Friday, May 08, 2009

AWT and multiverse concept

This post is a reaction to recent NewScientist article, promoting the string theory motivated view of multiverse concept by Brian Greene. The crucial problem here is, the multiverse concept is poorly defined even with respect to other concepts of mainstream physics, the AWT the less. How the scope of multiverse is defined? How is it related to "many worlds" or "parallel universe" concepts?
  • "Many worlds" concept was promoted by Hugh Everett originally (1957) and it usually means, different observers would see the same space-time event differently.
  • Parallel universe concept usually considers the existence of another, less or more similar - just causally separated - universe at the different place of space-time.
  • Multiverse in string theory interpretation usually means, at some (if not all) places of our space-time another space-time events may occur in hidden dimensions set alternatively.

If we define our universe like place, where known laws of existing physics remains valid, we can say, our Universe is defined as a place, where some sufficiently general theory of everything remains valid. If string theory is such a theory, for example, we can postulate our Universe as a place, where string theory remains valid and the parallel universe will be place, where string theory isn't valid. Such definition would mean, string theory isn't TOE anymore, or it even contradicts itself, as it predict something, which violates the string theory. Which is probably not, what the string theorists (prof. Brian Greene or Michio Kaku in particular) expects/promote.

OK, we can define a parallel universe as a place, where all existing physical laws remains valid, it just exhibits another configuration or different physical constants. For example, it's the place, where existing particles are creating different structures, then those, which we know from our Universe. For example, in tropic areas electrons and protons are forming rain forests, whereas in Arctic areas they're forming ice only - is that what the multiverse means? Supposedly not. So, we can consider, in multiverse only gravitons (axions or neutrino or black holes..) can exists, all remaining particles or structures are of different nature, stability, etc. As such multiverse could serve the interior of neutron star, after then. Which is still not, what we are looking for.

Another definition of multiverse may be based on relativity phenomena. Each of observer would see a bit different reality, while these realities are still tied together by common radiative time arrow. For example, observer in relative motion would see the same muon less stable or even decomposed, then observer at rest. It seems, such situation still doesn't fulfill the definition of multiverse, as it falls belong realm of predictions of classical relativity.

The uniqueness of radiative time arrow would be violated at the case, when light signals propagates through density gradient of vacuum, so that the gravitational lensing takes place. It means, a single space-time events has a multiple consequences at different places. Is this, what the multiverse means, already? We should realize, the violation of radiative time arrow would mean the violation of Lorentz symmetry as well, which is prohibited in strictly rigorous string theory, because this theory is using special relativity in its derivations and as such it uses Lorentz symmetry as one of its fundamental postulates.

At the case of rotating black hole, the location of event horizon would depend on polarization of light - vacuum exhibits a birefringence and related phenomena, vacuum analogies of Faraday and Kerr effects. It's the another, even deeper manifestation of quantum uncertainty at macroscopic scale. Everett's interpretation of quantum entanglement uses the many worlds concept - is such manifestation of quantum uncertainty what, the multiverse means in string theory? It seems not, as string theory itself is quantum mechanics based already - the prediction of quantum uncertainty in quantum mechanic way would become a trivial conclusion here.

In AWT the existence of multiverse depends solely on observational perspective and the scope of observations. From AWT perspective, which is most general possible one, no real place for multiverse concept can exists, because everything fulfills the very same theory here. If it doesn't, then the AWT cannot predict it in causal way. From the above follows, observational perspective is always defined by observer. Because people are the only known creatures, who can observe the things like electrons, photons and black holes, the observational scope is defined by abilities of people to observe these artifacts. It has no meaning to ask, whether the multiverse can appear differently, because we couldn't see them at all. Which effectively means, no multiverse can exist here, or it would become a part of our Universe.

Because the causal perspective of people is defined by transversal energy wave spreading inside of random system of Aether particles, we would see whole Universe exactly the same. If some newly revealed physical laws would enable us to see a larger portion from our Universe, then the newly revealed portion of Universe would share the same laws with the portion of Universe observed by now. For example, we can consider, if the observable portion of Universe appears like interior of black hole, then the outer Hyper-Universe would appear exactly the same, like the observable generation of Universe - or we could never interact with it, to predict or to see it the less.

Such conclusion fits the Copernican principle in particular, by which every observable portion of Universe doesn't differ significantly from another portions of Universe and our location in Universe is not significant in any way. This theorem corresponds the anthropic principle, in which every product of long term evolution would see its environment as a best place for its life - just because it's a product of long term adaptation to this environment. From this perspective anthropic principle becomes a sort of self-referencing tautology. Which means, you cannot predict nothing very much usefull with using it, but you cannot disprove it so easily as well.

Some positivistic people aren't convenient with antropic view of reality, though - as they believe, the random model of Universe isn't sufficient for explanation of "unique character" of observable reality. They didn't realize, inside of dense random particle environment only transversal energy can propagate at distance, because longitudinal waves compensate mutually even at short distance. To be able to see our Universe sufficiently large, we should become adopted perfectly to observation of Universe in causal way, i.e. with transversal waves, which puts rather strict limit to the possible appearance of universal randomness. And the deeper in space-time perspective we are supposed to see, the stronger such limit should follow.

Four approaches to dark matter

As J. Duffield once pointed out, people often say, gravitational anomalies are evidence for dark matter, but they aren’t. Dark matter is a hypothesis that attempts to explain the evidence. The evidence is the gravitational anomaly, instead. The dark matter phenomena can be explained in context of existing theories at least four ways, which appear nearly equivalent phenomenologically. The another approach, based on dispersion in particle field based is illustrated here:
  1. The simplest explanation of dark matter (DM) is based on AWT, by which every gravity field is a result of density gradient of Aether. At the case of massive bodies the highest density gradient exists just at the surface of massive object. This density gradient is a source of additional weak gravity field of negative curvature, which attracts and collects the particles of negative surface too, the particles of antimatter in particular - which is one of the ways, in which such interpretation of DM may be tested.

    From AWT follows, the idea of gravitational singularity of general is conceptually wrong, as every high curvature of Aether density would manifests like another source of matter density, which would balance the singularity at the center. This is a direct consequence of gradient driven reality (i.e. the fact, nature doesn't like jumps and steps).

  2. Another explanation may be based on general relativity in connection to mass-energy equivalence. We can consider again, maximal curvature of space-time of every massive object exists at the surface of this object. This curvature is equivalent to energy density of space-time, which is equivalent to mass density by E=mc^2 formula (this approach was formalized by J. Bekenstein and Rudi V. Nieuwenhove recently.) This additional mass density balances the curvature of the space-time, which has caused gravity field originally.

    Note that large space-time curvature at the surface of massive object will lead to violation of buoyancy condition, because mass/energy density may become higher here, then at the center of massive object - which would lead to undulations of space-time and indeterministic quantum mechanics behavior - so it suggests a route, how to implement quantum gravity solution, at least locally.

  3. Another model of dark matter may be based on general relativity and concept of omnidirectional Universe expansion. The Lense-Thirring effect is based on constant speed of energy spreading in curved space-time, which leads to reference frame dragging. If we introduce an omnidirectional space-time expansion, it will be pronounced the more, the more the space-time is curved already. This will gradually lead to freezing of energy spreading in expanding space-time, which will therefore move like single body from distant observer perspective. For example, Pioneer anomaly is based on acceleration, which is proportional to product of Hubble constant and speed of light. It can serve as an indicia, the limited speed of light and omnidirectional expansion of space-time itself is sufficient for explanation of dark matter behavior.

    The surface-tension model of AWT is still more intuitive here, though: we can imagine, the gravity field of galaxy behaves like single giant water droplet, the surface of which is behaving like water surface. And energy spreads always slower at the water surface, then through underwater or above the surface. It means, at surface layer of every gradient of gravity field the light or gravity spread in slower speed, then at the bulk. The space-time moves here like more dense and rigid body, which we can observe by rotational curves of individual stars at the galactic boundaries.
  4. The most abstract explanation of dark matter phenomena may be based on pure geometry of omnidirectional space-time expansion, where the volume of every area of space-time increases faster, then its surface. Because geometry of energy spreading is given by Lagrangian (which follows from diffusional Aether model on background), the energy spreading through bulk (via longitudinal waves) switches itself into surface spreading (via transversal waves) in less or more distant perspective - thus creating a new reference frame, because human creatures can consider only surface transversal waves in causal energy spreading at distance.
The problem of math models is, they become poorly conditioned, when large number of parameters or postulates is involved. As we can see, even qualitative models may lead to similar results here - so it may be difficult to distinguish between then. The increasing number of various theories becomes a brake of the intersubjective understanding of reality, after then - which isn't quite accidental here, because dark matter is a quantum gravity phenomena and a manifestation of hidden dimensions of space-time. We cannot have a formal model of gravity based on quantum mechanics, while retaining full determinism of general relativity. Mainstream physics was trapped in determinism of consecutive logics, on which formal math is based.

Sunday, May 03, 2009

AWT and room temperature supersolidity

How AWT, tin cry, snow avalanche, liquid crystals and helium supersolid may be related mutually? Well, by emergence of many instances of surface quantum phenomena into macroscopic bulk effect. The fact, helium doesn't freeze at room pressure even at the absolute zero temperature is a direct evidence of Aether character of vacuum, which exhibit a Brownian motion, which keeps the nuclei of helium atoms in "aethernal" motion (so called the "zero-point energy" or ZPE), by the same way, like pollen particles in water. Only religious refusal of Aether concept during last one hundred years prohibited the mainstream physicists to realize this apparent connection. The remarkable fact here is, zero point energy of vacuum originated at the Planck scale level (1.6 x 10E-35 meters) manifests in the way, which is observable by naked eye at the human scale (3 x 10E-3 meters) - i.e. over thirty orders of scale magnitude - which is truly amazing!

By AWT the supersolidity is a quantum analogy of liquid crystals or ice regelation. Did you notice, how fresh cold snow crackles and crunches under your feet? A supersolidity takes place here - just in quite limited extent, indeed. The trick is, the surface of helium-4 crystals isn't dry in certain range of low temperatures, as it's being covered by thin layer of molten superfluid helium, which lubricates them by the same way, like surface of snowflakes. In thin a few nanometers thick layers so called ballistic transport mechanism takes place. It can be called a "low distance superconductivity" of "low distance superfluidity". We can observe this in thin layers of graphene or semiconductors even at room temperature: the electrons aren't moving' continuously here, but in small jumps, during which they're behaving like boson condensate. This is a result of geometric degeneration of quantum wave, which is constrained in thin layer like particle in 1D box - so called quantum tunneling can take place here. A real sample of solid helium is presented bellow - it requires the temperatures bellow -272.2 ºC and over 40 atmosphere pressure to exists:

The same mechanism occurs in thin surface layers of snow or ice, where it is magnified by large number of crystalline particles involved. The fluid moves in thin quantum vortices along surface of crystals by mechanism, which is similar to domino effect. The same effect is responsible for anomalous slipperiness of ice and ice regelation. And of course, it occurs in solid helium in much more pronounced way, because of low temperature. It means, the fluid / solid mixture of helium crystals is not completely superfluous, but it responds to small deformations freely. But we can observe it even in another systems in smaller extent, for example the so called "tin cry" (sound sample) is the bulk phenomena of the same category.

The helium-4 differs from helium-3 in scope of supersolidity. Atoms of helium-3 are non-symmetric due the odd numbers of nucleons, which effectively means, ballistic transport remains constrained to surface of crystals and dislocations inside of frozen helium. The symmetrical atoms of helium-4 are adsorbed to these surfaces preferably, as they condense more easily - so they're killing the effect here like every impurity, which prohibits a free motion along surface of crystalline domains. The surface character of supersolidity in helium-3 manifests by limited temperature range, in which this remarkable effect can take place - at temperature bellow 1K the surface layer of molten helium freezes and supersolidity disappear. The water molecules are highly polarized in charge, so that the surface phenomena can take place in -52 ºC to 0 ºC temperature range, whereas some larger rod-like molecules are asymmetric up to level, they're forming a "liquid crystal" in the bulk phase even at highly elevated temperatures.

With compare to above systems, supersolidity of helium-4 is much more subtle phenomena, which occurs at lowest temperature range only, because of high symmetry of 4He atom nuclei. It manifests only at the moment, when number of crystalline domains becomes very high - it means inside of glass phase of helium, prepared by fast cooling. Such glass can be considered as amorphous phase with large amount of tiny dislocations, where the surface quantum phenomena become more pronounced due the large number of surfaces involved. Glass can flow rather quickly at nanoscale, which can be illustrated in experiments with fast healing of thin holes formed by ion bombardment. The flowing of glass is well known from limited lifetime of glass knives, used for ultramicrotomy or from healing of tiny glass cracks, which can be determined by fracture mechanics techniques. Because dislocations inside of glass phase are very small in size, the scope of ballistic transport is quite limited here, which results in "quantum jelly" or "superglass" behavior, rather then "quantum crunching".

These subtle phenomena can become quite significant even at large scales, as they can promote for example the formation of avalanches in mountain areas. It means, a subtle quantum surface effect, which applies to nanometer distances can kill people here due its cumulative effect over large number of particles involved. And this is basically, what the whole AWT is about.