Saturday, December 27, 2008

Aether and emergence paradigm.

Emergence concept is one of four postmodern paradigms, by which contemporary physics converges to Aether based models of reality. The another ones are unparticle physics of Howard Georgi, Process physics of R.T.Cahill (Wikipedia article deleted by trolls already) and Constructal theory of A. Bejan. Aether concept covers all these particular theories into single one. Until now, emergence concept helped to cover the Aether concept for mainstream physics before publicity. Surprisingly (but quite logically from platonic perspective of mainstream science), while the causal basis of emergence concept is the least understood, it remains accepted in best- if not trendy - by mainstream, as the fast growing number of arXiv HEP articles indicates.

Being quite ancient, emergence concept has no single author, but the most significant proponent of this approach is Standford physicist R. Laughlin, particularly due his personal experience with emergent high pressure phenomena during nuclear research in Livermore. In his popular book "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down" (2005) he argues for emergence as a replacement for reductionism in accordance to 1972 article by Phil W. Anderson More is different, extended later by preprint of Mile Gu et all More really is different.

Prof. Laughing's stance can be understood by the way, it has no meaning to try to extrapolate the theories too far, until we don't understand their postulates well. It's not a reductionists stance, rather sort of logical optimization of approach. For example, when we start to develop a formal theory from two or more sets of mutually inconsistent postulates, we'll always finish in singular landscape of many possible solutions, because of poorly conditioned condition at the very beginning. Under such circumstances has no meaning to develop some extrapolations based on consecutive logic too deeply - we should rather develop the super-symmetric part of theory, based on parallelized approach, i.e. the intuition.

The conceptual basis of emergence in AWT is trivial and based on the fact, every entity of causal reality (a "particle") should be of positive curvature to remain observable, and the effects of surface curvature are cumulative, so that in every system of high number of such particles the total curvature leads to symmetry breaking and formation of new entities in less or more distant space-time perspective (1, 2). This remains valid for every set of entities of causal reality, based on consecutive logic, i.e. reality driven by single time arrow. From this point of view we can call the Aether model a theory of emergence and vice-versa, albeit I'm in doubt, whether the emergence paradigm can be understood without particle concept at all (and by Ed Witten the same could be said about the rest of string theorists, with honour exception of L. Motl and a few others).


The practical consequence of emergence in physics is every process involving so called spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB), which is not understood by the same way, like the emergence itself by mainstream physics. As a practical example of SSB can serve every phase transform, the condensation in particular. The nested condensation of supercritical fluid can serve as an iconic example of emergence phenomena, on which whole the AWT is based.

We can met with emergence phenomena in many places in psychology, sociology and biology. A classical example of emergent process is so called imagination - i.e. the creative process of "new" ideas involving phase transforms of waves of electrochemical activity inside of human brain. Because we understand the Universe by mean of ideas, it's nothing strange, we can understood it by mean of emergence as well. The theory of prime number, Fibonacci serii and modular forms are the main areas of emergence theory in math, Penrose tiles in geometry.

In art the manifestation of emergence is manifested by so called serigraphy, i.e. the artistic approach based on repetition of elements based on stencil technique of katazome Japanese art. Albeit the most advantage examples of emergent aspects we can met in quasicrystalline structures used in Islamic art and architecture in particular, which are used in metamaterial and terrahertz technologies. The most famous promoter of serigraphy in modern art is Andy Warhol. The emergence principle is contained in fact, the repetetive application of elements brings new quality into artistic testimonial. In this sense, the violation of symmetry in serigraphy has a particular impact due its apparent evolutionary aspect: people usually prefers the patterns, which are enabling further evolution of ideas and perception, so they can become a part of transformation process.

Is gravity or even vacuum formed by neutrinos?

This post is reaction to recent arXiv article of Bob McElrath from CERN, in which the hypothesis, gravity is formed by flux of primordial neutrino fluid is conjectured. Such idea brings an Aether concept and a classical Fotio-LeSage theory of gravity in mind immediately. Some authors are even considering, the vacuum itself is formed by neutrino fluid, it means, the observable neutrinos are just wildly moving species in oceans of neutrinos.

Personally, while such theory appears appealing from many reasons and we can see many connections to ancient Aether theories apparently, personally I'm in doubt, just the neutrinos are fundamental particles, responsible for gravity action, space-time (curvature) the less. By such theories neutrinos are considered to play role of gravitons or even Aether particles - i.e. much more fundamental particles, then neutrinos. Neutrinos are particle exhibiting a weak force, which is explained by AWT like manifestation of surface tension, analogous to repulsive force of tiny mercury droplets, which are composed by even much smaller particles. In addition, if neutrinos are forming gravity force, they should remain very invariant to it. Such neutrinos not only should pass the event horizon of black holes freely, their concentration should form the gravity field itself and gravity waves should be formed by waves of neutrino concentration. After then the event horizon of black holes should be formed by pure neutron fluid and black holes should be a neutrino stars. Inside of neutrino stars no gravity should appear at all, which violates the concept of daughter singularities inside them. While even AWT considers, some neutrinos could pass event horizon of black holes, observed neutrino flux emanated by black holes is generally much weaker.

In addition, the high density of neutrinos in vacuum brings another conceptual problems. By contemporary theories the mass of neutrinos accounts for some 5% of total mass of dark matter, i.e. the same portion, like photons of light. The neutrino gravity model would require such portion to become a much higher to explain a large gravity field, thus violating the concept of dark matter with repulsive behavior and gravitational lensing at the same moment.

In addition, high concentration of primordial neutrino flux makes the measurement of solar neutrino flux impossible, while we can still measure it with precision, sufficient for detection of neutron oscillations (we cannot measure the flux of water molecules, if such molecules are forming water at the same moment). From all these reasons is apparent, the vacuum must be formed by much smaller and more dense particles than neutrinos. Because we can see no apparent lower limit for Aether particle size, AWT is assuming, Aether particles are infinitely small, thus making Aether (particle field forming vacuum) universal, but abstract concept.

The neutrino based gravity theory can serve as an example of theory, which can be disproved easier by predicate logic, then by formal math, because it behaves in many aspects like epicycles theory of deBrahe, which supplies many predictions consistent with heliocentric model. Because of conceptual richness of Aether model, such emergent theory can even supply a new testable predictions, because it brings a new insights into existing model of gravity (a density gradient concept in particular). If nothing else, such theory is pleasant by its adherence to Occam razor principle, because it doesn't introduce a new concepts into physics - it just combines the well known ones. But as we can see on the example of Ptolemy's model (which follows the Occam's razor principle apparently) - even such approach can become misleading from less or more distant perspective.

Albert Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Big Bang and Olbers paradox

Classical explanation of Olber's paradox 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 revealed by Spitzer infrared telescope).

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. Big Bang theory considers, light emanated by primordial matter was of very high frequency, therefore it can be observed as a CMB by now. If we consider cosmological principle 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.