Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Marshall Barnes: on 3/14/10 at 0:35am UTC, wrote Amrit: Your descriptions of your research reveal the fundamental problem...

Anonymous: on 11/21/09 at 4:34am UTC, wrote "How can physics live up to its true greatness except by a new revolution...

Anonymous: on 11/16/09 at 2:09am UTC, wrote On Nov 15, 7:24 pm, Igor Khavkine wrote: > > > On Nov 14,...

Anonymous: on 11/10/09 at 16:51pm UTC, wrote I had planned to add this story to my pre-existing gravitational coupling...

Anonymous: on 11/9/09 at 2:58am UTC, wrote "strings and D-branes and the like are emergent aspects of an underlying...

Lawrence B. Crowell: on 11/8/09 at 13:11pm UTC, wrote I am not always the best at reading people. My intuition is not always...

Anonymous: on 11/8/09 at 1:21am UTC, wrote If you were criticizing your own intuition, what would you say are your...

Lawrence B. Crowell: on 11/8/09 at 0:48am UTC, wrote There are other sides to American history, and the revolution. It can be...



FQXi FORUM
September 22, 2017

ARTICLE: Editor's Choice: Tying Up the Multiverse with String [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

amrit wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear Dr. Abdrei Linde

Reading your paper I see you consider space-time being fundamental arena of the universe. My research shows that quantum space is timeless and direct information medium. So the whole universe is informed about what happens into it instantly. Time is run of clocks in quantum space. Universe is age less. We can think about time in the universe only in a sense of numerical order of events that run in timeless quantum space. Universe is now.

yours amrit

Amrit S. Sorli, Mathematical Space-time, Neuronal Space-time and Timeless Quantum Space,

http://vixra.org/abs/0910.0004 (2009)

Amrit S. Sorli, Density/curvature of Quantum Space Generates Gravitational Motion

http://vixra.org/abs/0910.0007 (2009)

report post as inappropriate

Marshall Barnes replied on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 00:35 GMT
Amrit:

Your descriptions of your research reveal the fundamental problem for time deniers - their inability to express their theories without invoking time. While I have no problem with your statement that "the whole universe is informed about what happens into it instantly", - in fact I have a similar element in my theory of the universe, saying that "quantum space is timeless" and "We can think about time in the universe only in a sense of numerical order of events that run in timeless quantum space. Universe is now" is little better than the musings of Julian Barbour. Time is required for more than just the order of events but it is the dimension within which the events occur.

I understand that english is not your first language, so I wish I knew what you meant by 'Time is run of clocks in quantum space" as it's not quite translated properly. I promise that when I have time, I will review your papers because I sense that although I firmly believe in the reality of time and can counter time denial arguments, I think that we can find ground upon which to agree and perhaps explore potentials for expansion upon such foundations.

Marshall Barnes

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 03:09 GMT
Another married couple, as with Dray & Monongue. There are of course a range of issues with multiverses. There are level 1 pocket universes, then there are Dp-branes connected by type I-II open strings, a sort of QCD-like sandwich of sorts, and so forth. These multi-cosmologies (the multiverse) are probably related to our universe by variations in orbifold windings, or Calabi-Yau configurations. The differences in their structures are what might govern the dynamics of open strings connecting these Dp-branes, just as potential differences govern the motion of a particle.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 00:02 GMT
Hasn't cosmology and strings already been done?

thunderbolts.info e/m field and plasma the new physics

h/t anon

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 12:14 GMT
The plasma universe, thunderbolts EU stuff is pure balderdash.

LC

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 01:30 GMT
Lawrence,

And multiverses is....?

Inflation....

Block time...

Big Bang singularity....

Lately I've been obsessively following the meltdown of the economy, as bailout money balloons the stock market. These people are playing with the worlds wealth and the lives of billions of people and they are delusional. I'm supposed to think that what comes out of the world of physics and math isn't delusional, when, by all appearances, it appears to be going off the deep end? Possibly some of what is in plasma physics is off the mark, but it does make some interesting observations. It does tie into Carver Mead's observations about the electron. It seems to be more about the network as the basis of reality, rather than particle physics' focus on the node.

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 22:27 GMT
Here is the difference between science and "The Glass Bead Game".

SCIENCE:

1. Study nature.

2. Discover a new pattern or relationship.

3. Use proposed pattern/relation to generate a definitive prediction, which is unique to the hypothesis, quantitative [or very high quality qualitative], NON-ADJUSTABLE, and feasible.

4. Test your prediction empirically [not with thought experiments].

5. Accept nature's verdict.

—————————————————
—————

THE GLASS BEAD GAME [Hesse, a good read]

1. Study mathematics [after all, nature and empirical evidence are only "anecdotal"].

2. Construct an abstract theory with ad hoc model-building; the more hermetic the better.

3. Use the abstract theory to generate pseudo-predictions, which are non-unique, quantitatively "plastic", highly adjustable, usually unfeasible.

4. Avoid real testing and apply copious arm-waving or heavy fudge to any "unwanted" empirical results.

5. Assume nature is wrong [it couldn't possibly be your "intuition"].

———————————————
——————————-

There you have the past and the present. Do you prefer the science of Democritus, Bacon, Galileo, and Einstein? Or are you happy with the post-modern physi-babble, of which the Nielsen-Ninomiya papers are archetypal examples?

If it's real science, why can't they even predict the specific properties of the dark matter? That's an easy one to answer.

Yours in science [the testable kind],

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 15:45 GMT
I don't think things are this stark. Though I agree the Nielsen papers look a bit off the wall. Having mathematical knowledge is useful in your toolbox. I don't think mathematics is physics, but I think physics exhibits structure which is understood mathematically.

One of the factors in our age is that the available "information space" for physics has expanded enormously. So there is a wide range of theoretical plausibilities which can be advanced, far wider than in the past.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 17:04 GMT
Sigh,

For the hundreth time:

First: The Concepts

Then: The Physical Analysis

Finally: The Mathematical Formalism.

“Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulas, but thought and ideas are the beginning of every physical theory.”

Do we have it yet?

And yes there is so much more pseudo-science to gorge on these days. For example: the completely untestable "multiverse" pipe dreams, the execrable "anthropic reasoning", choose-whatever-properties-you-like "wimps" and the whole "string theory" charade. Then there are ideas that cannot even be defined as pseudo-science like "strange matter", "Boltzmann brains" [ha,ha; totally insane!], etc, etc., ........... ......... ..........

Time to show the philistines the door,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 21:12 GMT
How much of it is mental origami? You can fold it any number of ways and make any shape you want, but does it have any bearing on reality?

I keep making the point that time isn't some dimension along which events exist. That this is simply the narrative model we examine second hand. It is a consequence of motion, not the basis for it. We don't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. Yet no one with a PhD cares to dispute the point, as I'm not a member of the club, but if time isn't some meta-dimensional block time, are any of these other meta-dimensions anything more than topography in motion?

I agree with you Robert. I does seem like the old joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight because that's where the light is shining.

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 02:44 GMT
My guess is that time is purely relational and intrinsically linked to relative motion, as you infer. The arrow of time is, in my opinion, a simple result of the fact that nature is strictly causal and strictly deterministic [in the modern nonlinear dynamical systems definition of deterministic].

That said, I am a very strong believer in General Relativity, so I could not recommend abandoning the 4-d approach to modeling natural phenomena, unless someone comes up with something better and can demonstrate/test its superiority empirically.

When scientists look back from the vantage point of, say, 2050, I suspect they will look at what is going on now in theoretical physics and say: "How could they have been so far off track and so unscientific without realizing it?!?"

Not everyone is oblivious to this sad state of affairs. And luckily science is self-correcting in the long run. The Nielsen/Ninomiya fiasco heralds the demise of the whole tower of untestable assumptions. It's only a matter of time before the ungainly Ptolemaic edifice collapses.

Out with the old SubStandard Paradigm, and in with the new Discrete Fractal Paradigm!

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 10:48 GMT
Robert,

What are dimensions? They seem to have this semi-mystical aura, but really they are just directional projections. Frankly I have trouble with defining space as three dimensional as well. Consider the singularity concept that all space emerged from a point, so that all space is a projection of that original point. Wouldn't the interior space essentially be infinitely dimensional? In reality, that is what space is. Being isotropic, there is no definable centerpoint from which to project three dimensions against a larger frame of reference. As entities on the surface of this planet, we can locate ourselves in terms of longitude, latitude and altitude, but that is still just a subjective point against a subjective frame. To project our subjectivity against what is necessarily objective may be necessary for initial comprehension, but we need to appreciate the inherent limitations, or go off on wild goose chases. Think in terms of those who originally thought the earth was flat, or that the earth was the center of the universe. From their point of reference, it made complete sense and if there were a few anomalies and unanswered questions on the periphery, they were inconsequential to the core of the paradigm. How much of current theory is like that? Built up on some basic assumptions, such as the linear narrative concept of time that is a consequence of our necessary subjectivity. Look at physics today, as it grows exponentially more complicated and compare that to the age of epi-cycles. The people developing epi-cycles were not dumb, by any stretch of the imagination. They helped to lay the foundations of geometry, celestial mechanics, etc. Keeping the model on track required ever greater feats of intellectual dexterity, but the real problem lay hidden in their most basic and subconscious assumptions. Suffice to say, modern physics has far more unwritten rules about what is acceptable and what is not. All it would take to bring down the edifice of cosmology is for someone to find another explanation for intergalactic redshift. No one within the circle of respectability dares consider it though, so we have ever more fantastical fudges to explain any observational issues, from inflation to dark energy. One of the points I keep raising and Lawrence has been gracious enough to respond, is how can we have expanding space from a point, yet still have a constant speed of light against which to measure it? If space is actually expanding, wouldn't this most basic measure have to stretch along with it, otherwise it's just increasing distance in stable space. Yet, if it did stretch, could we even detect the expansion?

I don't mean to question Einstein's logic, but maybe we need to go back and reconsider some of the basic conceptual assumptions from which he was working.

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 16:21 GMT
JM,

I highly recommend that you study nature, rather than play with abstract glass beads.

You're chances of understanding nature will be much improved, and you won't drive yourself mad.

I'll read your comments more carefully tonight.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 16:30 GMT
Robert,

I'm a farmer and horse trainer. Nature is all I do study.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 16:52 GMT
Dimensions are distances. Godel idea was that fourth dimension of space-time is not time, is spatial too. Out of Godel idea follows physical time is run of clocks in 4 dimensional timeless space.

In timeless space there is no "temporal" distances. Clocks measure only numerical order of material change in timeless space.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 01:44 GMT
amrit,

It's probably more of a projection. Distance would be the marks on the line. The idea of time as a dimension is based on the narrative construct. The string of events. It's actually somewhat primitive, but with sufficient mathematical notation can be considered quite sublime.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 02:35 GMT
Do any Fqx scientists participate in these discussions?

If not, what's the point?

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 07:20 GMT
John with discovery of inner time based in neuronal dynamics it is clear that space is timeless. That forth dimension of space time is spatial too declare already Godel. So physical time is run of clocks.

yous amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 09:57 GMT
amrit,

Yes, time going from past to future is the motion of the point of reference against context. The hand of the clock moving against the face. The sun moving across the sky from east to west. The person moving from one event to the next. What doesn't get noticed, about time, is that this is always against relative context. Relative to the hand of the clock, it's the face moving counterclockwise. The earth actually rotating west to east. For all of our actions, there is the "equal and opposite reaction." So the creation of these events, one day coming and going, generations of people rising and falling, is a consequence of this motion, not the basis for it. Particle physics focuses on the individual point of reference moving against context, so time is the series of events it moves through, but the broader field effect is of the cumulative motion that creates and defines the events, of which any particular point of reference is embedded.

report post as inappropriate


R.L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 15:21 GMT
Hogg says: "a fractal universe is untenable".

---------------------------------------------

Rega
rding arxiv:0910.3374v1 (another just-so story)

Professor Hogg says: "a fractal universe is untenable".

He looks at nature and can only see a homogeneous blur.

Ah, but the porcines are so notoriously near-sighted, don't you know.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 16:34 GMT
Anon,

No they don't, but my experience is that in the forums where they do, if you wander too far off the reservation, you get banned. In my case, raising the specific issue of time as not the basis for motion, but a consequence, has had me banned from physicsforums and Cosmic Variance. So I thank FQXi for allowing me the opportunity to have my say, even if hardly anyone is listening, as few people in my life much care for discussing physics anyway.

Robert,

To paraphrase; The universe doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 18:05 GMT
John what you say for me is philosophy.

Godel sad / fourth coordionate of spacetime is spatial too

I add

time is run of clocks in space that itself is timeless

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 23:46 GMT
amrit,

To quote Robert;

Sigh,

For the hundreth time:

First: The Concepts

Then: The Physical Analysis

Finally: The Mathematical Formalism.

“Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulas, but thought and ideas are the beginning of every physical theory.”

Do we have it yet?

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 01:11 GMT
Note: the quotation in the above post is by Albert Einstein.

I do not think JM has enough scientific evidence to rule out a "repeating" universe with self-similarty that is discrete and exact.

Fundamental cosmological Scales appear to be separated by a factor of 10^17 in L or T, and by a factor of 10^56 in M. Evaluating the self-similarity between analogue objects that differ by such astronomical scaling is hardly a trivial matter.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 10:19 GMT
John

scientific theory should be based on elementary perception and experimental data.

1. first observation

2. second scientific model

3. third experiment

yours amrit

philosophy starts with concepts, and physics is not philosophy

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 10:41 GMT
Robert,

No, I don't have enough scientific evidence, or education, to make such a claim, but given any scientist I've ever heard of is a human being, trapped in their finite mortal coil, on this small spot in space, I think is safe to say that none of them know whether there is an exact copy of this planet and its surrounding universe out there in some other realm. Patterns do repeat and the more basic a pattern is, the more exact the repetition is, but the more complexity involved, the greater the variability. Consider snowflakes; They are an excellent example of fractal patterns, but they still have a great deal of variability. Now multiply that by the number of factors involved in just one galaxy and it's safe to say that for any use we may have, they are all going to be different and those differences are as much a fact as the similarities and thus requiring of scientific evaluation. Trying to apply one set of rules to all circumstances is just as much an error as assuming there are no rules.

Amrit,

I'm not saying there is no philosophy involved, but the basis of human knowledge is our historical cumulation of it, so it is quite understandable this serial series of events that is history should be mistaken for the process of time and its reasonable we should try constructing a physical theory of reality based on it, but if, as you, I and some others are saying, time is a consequence of motion and that the resulting series of events are an effect of this activity, not some meta dimension along which all events exist, then the process of time is these events being created and dissolved, thus going from future potential to past circumstance, it really does have profound effects on how we think of reality, which is philosophy. Throughout most of human history, we thought the earth was flat, then thought the sun was revolving around it. Each of these expansions of our awareness had profound effects on how people thought of life. That's philosophy. If you want to be a scientist, you need to consider all the consequences involved. Just like everything else in life, changing one thing has knock on effects to everything around it. So If you propose to change our concept of time, you need to appreciate all the normal mental blocks that people are going to have to it, especially those who have devoted their lives to increasingly complex formulations of how to make sense of the previous paradigm.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 12:32 GMT
I read a lot of conservative philosophy of science, with a degree of harumphing going on. Of course a lot of this is silly, and history clearly shows that how physics have been done through time does not conform to these silly high school ideas of a "scientific method."

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 16:40 GMT
You might want to read the discussion at:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=2404#comm
ents

for the latest installment of "Theoretical Physicists Gone Wild!".

It involves the author of the article on which this thread is based {linde}.

Does fqxi.org foster pseudo-science?

It's not time to apologize for these insults to science. It is long past time to fight back.

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 17:24 GMT
The scientific method is subject to the same cycles of expansion and consolidation as everything else. It's safe to say the cycle is at a peak of conceptual projection and is due for some degree of consolidation to determine what has a solid basis in evidence and what is just hot air.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 17:39 GMT
I will say that maybe in parallel with what you are saying is I do have certain problems with “interpretations.” This is particularly the case with quantum mechanics, where the Many World Interpretation has commanded a lot of attention. There is a similar trend with the “Boltzmann vs Jaynes-Bayesian” approach to statistical mechanics. My perspective is that these are model systems, but not something which are empirically effective. In quantum mechanics there are various interpretations, from the Bohr “Copenhagen” interpretation, Bohm’s inner particle perspective, MWI and so forth. These all end up invoking something which is not empirically verifiable, even if they might be useful for certain problems. Yet unfortunately there are these schools of thought, say the ergodic vs Bayesian schools in stat mech, where I really think these are perspectives on physics more than something that is effective.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 17:49 GMT
The first link is a blog post-article is on Woit's website. He favors the LQG approach to quantum gravity. If you read my posts on my essay blog site and the follow up essay on sept 22 you will find that I have some interest in LQG, and I will include some related matters of twistors and causal dynamic triangulation. However, these approaches to physics have their own host of problems. Peter Woit is an ardent anti-string advocate, and frankly I think to a degree that is beyond the pail.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 02:47 GMT
1. Woit's skepticism of the string theory pseudo-science is not beyond the pale; it's well-reasoned and scientific.

2. I hear tell that all the Boltzmann Brains suffered from vaulting ambition which o'er-leaped itself and landed "beyond the pail". Wow, what a benighted mess!

3 If it's not testable in a definitve manner [unique, feasible, quantitative, non-adjustable], then it's pseudo-science, plain and simple.

4. It's easy to drop a lot of erudite-sounding technical terms, but a lot harder to definitively predict the true nature of the Dark Matter. You cannot do that, Linde cannot do that, Tegmark cannot do that, Susskind cannot do that, Weinberg cannot do that, etc. etc. But I know someone who can. See: The Astrophysical Journal 322, 34-26, 1987. Or see: http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/Papers/9174
1/A-Review-Of-Mass-Estimates-For-Galactic-Dark-Matter-Object
s

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 02:59 GMT
JM,

Listen to yourself.

---------------------------------------------------
----------------

"No, I don't have enough scientific evidence, or education, to make such a claim, but given any scientist I've ever heard of is a human being, trapped in their finite mortal coil, on this small spot in space, I think is safe to say that none of them know whether there is an exact copy of this planet and its surrounding universe out there in some other realm. Patterns do repeat and the more basic a pattern is, the more exact the repetition is, but the more complexity involved, the greater the variability. Consider snowflakes; They are an excellent example of fractal patterns, but they still have a great deal of variability. Now multiply that by the number of factors involved in just one galaxy and it's safe to say that for any use we may have, they are all going to be different and those differences are as much a fact as the similarities and thus requiring of scientific evaluation. Trying to apply one set of rules to all circumstances is just as much an error as assuming there are no rules."

-----------------------------------------------------
------------------

You do not have "enough scientific evidence or education", but you are telling me how nature is/is not. Do you see the disconnect here?

Extropolating local kitchen-reasoning to the whole Uinverse is mad, not to mention unscientific!

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 10:04 GMT
Robert,

You were the one to tell me to go study nature and I get far beyond the kitchen table in doing so.

I make no pretense as to my qualifications, so on the point you are making, I would refer to Stephen Wolfram, who said, "You need a computer the size of the universe to compute the universe."

On the point I keep making; Is time the basis of motion, or a consequence of it? Or in colloquial terms, does the earth travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates? And should you agree to the second understanding of time, what effect would this have on various current issues quantum mechanics has with probabilities, as with Schrodinger's cat, multi-worlds, etc., since we would would not be pushing along this block time dimension from an apparently defined past into a probabilistic future, but would have the probabilities of the future collapsing in the events of the present and recorded as a previous series of such events.

I've certainly have had enough people/presumably PhD's, question my credentials, without addressing the issue, not to take such attacks seriously. If you wish to address my point and have a logical response as to why it's wrong, I'm all ears. It wouldn't be the first time I've learned from those pointing out my errors and I just like trying to understand the issues, not tread on anyone's toes.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 11:01 GMT
Hi John, time is not consequence of motion.

Time (clocks run) is a meaasuring device to measure motion.

We do not live in time, we live in space only where time is "thick" of clocks.

yours Amrit

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 11:53 GMT
Boltzmann brains are an argument against the idea the universe emerged as a spontaneous fluctuation. If the universe emerged as a fluctuation which resulted in a high negative entropy in an otherwise equilibrium condition of maximum entropy then a smaller negative entropy fluctuation could have just created a "brain," instead of an entire universe.

Peter Woit offers up no clear alternative to string theory. The combinatoric approaches, PQG, CTN and others have a host of their own problems. In particular LQG has a gauge anomaly or ambiguity with the Barbero-Immirzi parameter.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 16:38 GMT
JM,

Listen carefully; break free of your fixed ideas [obsessions].

One of the most important skills of a scientist who has bothered to think long and hard about nature, and who has ALSO observed nature long and hard, is the ability to ask the "laser beam" questions that lead to clarification. Einstein was a master of this skill.

The correct answer to the inadequate question you pose above is: BOTH are right. You assume there is a contradiction, but the question is so vague that I do not think there is a contradiction. One is free to use the 4-d modelling or a motion-based approach, depending on how you set up the problem.

If you have a good question, I have not seen it yet.

Sorry,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 16:42 GMT
LC,

I would cite the quotation below as an indication of severe mental impairment.



"Boltzmann brains are an argument against the idea the universe emerged as a spontaneous fluctuation. If the universe emerged as a fluctuation which resulted in a high negative entropy in an otherwise equilibrium condition of maximum entropy then a smaller negative entropy fluctuation could have just created a "brain," instead of an entire universe."

If you cannot predict anything definitively, you know nothing.

Good luck,

RLO

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 02:25 GMT
From "CosmoCoffee Blog"

----------------------------------------

Greetings High School "Anonymous",

I am confused by your question. General Relativity already demonstrates how to calculate and understand the advance in the perihelion of Mercury.

General Relativity is the theory of gravitational interactions involving Stellar Scale systems [technically within a Stellar Scale system but exterior to any Atomic Scale system]. I really don't think I can improve upon GR in this context, especially with high school math.

If you ask me to model something on the Atomic Scale, it might be a more interesting request.

Have you thoroughly studied: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701132.pdf

Already published in ApSS, 2007.

This paper explains how, in a discrete self-similar cosmos, GR must be modified in order to model the dynamics of Atomic Scale or Galactic Scale systems.

Here's something really ironic. GR can be abreviated: R = kT. In groping for a unified theory that would apply in the microcosm as well as the macrocosm, theoretical physicists tinkered with the R and the T, but assumed that the k was inviolate and therefore of little interest.

Actually it is in the k = 8piG/c4 that the needed breakthrough was waiting all along. If you want to know how the discrete fractal scaling for k works, read the friggin' paper. But the key concept is that G is not scale invariant [even t'Hooft has finally figured that out. Well better 33 years late than never]; each Scale has its specific value of G and it only takes high school math, actually only elementary school math, to understand the scaling.

Please read the paper. Discrete Scale Relativity is the new paradigm for physics in the 21st century. When the physical characteristics of the dark matter are revealed, the new paradigm will be fully vindicated. So far we see mostly the high mass tail: neutron stars, BHs, gamma ray sources, RRATS, etc, and there are billions of these ultracompact objects, but the main DM components are in much lower states and are stellar mass black holes with 0.1 < M < 0.7 solar masses.

Any questions?

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 12:02 GMT
There is nothing about the Boltzmann brain argument which involves predictability. It is just an argument about very low entropy fluctuation from which the universe might be argued to have emerged. The entropy of such a fluctuation must have been very low. Yet if all the fluctuation generated were brains, eg say the archetypical “brain in a jar,” then that entropy reduction would have been far lower and more probable. Yet that is highly unlikely, and it leads to a sort of solipsistic prospect that is not very tenable. So the argument is raised to bring skepticism about the hypothesis that the universe emerged from some highly improbable fluctuation in a high entropy system at maximum entropy.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 21:42 GMT
LC,

The Boltzman Brain "reasoning" is tortorous, unsupported scientifically and philosophically bankrupt.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 22:38 GMT
Robert,

"The correct answer to the inadequate question you pose above is: BOTH are right. You assume there is a contradiction, but the question is so vague that I do not think there is a contradiction. One is free to use the 4-d modelling or a motion-based approach, depending on how you set up the problem."

True and it's utterly irrelevant to 99% of the people on this planet whether the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth rotates relative to the sun. It's just those pesky astronomers worrying over anomalies in the motion of stars. The reason we have a device, called a clock, with hands to denote the present that go left to right across the top, is because the sun goes east to west in the northern hemisphere. Just as the reality is that it is the earth rotating west to east, it is the units of time, marked on the face of the face of the clock, which go counterclockwise, relative to the hands. Of course such little fudge factors as multi worlds and block time to explain how time functions in that 4-d model are no problem to modern physics, given all the other fantastical features of nature that have been discovered. I am bowing to your wisdom.

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 01:00 GMT
JM,

If you view the Earth from above the North pole, it is rotating counterclockwise.

If you view the Earth from above the South pole, it is rotating clockwise.

Right?

In simple direct words, what exactly is the problem that you perceive?

RLO

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 10:32 GMT
RO,

As objective as we like to think we are, the basis of knowledge is anthropocentric. Civilization did largely develop in the northern hemisphere. If you consider the history of the evolution of the clock, from the sundial on, it originates as a representation of the sun traveling across the sky. Had civilization developed in the southern hemisphere, it's likely the hands would go the other way.

The process of of thinking and accumulating knowledge is inherently reductionistic, in that we take a large quantity of information and deduce patterns from it. Consider how this applies to the calendar; The rotation of the earth which produces days, the phases of the moon that are the basis of months and the revolution of the earth around the sun that produces years have no correlation to one another, yet we have pruned them down to fit one another, to the extent months have little bearing on the cycles of the moon as well as having to add a day every four years. So we have taken all these complex motions and reduced them to a single narrative dimension.

In fact, Einstein isn't generally credited with first relating space to time. Some accounts give it to Edgar Allen Poe, as first arguing space and duration are one and the same. Poetic justice, given his ability to distill narrative from an extremely chaotic life and disturbed mind.

There are also natives of South America who view the past as in front of the observer and the future as behind. This is actually more objective than our understanding of traveling from past to future and equating it spatially, as the event occurs before it is observed.

In your studies of nature, you may want to consider adding a little history and anthropology.

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 16:29 GMT
From COSMOCOFFEE Blog, 10/26/2009

The following paper is about to be published:

The Proton As A Kerr-Newman Black Hole

Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, 6(22), 167−170, 30 Oct 2009.

Available soon at: http://ejtp.com/latest.html

A first draft of the paper can be found at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw if you click on "New Developments" and choose #2 "The Proton...".

Unfortunately the first draft does not report the retrodiction of the proton's mass and radius using the full Kerr-Newman treatment, but the paper does. Also available in "Technical Notes", #3 "Modeling Subatimic..."

I would welcome comments/questions relating to the scientific aspects of this paper.

Important note: Emotion has a bad influence on objective reasoning. This is part of the human condition, and in other respects emotion plays an important and highly beneficial role [like avoiding injury and procreating]. However, when a scientist wants to understand nature, he/she turns the emotion dial way down. Claro que si, eh?

Anger is rarely [never?] appropriate; it usually backfires and harms the source [and others] even more than the intended target. Understanding is harder but more appropriate and more likely to lead to intelligent responses.

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 10:53 GMT
Robert,

Unfortunately emotion is the basis of the intellect, not adjacent to it. The primordial binary code of good and bad, the attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental, is objectified as yes and no. The on/off switch of the mind. In this hyper-obsessive world, where everyone lives in their shell of expertise, so as not to be overwhelmed by the incredible vastness of reality, it can be difficult to find those willing to engage, because the tendency is to look for support for one's position, rather than risk becoming ungrounded.

Now I'm obviously not an expert on black holes, Kerr-Newman, or otherwise, nor on protons, but my default response to any observation is to hold it up to a mirror and consider the opposite. If the proton is a black hole, does that make the electron a white hole?

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 15:42 GMT
JM,

If you use Discrete Scale Relativity in oonjunction with the Kerr-Newman solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations, you can find out the answer to this question for yourself. "White holes" is a very unimaginative guess!

If the above presents difficulties, i.e., you have not a clue what I am talking about, you can try the folowing.

(1) Go to www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

(2) Click on "Technical Notes"

(3) Click on #3 "Modelling Subatomic Particles..."

(4) Read carefully.

(5) Ask questions when confused.

(6) If this simple exercise is a bust, maybe it would be best to focus on horses.

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 21:30 GMT
Robert,

You're right, it's way beyond my level. It's just that the idea of protons as black holes brought to mind this line from Carver Mead's American Spectator interview:

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/People/CarverMead.h
tm

"Because point particles are assumed to occupy no space, they have to be accompanied by infinite charge density, infinite mass density, infinite energy density. Then these infinities get removed once more by something called "renormalization." It's all completely crazy.. But our physics community has been hammering away at it for decades. Einstein called it Ptolemaic epicycles all over again."

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 01:05 GMT
Is it true that string theorists wear slippers with bells on the toes?

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 01:09 GMT
Dear Anon,

I am so glad you asked.

Yes, they do, and they also have bells on their floppy pointed hats.

However, only the Grand Twits are allowed to juggle the Glass Beads.

The sycophants have to sit around them in a circle and clap.

Otherwise they are branded "cranks" and ostracised.

Good observing Anon,

RLO

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 01:16 GMT
JM,

Carver Mead is right.

There are horrendous problems that are largely being ignored.

1. Vacuum Energy Density crisis

2. Hierarchy Problem

3. Renormalization epicycles

4. No ID for the Dark Matter, or Dark Energy [which is virtually the whole universe]

5. Loads of thoroughly untestable theory.

Sigh,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 09:18 GMT
Robert,

The essence of your theory seems to be that in the scalability of the universe, there are three primary crests, the atom, the stellar system and the galaxy. Your projection would seem to be that since the same properties are at work, the attributes of one can be applied to the others, so since black holes are at the center of galaxies, possibly something similar is at the heart of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


RLO wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 15:42 GMT
JM,

(1) My research indicates that the strange things at the centers of galaxies are singularities.

(2) The 1st half of the portion of the interview that you reprint is interesting, but the discussion rapidly goes downhill at that point. Which only goes to show that the true nature of the elecromagnetic field is still not understood.

I make my own effort at understanding EM in the "Technical Notes" section of the website [#6 "EM and the SSCP]. This is presented at a very simplistic level. Give it a try.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 17:11 GMT
Robert,

Low on time to read at the moment, but a question.

What is a singularity?

Another question; In geometry, would zero be the point at the center of the graph, or would it be blank space?

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 17:46 GMT
Basically what I'm suggesting is that any point would constitute something, even just a location, so it would be one, not zero and to get to zero, it would have to vanish, leaving only blank space. Now a singularity would be such a point of vanishing, but rather than some hole into another dimension, that which it consists is projected back out across space, as when all the energy falling into the black hole becomes a single wave and is projected as a beam back out into space. So yes, there would be a singularity, but what is its effect?

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 00:53 GMT
JM,

Thou wouldst make a good string theorist.

RLO

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 01:20 GMT
RO,

My math skills are not good enough. I don't even like reading the Racing Form that much. Tactile is about where I'm at. Basic space, time and temperature.

report post as inappropriate


B N Sreenath wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 10:24 GMT
The first question I want to ask,regarding this article, is "are there Strings?".If one cannot prove their existence then,how are they going to build theories on it? Much less to talk about their relation to Cosmology.Such an attempt could be like building 'house of cards'.Remember the fate of GUTs and SUSYs.Then why so much of money spent on conferences of string theories across the globe? Are present day physicists in the days of Aristotle?

B N Sreenath

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 16:17 GMT
Good Morning Readers!

And it is a bright and shining day today!

I think we all want to give Fluffy [CosmoCoffee Blog] a big hand for his dogged efforts. Heckuva job Fluffy.

Be sure to see the Oct. 28 issue of Nature: classical GR vindicated. Spin foams and other quantum gravity fantasies falsified.

On the subject of gravitation, here is a nice example of a particle physicist using his anti-Midas touch to turn gold into poop:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0910/0910.5167v1.pdf .

Does the Perimeter Insitute have anyone who is interested in anything besides Glass Bead Games, like maybe, reality?

Reading of the Day: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.3501.pdf

Omigod, can that possibly be right? Oh Ya!

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 12:20 GMT
B N Sreenath,

Your question has two components to it. The first is whether consequences of string theory, and M-theory, are detectable. The answer here is yes, there are empirical tests which can be applied here. The next question is whether strings can be directly observed. In principle yes, but in practice this is extremely difficult. The scale of observation is extremely small, and requires enormous energy to directly probe.

A rather recent test was made of string theory, indirectly though. The Fermi satellite has found that very different wave lengths of light traveled at the same light speed from a 7.3 billion years distant gamma ray burst event. This boosts up a prediction of string theory and knocks down a loop quantum gravity prediction. String theory indicates that violent quantum fluctuations of the spacetime vacuum are valenced from the exterior world by string world sheets. Loop quantum gravity predicts these violent fluctuations or "quantum foam" break Lorentz symmetry near the Planck length. This would produce subtle changes in light speed for electromagnetic radiation with different wavelengths. Due to their different wavelengths they effectively sample the quantum foam with different strengths.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 16:34 GMT
Last night I was reading [2nd or 3rd time] Ivars Ekeland's excellent book "The Best Of All Possible Worlds" and the revolutionary changes wrought by nonlinear dynamical systems theory.

I was moved once again the ask the following impertinent question:

Is Perfect Reversibility/Integrability A Myth?

Did Poincare discover this revolutionary idea already during the 1892−1899 period when modern chaos theory was founded in his "The New Methods of Celestial Mechanics"?

Are the examples of "reversibility" that physicists frequently cite actually one of two basic varieties: (1) artificial idealizations that do not exist in the real world [nature], or (2) systems that are briefly maintained in periodic states, but whose full, and unmanipulated, range of behavior includes periodic, semi-periodic, quasi-static and fully chaotic states.

Bottom line: Are reversible/integrable "systems" very limited artificial idealizations of true systems found in nature, which are nonlinear dynamical systems?

What are the best examples of real world systems that appear to be ideally reversible/integrable?

————————————————————
-

On a related note, it seems to me that the SubStandard paradigm is tottering around like an embarrassing drunk. It's going down, and the sooner the better.

The ingredients of the new paradigm are: (1) Classical EM, (2) Classical GR, (3) Discrete Scale Relativity, and (4) Nonlinear Dynamical Systems Theory. These ingredients cannot be combined randomly or with force. They must be carefully integrated by those who study nature and have developed the intuition to do so.

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


B N Sreenath wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 08:31 GMT
Lawrence B. Crowell,

Your openion is supporting LQG but not String theory as desired by you.Please checkout.As far as I know,recent developments are not supporting both theories but need quite different type of explanation in the Quantum-Gravity region from where these radiations are coming.Why to stick to theories whose axioms cannot be verified in near future or for ever?

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 12:39 GMT
I don't think gravity is directly quantized, beyond a semi-classical level, say the tree or one-loop correction. See my paper at

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/494

where I lay out a sketch of some of this. I have been working out the Jordan matrix algebra underlying this, which on that site above dated Sept 22 I give a fuller account of. What underlies gravitation, or the supergravity multiplet is an abelian Skyrmion field on the automorphisms of the exceptional algebra. This is linear and nicely quantizable.

This does two things. It gives a quantum underpinning to the string/M-theory approach of perturbative expansions of gravitation around a background according to the string parameter. It also eliminates the quantum foam, or the Lorentz violating "slice and dice" approach to spacetime which are predicted to result in different values for the speed of light depending upon the frequency of light.

The Fermi detection of the GRB is direct data, there is no theory here involved. This pretty clearly indicates that a lot of LQG ideas about quantum spacetime are simply wrong --- this is an experiment, one which has falsified a lot of theory.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 16:33 GMT
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

The following is from the CosmoCoffee Blog [10/31/09]



The original question was roughly: 'Are we sure that the value of G within an Atomic Scale system [say, an H atom or a proton] is the conventional Newtonian value, and if so what is the experimental basis for this surety?'

The answer, as anyone who is honest and willing to fight for an unbiased scientific result will find, is very clearly; "No!"

We have believed that G is the same no matter what the Scale or context. We have made it an axiom that G is a universal scale invariant constant. Moreover we have built up the prevailing paradigm around the assumption that this is inviolable.

But it is all based on pure and unadulterated speculation. Purely an assumption. Nothing more.

If each cosmological Scale, e.g., the Atomic, Stellar, Galactic Scales, etc. each have their own specific G values, then a completely different understanding of nature is possible. It would be a discrete self-similar cosmology, or one could call it a discrete fractal cosmology.

No valuable science is thrown out in the new paradigm, but nearly everything is reinterpreted. This is what new paradigms are all about.

I do not expect that Fluffy, or those who share his psychological makeup, will have much interest in considering a new paradigm. But perhaps there are one or two readers out there who would be interested in considering what nature would be like if the G-values are different for each Scale, and differ by a factor of ~ 10^38 between neighboring Scales.

I can promise you that the the results are elegant and amazing. I can also promise you that there is a very large body of scientific evidence that supports the new paradigm. I can also assure you that the paradigm's dark matter predictions will definitively verify/falsify the whole paradigm in the near future.

"The authority of a 1000 is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual",

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 02:31 GMT
The Newtonian gravitational constant, what I presume is G above, has been measure on lengths below the mm range. Gravity is very weak and accurate measurements of G on small length scales is hard to do.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 02:34 GMT
Submitted to sci.physics.research as a follow-up to the thread "Is

Perfect Reversibility A Myth?"

On Oct 31, 1:42 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"

wrote:

Refining the general question of whether exact reversibility/

integrability is an idealization or is actually realized in nature,

one could narrow the discussion as follows. Are atoms correctly

characterized by linearity, reversibility and integrability or is this

characterization a good but limited approximation to a more

sophisticated characterization of atoms as nonlinear dynamical

systems.

When chaos theory [aka NLDS theory] was first acknowledged as being

fundamental to modeling much of natural phenomena, it was thought that

its application was limited to the macroscopic domain.

Then one began to see the first papers arguing that period-doubling

and other chaotic phenomena could be observed in the atomic domain, if

one looked hard enough.

In the last decade the application of NLDS modeling to atomic scale

phenomena has been steadily accelerating, especially in regard to

atoms in highly excited Rydberg states.

Now, in the 10/8/09 issue of Nature, we see a potentially paradigm-

changing paper by Chaudhury et al which may herald the advent of a new

era in the modeling of atoms. In this paper the nuclear and electronic

spin interactions of a single atom are shown to display a quantum version of

classical chaotic behavior: the kicked top phenomena.

The authors also state: "We ... present experimental evidence for

dynamical entanglement as a signature of chaos".

So it is not unreasonable to ask: are atoms nonlinear dynamical

systems?

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 03:13 GMT
Here are two more impertinent questions.

Is there a fundamental distinction between the physics of the atomic microcosm and the physics of the macrocosm that can stand up to persistent and objective scientific scrutiny?

Is the current Balkanization of physics due to incomplete and inadequate modeling.

If there is but one physics for all of nature, ...

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 13:53 GMT
The domains of physics come about according to the “turning on or off” of certain constants, or parameters if they exist in some renormalization group flow. These constants are:

G The universal gravitational constant

c The speed of light, which equates a ruler measure with a clock measure as conversion factor

ħ the unit of action corresponding to a quanta

β = 1/kT which is a parameter defined by a temperature and the Boltzmann constant k

e and in general g: gauge coupling constants.

We may turn them all off, which gives us Newtonian mechanics. If you turn on G then you get Newtonian mechanics with gravity. Turn on ħ alone and you get quantum mechanics. Turn on c (make it no infinite) and you have special relativity, additionally turn on G you have general relativity. Turn on k or β with all other off and you have statistical mechanics or thermodynamics. Turn on G, c and k you then have spacetime thermodynamics. Then on top of those three you put in addition ħ you have semi-classical quantum gravity as seen with Hawking radiation. If with all these on you then turn on the gauge coupling parameters you then have S-T dual string theory with heterotic defined gravity.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 16:54 GMT
Then, if they wave their legs vigorously enough, pigs will fly.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 17:48 GMT
Well my point was in illustrating what I see as the fundamental arenas of physics. Unifying them all it of course highly nontrivial.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 03:05 GMT
Some people might ask:

"What IS this guy's problem?"

Well, let me explain.

I have watched theoretical physics descend

into untestable pseudoscience over the last

few decades, and it is very disturbing to anyone

who loves testable natural philosophy and

experimental science.

First it was the hordes of unobservable particles,

then the untestable and childishly idealistic

cosmological assumptions, then the whole

string theory excursion into la-la land, then

the deplorable "anthropic reasoning", then

the 10^500 random "multiverses", then the

"Boltzmann Brains" [egad!].

When I learned about the Nielsen/Ninomiya

papers it was like a "call to arms". The fact

that one cannot be entirely sure if the authors

intended to be taken seriously, or if the whole

fiasco is an elaborate hoax, just makes the

insult to science that much worse.

I would roughly estimate that 50% of current

theoretical physics, including the most

"fashionable" brands, are untestable pseudoscience

at best, and Platonic twittery if we are being candid.

People like Einstein and Schroedinger have been

replaced by execrable "natural pilosophers" who

may be very adept at abstract and hermetic

analytical methods, but who seem to have little

or no intercourse with the real world of nature.

The sycophants follow like sheep because they

feel it is not their role to question the Glass Bead

Game.

Well, I could go on at great length, but now you

know what the "problem" is. The question is:

What is to be done about it?

Hoping for a new paradigm,

and a definitively testable

paradigm, at that,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 03:39 GMT
Well I thought you might find this amusing.

attachments: angry_string_theorist.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 17:34 GMT
Wow, LC that is fantastic. And the scientific content of the cartoon is excellent!

So perhaps we CAN have useul interactions.

Do you think my manifesto above is too much of a Jeremiad?

Is it reasonable to make this a serious physics community-wide discussion?

Hoping for a new definitively testable paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

PS: If you have a discrete fractal cosmos, then you don't need all these magically "appearing" and "disappearing" constants. They are always there but just have different vaules on different Scales.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 19:07 GMT
My point about turning on and off the various constants is not that nature does this, physicists do it. The solid state physicist does not consider G, so it is effectively zero. The celestial mechanician does not use Boltzmann constant, so it is zero, and the physicist working at quantum teleporting states on an optics bench sets G = 0, c = infinity, and so forth. These various domains of physics obviously "talk to each other" at some fundamental scale.

String theory has some questions or problems. The only thing is that the alternatives are worse. I think strings and D-branes and the like are emergent aspects of an underlying exceptional matrix system that has Skyrmion physics. Strings are then knots or flux tubes which emerge from the soliton quasi-particle physics. There are some fractal structures here, in particular with the anti de Sitter correspondences.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 16:34 GMT
Actually the Skyrmionic sector of the Calabi-Y'Ouch mainfold is inverted via the dilatonic axion of astrological string matrices and produces lumps or knots that look surprisingly like cow plops.

See, anyone can do that posing and term-dropping. It is meaningless babble.

--------------------------------------------------

"An
d Now For Something Completely Different":



From "Backreaction" blog:

Bee [aka the devine Ms. Hossenfelder],

Knowing whether the population explosion

[which can be empirically documented, if one

looks up pop. vs time] is a huge threat to the

foreseeable future of humankind and other

species, or something we can successfully

deal with as we go along, is a matter of wisdom

and judgement.

Alas, today we have an over-abundance of

analytical expertise - witness the geniuses

at work in the finance industry or in string theory

endeavors. What we seem to be badly missing

are wisdom and judgment, which are more weighted

toward right hemispheric conceptual abilities.

Regarding the severity [or not] of the population

problem, E.O. Wilson has an objective and candid

review of the situation in "The Future Of Life"

[esp. Ch. 2, "the Bottleneck"]. This is not a jeremiad.

Wilson calmly describes the reality of the situation.

We can wake up from our ignorance and our delusions

and our self-interests. Or we can suffer the consequences.

Our choice.

Hoping for a new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 17:09 GMT
Well it appears you can't stomach the string physics much. I will say it does provide a lot of "theory space" to work with, which is likely required to work further towards quantum cosmology.

I have read Wilson's bottleneck article a number of times. If you really want to get into this stuff check out

http://dieoff.org/

Check out Jered Diamond's essay "Easter's End."

http://dieoff.org/page145.htm

That is a really grim read!

To be honest this is very much in keeping with the evolution and nature of our species. It appears we evolved under conditions of environmental shifts and now we are facing the next shift, one which we induce. The cladistic lineage of our species has been through a number of bottlenecks, and well ... it appears we are heading into the next one.

It is most likely going to happen. I suspect we are heading into a complete collapse and a bottleneck. This may be far more than just a run of the mill dark age. Beyond that nobody can predict much. Will the bottleneck close up and bring about our end? Will our species be reduced to a few million in a post mass-extinction environment where then the forces of evolution might bring about a new Homo-supremum in 200,000 years? Who knows?

I read a book a couple of years ago by Weinmann (as I recall the author's name) titled "Without Us." This is a popular discussion of the post Anthrocene Earth. It is a strange book, for in a way it is strangely optimistic. Life on Earth will be much better off without us.

We might if nothing else figure out at least an effective theory of quantum gravity and cosmology before we plunge into the really deep tank we seem to be heading for.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 03:15 GMT
ADDENDUM:

You mention good medical care as a crucial

factor in decreasing excessive birth rates.

Here is an excellent case in point. You are right,

but why is medical care often so poor? It is

because the whole economy of the area is poor.

And that is largely because the inhabitants have

overpopulated the territory and have started

decimating the natural resources upon which

they rely [whacking down all the trees for firewood

is like eating all your seed stocks].

So: over-population leads to environmental problems,

which lead to economic problems, which lead to

poor medical care, which leads to over-population.

See how it works? See how to break the cycle?

And this applies not just in highly under-developed

countries. With slightly modified inputs the same

basic analysis applies in the good ol' USA, where

we have just passed the 300 million mark, I believe.

Time for action, not just words,

Time for a new paradigm.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 13:54 GMT
The problems are more subtle. Eliminating rapid population growth through economic wealth means that a single person ends up consuming far more. Americans, Europeans and people in the Pacific rim have low population growth, but they consume 20-40 times the resources and energy of people living in impoverished regions of the world. So in effect the problem ends up being shifted from one form into another. This is not to entirely disagree with you, but there are multifold elements to these issues.

I am not sure if you have been politically active in anyway. If so you might have noticed that population issues are about as popular as the proverbial skunk at the garden party. And this is holds on both the progressive or liberal side of things and the conservative side.

The flip side of population growth is that we human beings are ultimately garbage making meat machines. This is also something not unique to our modern age, but is evident going back to paleo-archeological times through the Pleistocene. The problem with intelligent life is that it is able to figure out ways of removing environmental constraints on them, which means intelligent life is not as subject to the same ecological negative feedback loops that other life forms are.

It is questionable whether intellectual paradigms will do much to change this. While we might like to think that we are intelligent or intellectual, really it might be best to say that collectively we are maybe just "clever." What motivates people are most often not deep intellectual thought, but rather neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin and endorphins. These are involved with pleasure-reward responses, alertness, and levels of body comfort. Dopamine in often released with the observations of advertisements, for instance, where a TV display of a large vehicle (way overbuilt and consumptive) triggers reward sensations of “having that item.” Various drugs also release dopamine, as does the incessant quest and acquisition of power or vast wealth. These are the things which drive societies, not intellectual concepts or so called paradigms.

Cheer LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 17:54 GMT
One could at least imagine a new Age of Reason, wherein rationality dominated over superstition, ignorance, fear and greed.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 18:20 GMT
Some sort of new age of reason sounds nice. It is one thing which made the Star Trek series so popular, for it portrayed a future society which was largely liberated from the nonsense surrounding us. On the other hand I can't help but think that Homo sapiens may in the end be 6.8 billion gournd apes on an exponential rampage --- and we always have been on this rampage.

You might ponder why it is that we human beings have a great procivity to erect people who are personality disordered or outright psychopathic to the top leadership positions over us. There is a long and clear history of this, and it continues to this very day. Our Constitutional and representative systems of government have only at best ameliorated the worst of this, but over the last 15 years that appears to be failing us.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 04:29 GMT
You speak for yourself and I disagree with your main points.

Personally, I try to be a good citizen of planet Earth, enjoying the beauty and majesty of nature, encouraging others to adopt enlightened self-interest, and watching as the grand pageant unfolds. I strongly resist the temptation to fall into depression or cynicism.

Should we not break down the limitations of the past and begin working confidently towards a new world? Beats depression and defeatism!

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 12:47 GMT
We might survive considerably longer, but honestly I think it will be due to a "wing and a prayer" more than because of some new paradigm about things.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 17:20 GMT
Humans have a very unfortunate characteristic: even when they are as dumb as a fence posts or certified crackpots of the educated variety, they tend to have an unshakable faith in their personal intuitions.

Since the fools outnumber the men of wisdom by about 1,000,000 to 1, mankind bumbles along chaotically.

However, sometimes men like Jefferson come along and the benighted masses have enough innate intuition to know that they should let the Jeffersons create the new way of thinking or form of government, and should show deference to the power of reason.

You might consider learning some history.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 00:48 GMT
There are other sides to American history, and the revolution. It can be seen that the American Revolution was a way for land owners and the wealthy to establish their own system freed from British constraints. In particular the 7 Years War, called the French and Indian War in America, established the Cherokee, Choctaw and other nations as recognized nations with treaty rights existing between the British and French American territories. This chafed the land owning classes, in particular the plantation owners, for they wanted to extend their agrarian power and wealth. By the 1820's the native nations were extinguished, particularly under Andrew Jackson.

We like to think this nation's pre-national history was established by Pilgrims or Puritans escaping oppression from the Anglican Church and the Crown. Of course that did play a role, but really the drivers were people who were the third sons of Earls and other margraves in England who lacked inherited titles to land. Initially many of them went to Ireland to set up their own shop, where they carved up the counties of Ireland as their own fiefdoms. The problems of "England in Ireland" and the religious problems continue to this day. Later these guys came to the Americas, particularly Virginia and Carolinas. They then had the coin to kick out or kill off the natives on the land, and then import Africans to do the dirty work. Hell of a damned deal.

Remember that while Jefferson, Adams and others were men influenced by the age of reason, and the ideals of Thomas Paine, they were also powerful and wealthy. Jefferson was a slave owner up to the day he died. Of course one can also take these guys within the context of their age. However, things were not at all the heady idealisms we are often told they were. The influence of the plantanocracy, slave holding and the racism against the people previously dwelling here continues to influence American society, and in very negative ways.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 01:21 GMT
If you were criticizing your own intuition, what would you say are your weakest points?

RLO

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 13:11 GMT
I am not always the best at reading people. My intuition is not always perfect, but I am usually able to recognize that later.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 02:58 GMT
"strings and D-branes and the like are emergent aspects of an underlying exceptional matrix system that has Skyrmion physics"

Hmmm, I recomend large doses of mental ex-lax. When your mind is free of crap, try rebooting and filling it with definitively testable science instead of untestable post-moderm landscaping and Platonic fairy tales.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 10, 2009 @ 16:51 GMT
I had planned to add this story to my pre-existing gravitational

coupling "constant" thread at the "CosmoCoffee Blog", but the

thread seems to have been censored and removed. Well, it

was a good run. About 75 posts and about 2200 views.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------------­------

In 1955 a conference was organized in Italy to celebrate

"Fifty Years Of Relativity". Einstein was invited, but could

not attend because of health reasons. Instead, he wrote up

an essay on his most recent efforts at further generalizing

General Relativity and formulating a unified theory that would

incorporate electromagnetism and atomic phenomena.

In this essay he noted that a general property of the unified

field equations, one that kept appearing and could not be

avoided, was the fact of solutions that were "similar, but not

congruent". In modern terms, it seemed that self-similar

solutions were generic to a more unified relativity.

But, he said, we know the atoms have definite sizes

and masses, and one does not find atoms that are

1.2 or 2.5 times bigger than the familiar ones. This

paradox between the intrinsic self-similarity of a more

unified relativity and the the apparently absoluteness of

scale in nature bothered Einstein greatly. He said it

might mean he was totally on the wrong track.

One thing he had not considered was discrete self-similarity.

There were no atoms that were 2.5 times bigger than "normal",

but might there be atoms that were 5.2 x 10^17 times bigger.

For example a neutron star is 5.2 x 10^17 times bigger than

an atomic nucleus and a galaxy is 5.2 x 10^17 times bigger

than a neutron star. This discrete self-similarity might be

consistent with observation - and solve Einstein's paradox.

If Einstein had lived long enough, I think he would have

come around to developing this idea. Alas, he died not long

after writing the essay. So his last student has taken up the

quest for that unified description of nature based on

discrete self-similarity.

Is that really so radical [unacceptable]?

Seems like sensible, testable science to me.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 16, 2009 @ 02:09 GMT
On Nov 15, 7:24 pm, Igor Khavkine wrote:

>

> > On Nov 14, 10:11 am, Igor Khavkine wrote:

> > > As far as we know, all the time asymmetry that we have seen is due to

> > > initial conditions.

>

> I have a feeling you are trying to make a statement with a rhetorical

> question. Unfortunately, for the life of me, I can't figure out what

> it is. I've pointed out scientific consensus, which has been tested

> and prodded since the time of Boltzmann. If you have a comment or

> objection, please state it plainly.

>

------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------

I will be happy to offer an explicit comment, but first you must

explicitly explain how "all ...time asymmetry...is due to initial conditions".

Peter's colleague has stated the explicit idea that the strict

directionality of causality defines the arrow of time. Nothing

else is required, including an ex nihilo "creation" event.

Can your explanation for the arrow of time, or Sean Carroll's,

be stated in an explicit scientific form that does not involve

entities or processes that are unobservable?

Is it possible that the fact that an egg cannot be unscrambled

has nothing to due with the big bang?

How could the converse be scientifically tested?

Yours in science,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 21, 2009 @ 04:34 GMT
"How can physics live up to its true greatness except

by a new revolution which dwarfs all its past revolutions?

And when it comes, will we not say to each other,

'Oh, how beautiful and simple it is!

How could we have missed it for so long!'."

John Archibald Wheeler, 2000

Amen, brother

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.