Sunday, April 22, 2007

Classical Unified Field Theory

This is for any folks at Cosmic Variance who might make their way here after my brief conversation with Mark:

Mark said:
As someone intimately acquainted with the Einstein static universe, I don’t see any relevance to the post at all

So I'm left with an argument from ignorance:

If I were to reply to Mark, I'd say this:
You would have to actually do what I said needs to be done, in order to see the relevance, Mark, because things work-out a bit differently when the background changes every time that you make a particle from the rarefied mass energy that IS Einstein's dark energy, but you can also get it from the first post on my blog, where you or anyone else that doesn't immediately qualify themselves as a crackpot is welcome to read and review all linked threads and comments before explaining to me why I should let this go, because nobody has ever given me any good reason to think that I should not do exactly what I do to provoke the justified look.

Somebody please take this to my blog and fix what is wrong with my observations. Course, you won't be the first physicist that will have to admit that the mechanism is already known to work in inflationary theories, so be prepared to do some *real* splainin... no handwaving allowed. Don't do what this guy did, in other words, or you have only proven that you don't have a clue what is being said and why. This guy's mistake is to assume that I haven't taken the well supported aspects quantum theory into account, so he'll never be able to realize that this, (still unchallenged physics), doesn't overturn anything that is right with quantum field theory, rather, it fills in the gap, and fixes what isn't right with gravity theory, albeit greatly simplified.



Which brings us to this:

What did Einstein do in the last thirty years of his career?

Einstein's "Wasted" Effort

When the equivalent of Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism is formulated within the framework of Einstein's theory of general relativity, the electromagnetic field energy (being equivalent to mass as one would expect from Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2) contributes to the stress tensor and thus to the curvature of space-time, which is the general-relativistic representation of the gravitational field; or putting it another way, certain configurations of curved space-time incorporate effects of an electromagnetic field. This suggests that a purely geometric theory ought to treat these two fields as different aspects of the same basic phenomenon. However, ordinary Riemannian geometry is unable to describe the properties of the electromagnetic field as a purely geometric phenomenon.

Einstein tried to form a generalized theory of gravitation that would unify the gravitational and electromagnetic forces (and perhaps others), guided by a belief in a single origin for the entire set of physical laws. These attempts initially concentrated on additional geometric notions such as vierbeins and "distant parallelism", but eventually centered around treating both the metric tensor and the affine connection as fundamental fields. (Because they are not independent, the metric-affine theory was somewhat complicated.) In general relativity, these fields are symmetric (in the matrix sense), but since antisymmetry seemed essential for electromagnetism, the symmetry requirement was relaxed for one or both fields. Einstein's proposed unified-field equations (fundamental laws of physics) were generally derived from a variational principle expressed in terms of the Riemann curvature tensor for the presumed space-time manifold.

In field theories of this kind, particles appear as limited regions in space-time in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. Einstein and coworker Leopold Infeld managed to demonstrate that, in Einstein's ultimate theory of the unified field, true singularities of the field did have trajectories resembling point particles. However, singularities are places where the equations break down, and Einstein believed that in an ultimate theory the laws should apply everywhere, with particles being soliton-like solutions to the (highly nonlinear) field equations. Further, the large-scale topology of the universe should impose restrictions on the solutions, such as quantization or discrete symmetries.

Einstein became increasingly isolated in his research on a generalized theory of gravitation, and most physicists consider his attempts ultimately unsuccessful.

Eddington thought that the cosmological constant version of the general-relativistic field equation expressed the property that the universe was "self-gauging".

Eddington considered that in the Einstein field equations for general relativity the stress-energy tensor Tμν, which represents matter/energy, was merely provisional, and that in a truly unified theory the source term would automatically arise as some aspect of the free-space field equations. He also shared the hope that an improved fundamental theory would explain why the two elementary particles then known (proton and electron) have quite different masses.

See also; Gönner, 2005
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2004-2&page=articlese6.html

Is it just a coincidence that all of the anthropic ecobalances that make-up the goldilocks enigma are also "self-regulating"... just like every other known ecosystem is?

Like the flatness of the universe, in Einstein's static model, G=0 when gravitational pressure is absolutely offset by negative vacuum pressure.

He brought in the cosmological constant to counterbalance the runaway recollapse effect that occurs in this model because of the obvious fact that we do have matter, but in order to get rho>0 from Einstein's matter-less spacetime structure, you have to condense the matter density from the zero pressure metric, and in doing so the pressure of the vacuum necessarily becomes less than zero, P<0, which causes expansion.

*Note that the mass-density of the background changes every time that you do this.

Einstein didn't introduce the counter-balancing cosmological constant with matter generation from the vacuum in mind, so he didn't like it, because without this knowledge he naturally concluded that it added an undesirable extra entity, so the logic that was used to reject the cosmological constant when it was discovered that the universe is expanding was sound in context with the knowledge of the time, but this is not the case given knowledge that the vacuum has real, massive, particle potential.

It is plainly evident from this that most natural way to create new matter in Einstein's model, ("the most compatible with the spirit of general relativity"), also holds it flat and stable, (it is "self-guaging"), so any other conclusions that have been made since Einstein abandoned his finite universe without this knowledge are therefore subject to suspect review!

This does not conflict with quantum field theory. As with QFT, the normal distribution of energy does not contribute to particle creation. You have to condense or compress the energy down over a finite enough region of space to attain the matter density in before the virtual pair can be made real.

So where does it go from here?... if we are unable to disprove Einstein's finite closed spherical universe, given this "new-light" on the subject?... which no honest physicists has ever even tried to do, because they also recognize this as the same mechanism that gets used in modern inflationary models to generate mass at a great expense to negative pressure.

This physics predicts a higgs mechanism, but no higgs boson, which isn't to say that the playing field hasn't already been narrowed significantly in recent tests done by the smaller particle accelerators as the confidence level for this result climbs.

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Inflationary Theory... A Warped Speculation

The article that's linked in the title talks about how Alan Guth recently held-up a picture of a monkey to portray Neil Turok and what he thought of his cyclic cosmology. Well, Neil Turok can take heart in knowing that there is theoretical support that indicates that the so-called "evidence for inflationary theory" can just as easily mean something that doesn't require band-aids to big bang theory, like inflationary theory, in order to account for the flatness and horizon problems, but especially the magnetic monopole problem... i.e., observational inconsistencies. When you project backwards to the point that extraordinarily rapid expansion becomes necessary, then the most obvious solution to the problem without inflation is simply that the universe had certain volume when the big bang occurred, and... duh'.

Well, "lo.and.behold" that's exactly where we find - "RE-Heating and Thermalization"... surprise... surprise. Could it be that we were in such a big hurry to get to a **pre-assumed** cosmic singularity that we did not pay attention to what projecting the physics backwards was telling us?... I think so...

The actual mechanism that is behind inflation is not even known, but the theory is designed to make predictions that can be matched to the observational data, so it's success at accomplishing this has enabled inflationary theory to become a part of the standard hot big bang cosmology in spite of its many known flaws, and even though it has only been partially justified. The hypothetical particle or field thought to be responsible for inflation is now called the "inflaton"... uh-huh, prove it.

Since all attempts at grand unification have failed, it is now assumed that inflation will be included in a supersymmetric theory, (like string theory), or maybe a supersymmetric grand unified theory, because they can't handle the most apparent implication for a pre-existing time asymmetry, I guess. The standard interpretation is that thermodynamic arrow of time necessarily requires low entropy initial conditions, which John Page pointed-out would be extremely improbable. Rather than solving this problem, the inflation theory further aggravates it because the reheating or thermalization at the end of the inflation era, necessarily increases entropy, meaning that the initial state of the universe had to be even more orderly than in other Big Bang theories that don't have an inflationary phase.

As I noted a couple of posts ago, Lawrence Krauss pointed out that the amplitude of the quadrupole moment of the CMBR is unexpectedly low, and the other low multipoles are observed to be preferentially aligned with the ecliptic plane. This is a signature of what is known as, "non-Gaussianity", which contradicts the simplest models of inflation, requiring more bandaids and cream.

If the microwave background at the multipoles is correlated with the geometry and direction of motion of the solar system, and the incoherence manifests via octopole and quadrupole components in a closed and bounded universe, then there should be a center of gravity at the center of the visible universe that correlates to the ecliptic.

So maybe we're not exactly the "center" of the universe as Krauss thought, rather we're on a centrally preferred "plane" along with a lot of other similarly evolved galaxies, which, with very high probability, will include similarly developed environments and carbon based life, per this Goldilocks Enigma...

Friday, February 23, 2007

Our Darwinian Universe

Instead of being “designed”, think of the observed anthropic cosmological constraint on the forces of the universe as an *inherent* energy conservation law that enables the universe to periodically “leap/bang” to higher orders of the same basic configuration in order to preserve causality, the arrow of time, and the second law of thermodynamics... indefinitely... ... ...

Then you have a perpetually evolving structure, where all of the so-called "anthropic problems" are resolved without need for apparent absurdities, like inflation or a singularity, when a causally connected universe with volume has a big bang, which also resolves all of the “anthropic problems”, found here, as well as the rest of them:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html

The following is one of many valid examples that can be found on this site of the physics that proves how this mechanism works via asymmetric transitions that occur when we and others like us make matter/antimatter particles from the rarefied mass-energy which comprises this vacuum that science abandoned long-ago:

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073320.html

(this new information makes apparent the cosmological model naturally produces a theory of quantum gravity in a constantly changing background.)

Open challenge

This is the asymmetrical thermodynamic function, as it is referred to by Richard Dawkins as the "anti-chance mechanism" of natural selection:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMTRANS.html

Dawkins said:
Natural selection is an anti-chance process, which gradually builds up complexity, step by tiny step. The end product of this ratcheting process is an eye, or a heart, or a brain - a device whose improbable complexity is utterly baffling until you spot the gentle ramp that leads up to it.

Illustrated:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMILL.html

An Antrhopic Cosmological Principle necessarily defines a Darwinian Universe.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

The Goldilocks Enigma, again...



Circumstellar Habitable Zone - Ecobalance - Ecosphere


The evolving physics that define the vast array of coincidetally balanced, "just-right" conditions that make up the Goldilocks Enigma, ranges dramatically in magnitude and time, from the near-"flat", balanced structuring of the universe, itself, all the way down to our own local self-regulating ecobalance, whose chaotic cycles we directly contribute to enhance over time. These "ecospheres" began unfolding at the moment of the big bang, but it took most of 14 billion years to bring them all to "fruition", so claims that this structure defining physics isn't **necessarily** pointed directly at carbon based life, are, at least *apparently* absurd, and must be justified with something more than "somewhat" established cutting-edge physics speculations.

The relevant anthropic physics isn't strictly geocentric, however, because the same conditions also apply to other galaxy systems that are similarly evolved, time and location-wise, as ours is:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html

The Goldilocks Enigma constrains the parameters to a balance of extremes... so it only applies to the ecosphere of galaxies that formed on the same evolutionary time/location "plane" as we did. Planets orbiting stars in galaxies that are too old or too new, too large or too small, do not fit the "coincidentally balanced" nature as the average of extremes... etc... etc... ect... all the way down to the local ecobalances of the ones that do, and life will only arise on planets in galaxies, (and universes), where ALL of the anthropic coincidences are simultaneously in effect.

The "cosmological principle" derives a "mediocre" a priori statistical distribution of values of observables, but this is not what is observed and is the reason for the anthropic physics that defines the "Goldilocks Enigma", so the combined effect of the cosmological principle with the goldilocks constraint extends to the observed universe to produce a biocentric cosmological principle.

This also addresses the alleged, Fermi "Paradox", as well, since we should not *yet* expect to hear from similarly developed intelligent life, because their radio transmissions have not had time to reach us... *yet*... either.



That's a testable prediction about where and when life will most likely be found elsewhere in the universe.

This paper by A. Feoli, and S. Rampone, further discusses this in context with similarly developed systems, but they fail to take the balance of extremes that defines the "Goldilocks Enigma" into account here, because they apply the mediocrity principle, instead, so their formula and anthropic statement are not quite accurately inserted into their large scale equation, as would be the case if they'd considered the entire set of anthropic balance points that evolve, so their solution and anthropic statement are generalized and overstated, rather than being specific and pointed toward a fine layer of similarly evolved galaxies, stars, and planets:

"Is the Strong Anthropic Principle Too Weak?"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812093

We discuss the Carter's formula about the mankind evolution probability following the derivation proposed by Barrow and Tipler. We stress the relation between the existence of billions of galaxies and the evolution of at least one intelligent life, whose living time is not trivial, all over the Universe. We show that the existence probability and the lifetime of a civilization depend not only on the evolutionary critical steps, but also on the number of places where the life can arise. In the light of these results, we propose a stronger version of Anthropic Principle.

When you apply the Goldilocks Enigma, rather than the mediocrity principle, then a much more accurate and testable formula falls-out along with a more accurate statement about a strong biocentric principle, so this "coincidental" Enigma extends to include every similarly evolved galaxy that exists in the same common "layer" of galaxies as we do. The average of extreme opposing runaway tendencies that are common to the anthropic coincidences make many testable predictions about the observed universe.

Like, life, (past or present), will not be found on Mars nor Venus, but it will be found in other galaxy systems along the layer of spacetime that makes-up the goldilocks enigma. Venus suffers from the runaway greenhouse effect, whereas Mars represents the cold stagnate proof of what will happen if extremist environmentalists get things all their way too, so heed the lesson of this anthropic coincidence.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

A Very Strong Anthropic Principle

Steven Weinberg quoted by Susskind in and interview by Greg Ross of American Scientist

Finally, I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator. I found this parallel well understood in a surprising place, a New York Times op-ed article by Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. His article concludes as follows:

Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

There is evident irony in the fact that the cardinal seems to understand the issue much better than some physicists

-Greg Ross

That's not "irony", Greg, it is what Brandon Carter correctly identified as, "anticentrist dogma"... and it still does rule the minds of the vast majority of physicists.

Good reasons why science should not ignore the most apparent implications of the physics.

Evidence - Implication - Theory

1) It is an unavoidable fact that the anthropic coincidences are observed to be uniquely related to the structuring of the universe in a way that defies the most natural expectation for the evolution of the universe in a manner that is also highly-pointed toward the production of carbon based life at a specific time in its history, (and over an equally specific, fine-layer or region of the goldilocks zone of the observed universe). If you disallow unproven and speculative physics theory, then an evidentially supported implication does necessarily exist that carbon-based life is somehow "specially" relevant to the structure mechanism of the universe, and weak, multiverse interpretations do not supercede this fact, unless a multiverse is proven to be more than cutting-edge theoretical speculation.

That's the "undeniable fact" that compells Richard Dawkins and Leonard Susskind to admit that the universe "appears designed" for life! There is no valid "weak" interpretation without a multiverse, because what is otherwise unexpectedly observed without the admission of speculation, is most-apparently geared toward the production of carbon-base life, and even intelligent life. Their confidence comes from the fact that their admissions are qualified by their shared "beleif" in unproven multiverse theories, but their interpretation is strictly limited to equally non-evidenced "causes", like supernatural forces and intelligent design.

These arguments do not erase the fact that the prevailing evidence still most apparentely does indicate that we are somehow relevantly linked to the structure mechanism, until they prove it isn't so, so we must remain open to evidence in support of this, or we are not honest scientists, and we are no better than those who would intentionally abuse the science. We certainly do not automatically dismiss the "appearance" by first looking for rationale around the most apparent implication of evidence.

That's like pretending that your number one suspect doesn't even exist! There can be nothing other than self-dishonesty and pre-conceived prejudicial anticipation of the meaning that motivates this approach, and often *automatically* elicites false, ill-considered, and, therefore, necessarily flawed assumptions, that most often elicite equally false accusations about "geocentrism" and "creationism". That's not science, it's irrational reactionary skepticism that is driven without justification by sheer disbelief and denial.

2) At the very least, we can't honestly deny that an evidentially supported implication for a direct anthropic connection to the forces *most-apparently* does exist, unless we are willing to say that Leonard Susskind and Richard Dawkins, (as well as other historically noted and respected physicists), are lying to us about their true perception of the evidence. We must, therefore, be open to science that might be indicitive of this, or we cannot call ourselves honest unbiased scientists.

As such, it is unavoidable that we embrace the logically implicated possibilty that a true anthropic constraint on the forces of the universe might *necessarily* include a reciprocal connection to the human evolutionary process. Scientists should think long and hard about that, because this relates the human evolutionary process to the ever elusive structure mechanism, so the answer to the riddle of the near-flat expanding universe, as well as the rest of the anthropic coincidences, is expected to be revealed via this asymmetrical thermodynamic function, per the least action principle.

Given the potential impact that this has on the most accurate cosmological principle and model, any remote possibility that the above is true should be more than enough to make it so that it's not unreasonable to expect scientists giving equal time to this *distinct* possibility, since, (per the open admission of our mentioned scientists), the anthropic connection is the first *most-apparent* implication of the evidence without an infinite sea of potential to lose the *most obvious* implication in. There can't be any argument about the fact that the strong biocentric implication exists, unless someone can prove that the multiverse exists, or if you can otherwise prove that the stability mechansim is not inherently geared toward the production of carbon based life for some very practical physical reason, over a "golden region" of the observed universe.

That's what makes Leonard Susskind say that "we will be hard-pressed to answer the IDists"... if the landscape fails, although Lenny doesn't seem to be aware that *natural bias* is the default, if we're not here by accident, so ID doesn't even enter the picture and can't be inferred without direct proof. If we are not here by accident, then the default scientific approach is that there is simply some relevant physical reason why we are "needed" into existence by the natural physical process of our evolving universe, and this is what our intricate link to the commonly-balanced nature of the forces most logically indicates is going to be the case.

There is no valid basis for invoking weak multiverse interpretations to wipe-away the otherwise indicated significance, unless you're just debating with an extremist creationist. A scientist is obligated to accept the fact that she or he is being directed toward a bunch of balance points in nature that are intricately related to both the structure of the universe and the existence of carbon based life, and this is expected to somehow account for the otherwise completely unexpected structuring of the universe.

You can know that you're dealing with a self-dishonest scientist if they do not recognize that the above statements are factual and correct.



Anybody that wants to try, is welcome to prove me wrong about any of the above statements, if only you could...

Monday, October 23, 2006

String Theorists on the Anthropic Principle

String theorist:
The weak anthropic principle is a selection effect.

Me:
No, that's not necessarily true. For example; The weak anthropic principle as defined by Tipler and Barrow describes the general form of the special case if there is only one possible configuration that the universe can take.

String theorist:
One possible universe?!?!... What ever gave you that crazy idea?

Me:
The least action principle.

String theorist:
phhhht... we gave up on that years ago, the multiverse is the only way, you can even ask Richard Dawkins and Lenny Susskind!

Me:
Oh, sorry, I forgot that you guys gave up doing real physics, for religion.

String theorist:
Look, you're a crackpot, because you don't believe in unproven assumptions.

Me:
Indeed, you mean, because I trust what the physics indicates, that carbon based life is weaved into the path of least action in a relevant way.

String theorist:
You're a crackpot because you think that carbon based life might be weaved into the path of least action in some relevant way, and I can deny without justification all evidence that you provide to support it.

Me:
Indeed.

String theorist:
Selection effects Selection effects Selection effects!!!