient density the blobby character of density fluctuations will change into dense nested foam of 1D/2D strings and membranes, because only sharpest gradients can be distinguished from noise here. This transform is illustrated by above picture. The density of foam will increase and at the certain moment it will form a continuum, inside which new generation of density fluctuations will emerge. We can observe this structure inside of dark matter streaks, which are demonstrating, how the vacuum should appear at the Planck scale level as well.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/perlin_noise.gif" /><br /><br />This is because of another important aspect of Aether foam: every reality can be perceived by local observer from at least two points of view: "inner" (insintric) and "outer" (exsintric) one (every truth has two sides, here). In more general perspective these points of view will become fragmented into plural ones in analogy to structure of Aether foam itself. The existence of multiple perspectives is trivial consequence of character of information spreading, which can be modeled by energy spreading in transversal waves through dense soap foam. When we place a light source inside of bucket into foam, we can observe, the light will penetrate whole volume, so that the inner surface of bucket will remain illuminated by the same way, like this outer one - the light spreading will become omnipresent here:<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/foam_geometry.gif" /><br /><br />Practical consequence of this aspect of Aether behavior is, every density fluctuation will interact with the neighboring fluctuations by at least two ways: like as it would being part of them (insintric perspective), both like it would be outside of them (exsintric perspective). These two ways of interactions will always interfere in stable given ratio, thus forming of causal base of so called quantization. This is an important aspect of chaos driven reality: we should explain, not only why everything differs each other, but the existence of analogies and classes as well: i.e. the fact, why certain fundamental parts of reality appears so similar each other (atoms, elementary particles, living species, large black holes and galaxies). i.e. quantization of matter and energy.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/nested_foam0.jpg" /><br /><br />Testable consequence of dual nature of reality is supersymmetry and self-similarity of Universe at Planck and cosmological scales: the Universe appears as being formed by itself from long-term distance perspective, the structure of quantum foam is similar in many aspects to streaks of dark matter, the Universe appears like interior of black hole being observed from outside at the same time, the mass/energy density of vacuum corresponds the mass/energy density of black holes, the cosmic microwave background corresponds the Hawking radiation of black hole, whose lifespan corresponds the Universe age, and so on. Later we can discuss some practical consequences of supersymmetry duality on the examples/analogies of evolutionary biology and sociology.Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-55205857086842387972008-11-27T20:39:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:37:27.822-07:00AWT and surface curvature symmetry violation<p>In physics the reality is divided into particles of matter (i.e. fermions) and the particles of space and energy, (i.e. bosons). It's quite surprising, this asymmetry wasn't never disputed in terms of woman and man principle in modern physics, albeit it's quite apparent . The reason is probably political, because this analogy has too sexist connotations in its consequences: it leads to the conclusions, women will never completely equal to mans, or even worse: the situation, when they become converge in their social roles, will indicate phase transition in society, a social revolution...<br /></p><p>When explaining the evolution of Universe and observable matter, the Aether Wave Theory is inspired by phase transition in dense particle systems, the condensation of supercritical fluids in particular . Such transition is the most subtle phase transition inside of most dense particle system, which we can study in terrestrial condition - so that most of dualities and less or more general concepts can be observed right here directly.</p><p><span lang="en-us"></span><a style="border-width: 0pt; background-color: transparent;" href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/supercritical2.gif"><img style="width: 156px; height: 154px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/supercritical2.gif" border="1" /></a> <a style="border-width: 0pt; color: rgb(102, 153, 204); background-color: transparent;" href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/aether_density.gif"><img style="width: 157px; height: 154px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/aether_density.gif" border="1" /></a></p><p>By AWT the general explanation of symmetry violation is, everything in observable Universe is of particle nature, including us. But we are always smaller then the rest of Universe, so we are observing particles, which are forming spacetime with oposite chiral perspective, then the particles, which are sharing this space-time together with us by the same way, like we are observing objects in mirror. At {very distant places / beginning} of our Universe generation, the space-time {appears like / has condensed into} supersymmetric form of so called graviton foam, which corresponds the first generation of density fluctuations inside of supercritical fluid. The geometry of this foam is interesting by fact, it's completelly supersymmetric, i.e. it has no difference between outer or inner surface developed, i.e. its surface curvature is infinite and all particles (a gravitons) plays a role of both bosons, both fermions.<br /></p><p><a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/gravitons.gif" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><img style="width: 191px; height: 191px;" alt="user posted image" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/gravitons.gif" border="0" /></a> <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jul/catch-me-if-you-can/key_image" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><img style="width: 176px; height: 192px;" alt="user posted image" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/graviton_foam.gif" border="0" /></a><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><br /></p><p>In real cases the symmetry of graviton foam is violated less or more lately and it will separate to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racemic">racemic mixture</a> of matter and antimatter fermions and corresponding supersymmetric bosons, while the fermion surface will condense into particles of matter, while the rest will evaporate into energy, forming the rest of space. We can observe this for example during rain droplet condensation, where the newly created racemic mixture of droplets will separate by their critical size, given by oversaturation: after then the smaller droplets will evaporate on behalf of those larger ones, which will become condense into chiral droplets. Inside of anthropic Universe generation (i.e. the level of Aether fluctuations observable by human), the matter bellow human neuron scale (dual to CMB wavelength scale) tends to gradual evaporation, while the larger particles tends to gradual condensation instead.<br /></p><p><img style="width: 152px; height: 157px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/vortex/hairy_ball.gif" border="0" /> <img style="width: 167px; height: 155px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/cpinavriance.gif" /></p><p>The reason is, by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_ball_theorem">Hairy ball theorem</a> every tiny droplet consist from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair">Cooper pair</a> of quantum vortices, forming the surface of droplets - at the moment, the size of droplet increases, this symmetry is violated, while the droplets formed by odd number of vortices are preferred. This symmetry violation plays a quite significant role, until droplets remains small (analogy to neutrinos in physics), while it manifests by rather subtle way, when fermion droplets become larger (the difference between particles and antiparticles of matter is rather subtle for heavier particles) - but it never disappear completely.<br /></p><p>Therefore the fermion droplets (a female) are always slightly heavier, quiet, more stable and social particles, while the boson droplets (a) are somewhat lightweight, movable and straightforward ones. Somewhat asocial character of bosons manifests in their competitive nature. Both kinds of particles have their structure defined by chiral spiral structure inside, which is splitted and exchanged during matting under production of children particles. We can observe this process at the case of collision of vortex rings (see the videos <a href="http://serve.me.nus.edu.sg/limtt/video/collision.mpeg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">1</a>, <a href="http://serve.me.nus.edu.sg/limtt/video/Collid_Re1573.mpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">2</a> from <a href="http://serve.me.nus.edu.sg/limtt/#Video_Gallery" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">this page</a>), during which the daughter vortices (particles) are formed, note that the total chirality of resulting vortices is always retained during this transform by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether">Noether theorem</a>, which follows from momentum conservation law:<br /></p><p><a href="http://serve.me.nus.edu.sg/limtt/video/collision.mpeg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><img style="width: 239px; height: 180px;" alt="user posted image" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/collision.gif" border="0" /></a><a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/gravitons.gif" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> </a></p><p>The particle interactions aren't never quite spontaneous, they exhibit an activation energy like mercury droplets during merging, due their surface tension energy. The merging of object with positive curvature requires the temporal formation of thin neck with positive surface curvature, which is the source of repulsive force. The interactions between fermions and bosons are always more stronger, then between fermions and fermions or bosons and bosons mutually. The reason is, antisymmetric motion of Aether and Aether density compensates mutually at the case of isotropic particles, when they're appears in proximity - while at the case of supersymmetric particles it increases a causality density of Aether foam due increased energy density inbetween (a "shaking" of Aether foam between pair of particles leads to formation of gauge bosons here). This symmetry is the origin of so called <a href="http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/Class/estatics/u8l1c.html">charge interaction</a>.<br /></p><img style="width: 190px; height: 84px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/blob_interaction.gif" /> <a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/curvature.gif" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><img style="width: 175px; height: 196px;" alt="user posted image" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/curvature.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><br />The formation of supersymmetric interactions we can observe at many levels inside of our Universe. During Bang Bang the graviton foam has separated into matter and energy, during so called inflation the matter has separated further into matter and antimatter, which has evaporated gradually due its anti-gravity component, while the particles of matter condensed into atoms, forming the planet, stars and galaxies. The lepton remnant of antimatter evaporated were trapped by omni-directional expansion of space-time into clouds of so called dark matter, surrounding the observable matter.<br /><br />By AWT the evolution of life is just a continuation of condensation of inorganic matter. During life formation, the first organism were formed by liposome foam, which has separated from the surface of ancient oceans. The hydrophobic surface of foam collected the matter neutral surfactants, while the chiral more polar molecules (sacharides) we cumulated inside like source of energy. Whole biosphere collect the energy of sun, converting it into matter of fossil fuels, stored beneath the Earth surface of positive curvature, while dissipating the matter of Earth into atmosphere. The formation of family can be interpreted as another degree of condensation of matter into foam or liposome condensate, where the females which prefer more social interactions prefers to move in proximity, while the movable and far seeing males prefers to stay outside of their homes. While the division of labor following from sexual dimorphism may sound well for many male sexists, feminists can feel payed by compliment, which renders females as creatures of somewhat higher degree of condensation, i.e. material evolution.<br /><br />In accordance with this, the boson particles (males, electrons) tends to collect living matter from larger distance for food, while less movable fermion particles (females, protons) collect the inorganic matter and energy sources (fuel) from proximity like gatherers. It corresponds the social role of womans, which are giving birth and they don't like the animal killing more, then males, who are hunters by their very nature. As a boson particle, the mans have a better relations to material world, as they're producing tools, while consuming energy, while females are rather tools consumers, they cater to warm house and they have stronger relationship to animals - especially these non-carnivorous ones (horses).<br /><br /><p>In relation to neighboring material world, females are more convex (and complex) particles then males, animals are less convex, then males, but more convex, then inorganic matter and inorganic matter is more convex, then energy. Albeit at the Planck/cosmological scales we can face some supersymmetry here, because for example the most lightweight particles are behaving like most curved ones in respect to both ends of space-time curvature scale, while from the human scale perspective they're more close to photons, instead. We'll discuss later, how the surface curvature of particles affect their behavior and mutual interactions later in more details.</p>Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-26637662429541027972008-11-26T20:28:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:37:27.822-07:00AWT and the quest for HT superconductivityThe interpretation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductor">high temperature superconductivity</a> by Aether theory is surprisingly easy - so it's apparent, just the common skepticism in particle models in physics has caused, such interpretation wasn't considered before years already. The forces between highly compressed electrons are compensating mutually, which leads into chaotic motion of charged particles, where energy can propagate in waves only, i.e. via bosons, formed by foamy particle condensate. Such system is indeed difficult to handle by explicit formal models indeed - but ab-initio computer <a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/simulace/schrodinger.htm">simulations of quantum waves</a> of many particles should reveal this behavior without problem - it's somewhat surprising, they weren't made already even in context of existing theories.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/foam_part.gif" /> <img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/speckle_movie.gif" style="height: 137px; width: 137px;" /><br /><br />Anyway, to prepare condensed electron system isn't so trivial, as the "slippery" electrons cannot be simply compressed inside of vessel by piston, because they can pass through matter rather freely. For this purpose we can use a positively charged atoms, which attracts the electrons like money thrown into crowd attracts the people - the moment, when people starts to fight for free access is an analogy of quantum chaos, which we want form in electron cloud. The hole dopant atoms in semiconductor lattice can play a role of bait for electrons: the large group of holes attracts neighboring electrons, so they condensing around them. This model considers, electrons can move rather freely through lattice:<br /><br /><img border="0" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/supercond/hole_stripes0.gif" /><br /><br /><br />Unfortunately, the formation of isolated islands of condensed electrons isn't enough for establishing of superconductivity. Instead of this, so called the pseudogap state is formed, when the material exhibits most of bulk properties characteristic for true superconductors, but still hasn't a zero resistivity - this behavior is still <a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/23662">a puzzle</a> for mainstream physics, although its interpretation is easy in AWT. The increasing of hole density in general leads to the decreasing of the pressure inside of spherical islands and formation of metallic state, which is non-superconductive in general (the metals with spherical Fermi surface aren't good in superconductivity in general). Instead of this, a highly asymmetric lattices are preferred here, which are enabling the formation so called <a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/900">hole stripes</a>. Under proper doping level, a less or more continuous superconducting phase can be formed successfully. The relatively sparse superlattice character of YBaCuO mixed oxide structure provides necessary distance separation of hole stripes. Repulsive forces of electrons inside of stripes must remain balanced by binding forces of remaining atoms.<br /><br /><a href="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/supercond/doping_level.gif" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/supercond/doping_level.gif" style="cursor: pointer; height: 185px; width: 283px;" /></a><br />It's apparent, the true room temperature superconductors must be formed a 3D superlattice of holes, injected into material in nanometer resolution - which isn't so easy to produce by contemporary technologies inside of regular crystals. Foam character of electron condensate manifests by formation of double walled anti-parallel spin domains along hole stripes in accordance to <a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3398">Colin Humphreys theory</a>. We can consider them as a product of many Cooper pairs condensation along hole stripes, so that BCS/BEC theories still have their common point here.<br /><img border="0" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/supercond/doping_level_real.gif" style="height: 108px; width: 319px;" /><br />The increasing level of doping manifests itself by transition from semi-ordered anti-ferromagnetic state in which magnetic layers are interspersed with non-magnetic layers. When the doping level is increased, magnetic ordering is <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07057.html">suppressed</a> on behalf of chaotic Fermi fluid near hole stripes and pseudogap in volume phase manifests itself. When the doping level increases even more, the pressure of neighboring atoms and degree of electron condensation may not be sufficient to maintain chaotic state anymore and the superconductor goes to metallic or even nonconducting state again. Bellow is the example of fractal principle, in which hole superlattices can be produced from ceramic precursors.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/quantum/superconductor/superconductor.jpg" /><br />The surprising consequence of Aether model of HT superconductivity is, formation of superconductive phase isn't restricted just to solid phase. The electrons can condense even along surface of doped semiconductors, thus forming a superconductive channels around it. In such case, the formation of superconductive phase is even much more easier due the absence of atoms, prohibiting in electron free motion. It's virtually whole new approach to superconductivity at all.<br /><br /><img border="0" height="167" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/supercond/Diamond_super4.gif" width="254" /><br /><br />Surprisingly enough, this mechanism was <a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0268-1242/18/3/319/">already revealed</a> by prof. Johan F. Prins in 2002, who studied ion injection into diamonds (NS <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17823901.200-is-this-the-hottest-thing-in-superconductor-research.html">article</a>, <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17823934.100-superunlikely.html">refusal</a>). The n-doped diamonds are known for their very low work function due the strength of covalent C-C bonds. Therefore n-doped diamond binds a redundant electrons weakly and it can serve as a material for <a href="http://www.toshiba.co.jp/rdc/rd/fields/images/ad07_1e.jpg">cold discharge cathodes</a>, for example. At the moment, some oxygen ions are injected into diamond lattice by using of high voltage discharge, the hole atoms are attracting the surface electrons by such a way, they create a superconductive channels at the surface of diamond, which can be manifested both by <a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0268-1242/18/3/319/">zero resistivity</a> in micrometer scale, both by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect">Meissner-Ochsenfeld<b> </b>effect</a>, because the surface of plasma treated diamonds repels the magnetic micro-particles reportedly.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/supercond/Diamond_super2.gif" style="height: 284px; width: 248px;" /><br /><br />Surprisingly these fundamental findings have met with rather low attention in scientific community so far, probably due somewhat dissenter approach of prof. Prins toward mainstream science, the quantum mechanics and BSC theory in particular (<a href="http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/renormalization.shtml">1</a>, <a href="http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/2006_predictions.shtml">2</a> -the fact, some theory cannot be applied to particular situation doesn't always mean, this theory is wrong). We can met with the same situation here, like at the case of Heim theory, antigravity or cold fusion research: the hysteresis of skepticism and peer-review based approach of mainstream science isn't very good in separation of progressive ideas from these crackpot ones. Of course, the delays in research resulting from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_disbelief">pathological skepticism</a> are of the very same cost, like the false belief in void speculations - they just cannot be calculated by explicit way.Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-55382292943055210062008-11-23T05:57:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:37:27.822-07:00How much Universe appears clever for us?By AWT the Universe appears as infinite random field of nested density fluctuations. The chaotic systems are usually perceived as a counterpart of highly intelligent systems, but this stance can be misleading. For example, from perspective of ancient people or our animal pets the modern civilization and human behavior would appear a highly chaotic and unpredictable, because these unconscious observers would lack insights, about hidden motivations of people in many nested dimensions. The introduction of hidden dimensions can be modeled by projection of regularly rotating rod in 3D into 2D plane: the motion of rod shadow will always appear more chaotic then the motion of original rod. And the image of rod will appear shortened in average - so it will resemble the chaotic motion of zero dimensional Aether particles more closely (a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle">holographic intepretation</a> of quantum mechanics and Universe is based on such insight, too). Therefore the density fluctuations inside of gas ("strings" or "branes") can be modelled by projection of causual waves in higher dimensions as a caustics energy density patterns into our low-dimensional reality.<br /><br /><img style="width: 130px; height: 130px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/foam_part.gif" /> <img style="width: 130px; height: 130px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/dynafoam.gif" /> <img style="width: 130px; height: 130px;" src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/caustic.gif" /><br /><br />Therefore we can imagine, the motion inside of fields of nested density fluctuations is highly deterministic from sufficiently general perspective, because the chaotic motion of these "<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0703260">unparticles</a>" is just driven by many interactions at the same moment, so that such particles reflect all changes of environment immediately and exactly, being lightweight sufficiently. We can say, the intelligence of people is limited just because they cannot reflect all changes of their environment by sufficiently fast and farseeing way - while all these clever elementary particle can. This is the reason, why the evolution of nonliving matter occurs in substantially wider range of conditions, then the evolution (a condensation) of organic matter (while the later occurs much faster, indeed) - these smarty particles are apparently a quite well adopted to their environment already!<br /><br />From this dual perspective the fully chaotic Universe appears as infinitely intelligent system instead (a sort of an omnipresent and omniscient God), whereas the human intelligence is just a tiny part of it, concentrated into tiny space-time by long-term evolution. Such insight renders various <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism">deistic</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism">transhumanistic</a> approaches a quite relevant by the same way, like the idea, the civilization runs as a simulation. Unfortunately, these approaches are too radical and as such unbalanced and distant from everyday perspective, so it's not so easy to derive some testable predictions by using them, with compare to AWT. Instead of it - as we can see - these ideas can be derived from AWT concepts easily by logical way.<br /><br /><p>The title question is related closely to question, why the Universe appears so well fitted and balanced for human life evolution? By AWT this observation isn't accidental at all, because every causal condensate would perceive its neighborhood as a best fitted to its needs, being a product of its evolution. By AWT every anthropic view of reality is balanced by insight, the Universe is just a product of human illusions, so we are seeing the Universe as a best place for life simply because we tend to ignore the other lethal combinations subconsciously, the parallelized information mediated by longitudinal waves in particular.</p><p>"I feeling"/ego corresponds the total reflection phenomena, where waves are bouncing from internal wall of every density gradient in this perspective. Only when this density gradient is sufficiently intensive (i.e. intelligent) a total reflection can occur. From AWT perspective of <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/12/aether-and-boltzmann-brain-concept.html">Boltzmann brain</a> an interesting connection follows: every sufficiently large piece of random chaos can become intelligent automatically and it will interact with the rest of it by the similar way, like we are observing our Universe.<br /></p>Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749517869523631020.post-4382024084386552092008-11-22T19:03:00.000-08:002011-08-08T16:37:27.822-07:00Is science like democracy?This post is a reaction to <a href="http://www.ted.com/">TED lecture</a> of Lee Smolin from 2003, which was <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y96w6AFVi0o">republished recently</a> at YouTube. In fact, I was quite surprised, how deeply Mr. Smolin recognized the connection between society and spin network of Aether fluctuations, on which the Aether independent logic of LQG theory is based.<br /><br />Of course, the title question is highly political, because for many mainstream science proponents is <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/11/ted-how-science-is-nothing-like.html">rather unpleasant to admit</a>, such proclamativelly objective organization like science is driven by inter-subjective meaning of scientists like sectarian community, rather then by bare facts - despite of their origin. Such stance is somewhat idealistic or even hypocritical, indeed - because just these members are refuting or even proactivelly denying the introduction of new ideas into mainstream from outside, especially from so-called cranks. These proponents are <a href="http://nige.wordpress.com/2006/08/31/assistant-professor-lubos-motls-disgraceful-attack-on-lee-smolin/">labeling the opponents</a> purportedly by this (often <a href="http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14080">quite rude</a>) way, and they've developed a various lists of ad-hoced criterions (<a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html">1</a>, <a href="http://www.insolitology.com/games/test.htm">2</a>), analogous to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum">Malleus maleficarum</a> handbook from medieval times, which could help them to distinguish the harmful people violating the scientific integrity without having familiar with their ideas at all. These proponents are often masquerading like proper skeptics, while exhibiting one or more symptoms of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_disbelief">pathological disbelief</a>. The sectarian character of mainstream community is feeded by educational system, as we can demonstrate somewhat later.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/physorg/Malleus.jpg" /><br /><br />Unfortunately mainstream science - the theoretical physics in particular - is rather close to sectarian society being the non-profit organization dependent on mandatory fees more, then other parts of free market society. But the stance, the science is dependent to inter-subjective meaning like democracy follows directly from so-called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method">scientific method</a> based on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-reviewed">peer-review</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_Science">Popper's methodology</a>, by which theories simply have no place in science, only facts - because theories could be never considered proven with certainty. But the decision, what is still fact and what is just a theory is fully arbitrary here and it depends on the inter-subjective consensus of scientific community. It can be demonstrated easily by number of boundary phenomena, like the homeopathy, various psychic phenomena or cold fusion, which are refuted by mainstream science proponents for years - not saying about Aether concept and many others.<br /><br /><div>For example, mainstream science decided before years, Aether doesn't exist, because its motion should be observable by using of light - which wasn't confirmed experimentally with sufficient precision. But the analogy of light waves in vacuum are waves at wave surface and by using of such waves surface can be never observed, because is serving as a space for them already. Therefore the negative result of M-M experiment and others cannot serve as a ultimate evidence against Aether concept.<br /><br />Therefore, Mr. Smolin is right in large extent and mainstream science still depends on inter-subjective opinion heavily, thus exhibiting a character of democracy or even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy">meritocracy</a>. Simply because facts are rarely considered by science, only interpretations of facts - exactly the opposite, what the scientific method should be. This is logical consequence of tautological character of symmetry in Poppers methodology, where each negation of some theory becomes another theory, which should be tested independently. From this perspective Poppers methodology doesn't bring any ultimate criterion of the validity of so-called scientific approach and Mr. Smolin is quite right in his point, something like scientific method doesn't exists, in fact.<br /><br />In analogy to previous example, the famous M-M experiment "proving the absence of Aether reliably" should by still handled with caution, because the absence of Aether wasn't, what the M-M experiment has measured, exactly - such conclusion is just a weak interpretation of its result and this interpretation can be mistaken by the same way, like whatever other interpretation or theory. Unfortunately, many mainstream science proponents are driven by tendency of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_disbelief">pathological disbelief</a> to deny, rather than doubt, their approach to reality is biased - so that Aether concept was thrown out of science for more then one century.<br /></div><br />With compare to above, AWT introduces a concept of so-called pluralities, which are generalization of dualities used in quantum field theories. Dualities are originally a concept of projective geometry, which can be called an "perspective of interpretation" or "point of view". The significant point here is, the things often appear reciprocal from reciprocal perspective. The simplest example is Maldacena duality: when you're sitting inside of gravitational lens, the path of light appears straight, the space-time appears curved for you and everything appears OK from relativity perspective.<br /><br /><img src="http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/light_gravity.gif" /><br /><br />But whenever we are observing the same phenomena from outside, everything will change: here no signs of time dilatation and curved space - but the path of light appears curved, instead. This leads to the Lorentz symmetry violation, the causality violation (you can see a multiple images/consequences of the same phenomena) and other effects following from quantum mechanics. The nested Aether foam concept introduces a concept of pluralities here. This doesn't mean, the causality of scientific thinking is violated - it just means, it strictly depends on the observational perspective, the postulate set chosen in particular. By AWT every rule violates itself in less or more global scale, the progressive approach of mainstream science becomes brake of the further evolution less or more lately and the roles of intuitive and formal thinking alternates during such evolution, thus forming a nested phases of Aether foam. Such behavior can be demonstrated by relation of interactions inside of nested fields of density gradients to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%83%C2%B6del">Goedel incompleteness theorem</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox">liar paradox</a>. By such way, AWT reconciles the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism">positivistic philosophy</a> of many mainstream proponents with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28learning_theory%29">constructivism</a> of Lee Smolin and others independent scientists.<br /><br /><br />Mr. Lee Smolin basically said, most difficult thing in science is to admit, someone else could have his piece of truth. By AWT the theories is behaving like condensate of neural waves inside of human brains, which are intensifying the information spreading by such a way, we can compare it to density blob, focusing the information spreading around it like optical lens. But the very same effect makes a communities of different theorists mutually intolerant, because such gradient exhibits a "surface tension", which leads to repulsive interactions, which we can observe at the case of mercury droplets easily. Occasionally, such community can close itself into sectarian informational singularity due total reflection phenomena, occurring at the surface of such causality blob. thus changing itself into boson condensate. Such singularity is formed by systematic censorship and personal relationships (a biased view attracts another people with biased view and their actions are synergistic) - so that only single-minded opinions will prevail at the end by selection. Such selection occurs even during fall of matter into black holes, which are collecting just a denses parts of matter, while radiating the rest at the form of so called accretion radiation. Most groups in blogosphere exhibit the very same behavior.<br /><br />"<i>Autoritätsdusel ist der größte Feind der Wahrheit</i>," Albert Einstein, 1901<br /><br />If it's so, isn't it strange, why just mainstream science is meritocracy driven?Zephir AWThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14427698206253594481noreply@blogger.com8