Thursday, May 18, 2006

Fine-Tuning from first principles... again

You don't like the Lindblad Equation?

Okay, then let's try ecosystems:

All of the anthropic coincidences are ecobalanced "just-so", in a "goldilocks" manner, between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies.

And "coincidentally"... ecosystems are also the most effecient means for uniformly disseminating energy, because they spread the process out over numerous "topological hotspots", over an extended period of time.

So, an expanding universe assumes the form that conserves energy and the second law of thermodynamics via an ecobalanced configuration that maximizes entropy.

What's the problem?

Monday, May 15, 2006

Lisa Randall interview...

The whole interview is linked in the subject line, but I want to comment on the following as it pertains to the conversation that I've been having with Neil Bates:

Lisa Randall said:
The gist of it is that the universe seems to have two entirely different mass scales, and we don’t understand why they are so different. There’s what’s called the Planck scale, which is associated with gravitational interactions. It’s a huge mass scale, but because gravitational forces are proportional to one over the mass squared, that means gravity is a very weak interaction. In units of GeV, which is how we measure masses, the Planck scale is 10 to the 19th GeV. Then there’s the electroweak scale, which sets the masses for the W and Z bosons. These are particles that are similar to the photons of electromagnetism and which we have observed and studied well. They have a mass of about 100 GeV. So the hierarchy problem, in its simplest manifestation, is how can you have these particles be so light when the other scale is so big?

The normal distribution of vacuum energy cannot contribute to matter generation in a closed, finite vacuum that has negative pressure, because vacuum energy density is necessarily less than the matter energy density. As with electric charge, the normal distribution of negative energy does not contribute to pair creation. Only departures from the normal distribution in a vacuum will isolate enough vacuum energy to produce virtual particle pairs. These can be converted into real particles given enough energy, but positrons that are created under these conditions are departures from the norm that can't have the characteristics of negative mass particles that produce an antigravitational effect, so there is no conflict with Dirac's Hole Theory, and there is no need for a reinterpretation of the negative energy states.

Dirac thought that gravity fell-off with expansion, but particle creation from the vacuum of a closed and finite universe necessarily causes negative pressure to increase via rarefaction. If you condense enough of this energy over a finite region of space to achieve postive matter-density, then the local increase in the matter density is *necessarily* offset by the increase in negative pressure that occurs via the rarefying effect that real particle creation has on the vacuum.

That means that created particles have positive mass regardless of sign, and the electric force compared with the gravitational force is not a constant, but is increasing proportionally to the age of the universe.

Dirac had the right idea, but went the other way with it:
"The age of the universe, of course, gets bigger and bigger as the universe gets older. So the other one must be increasing also in the same proportion. That means that the electric force compared with the gravitational force is not a constant, but is increasing proportionally to the age of the universe.

The most convenient way of describing this is to use atomic units, which make the electric force constant; then, referred to these atomic units, the gravitational force will be decreasing. The gravitational constant, usually denoted by G, when expressed in atomic units, is thus not a constant any more, but is decreasing inversely proportional to the age of the universe."

It's a number provided by nature and we should expect that a theory will someday provide a reason for it.
~ Paul Adrian Maurice Dirac ~

Sunday, May 14, 2006

Unification of the Forces...

Before I go any further I want to outline the reasons for the physics that I've been discussing:

1) A true "special" anthropic constraint on the forces of the universe should necessitate a connection to the human evolutionary process. It would be silly to think otherwise if given the strongest implications that come with an anthropic cosmological principle, so the prediction is self-evident given these combined circumstances.

2) Which means that there should be a mechanism that enables a predominantly entropic universe to leap/bang to higher orders of entropic efficiency, just like we humans did when we lept from apes to harness fire, and beyond...

So, the fact that this is true for us, serves as support for the validity of the hypothesis as an empirically supported theory.

3) Instead of expansion/recollapse, multiverse, or, uh... "babyverses", the universe simply convolves traits or characteristics inherently forward by the exact same mechanism that we do, just as one realy should expect from a true anthropic constraint on the forces of the universe.

4) In this context, the theory of evolution becomes the theory of everything when the anthropic principle explains *why* the forces cannot be unified... no many how times the universe leaps for absolute supersymmetry.

It's all about the inherently imbalanced journey, "alfie", not arriving anywhere... when it can be very simply proven that the second law of thermodynamics is *never* violated.

It would be insane to willfully ignore this highly obvious extension.

Friday, May 12, 2006

Our Evolutionary Universe

The most popular models these days are inflationary multiverse theories... but I prefer a single perpetually evolving model, where the cosmological constant gets a little bit smaller each time that there is a big bang, as it is the effort toward absolute supersymmetry that drives the process.

In other words, the energy of the universe has an eternally inherent imperfection or imbalance that causes it to keep moving toward the reconcilliation of this disequilibrium through an endless series of leap/bangs.

The physics that provides the mechanism for it is actually incredibly simple and can be demonstrated in a sealed jar, or by the pseudo-negative pressure density that's produced by the Casimir effect.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Once Upon a SpaceTime...

... A brilliant physicist by the name of, Paul Adrian Maurice Dirac, unified Einstein's, Special Relativity Theory, with Quantum Mechanics, by way of what is known as the Dirac Equation. This was rightfully hailed as a great feat in the world of theoretical physics, and he won the Nobel Prize for this contribution.

A funny thing about this, though, was that there are four solutions of the equation. Two of them correspond nicely to the two spin states of the electron. The other two solutions, however, extend to a strange prediction that there is an infinite set of quantum states where the electron has negative energy.

The two equations,

E=mc^2 and E^2=m^2*c^4

...are only different if there is a physical meaning to the negative mass and negative energy values, where the second equation allows for both positive and negative mass-energy solutions.

The expression arises from the fact that the magnitude^2 of the momentum four-vector is given by....


In the case of a body at rest, p=0, which leads to...


The concept of negative mass arises by analogy with electric charges, where the formula for the energy of a relativistic particle...


...derives that a particle with a certain positive energy but no momentum could theoretically have a positive or negative mass!

This brings us to his "hole theory", where Dirac rationalized the negative energy solutions by reinterpreting the vacuum state so that all of the negative energy states are filled, and all of the positive energy states are empty.

Dirac's theory was flawed in-spite its success at predicting the existence of the "Positron", because it can't fully account for particles of negative energy, since it is restricted to positive energy particles, but the Quantum Field Theory representaton for this is not an accurate representation of Dirac's negative energy states.
Dirac's hole theory and quantum field theory are generally thought to be equivalent. In fact field theory can be derived from hole theory through the process of second quantization. However, it can be shown that problems worked in both theories yield different results.

And therin lies the problem that has not been resolved by *any* "reinterpretation" of the vacuum state, and so the quantum expectation for the energy density of the vacuum is about 120 plus orders of magnitude^ greater than it should be without the assumption of an "ad hoc" suppression mechanism to cover this "little" discrepency.

The problem goes back to the negative mass absurdity that falls from the Dirac Equation, and QFT's "ad hoc" assumption is what I meant when I previously said that science has assumed the flaw, rather than to fix it, which only carries and compounds the problems when extended to Quantum Gravity theories of all varieties.

- - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Hawking's Flexiverse is a Real Stretch...

Sometimes I think that these guys go to bed at night saying... I do, I do, I do, I do believe in ghosts.

...Exploring Stephen Hawking's Flexiverse
20 April 2006
by Amanda Gefter

The history of the cosmos has yet to be decided. At last, a chance to play God

HERE'S how to build a universe. Step one: start at the beginning of time. Step two: apply the laws of physics. Step three: sit back and watch the universe evolve. Step four: cross your fingers and hope that it comes out looking something like the one we live in. That's the basic prescription for cosmology, the one physicists use to decipher the history of the universe. But according to Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge and Thomas Hertog of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), the steps are all backward. According to these physicists, there is no history of the universe. There is no immutable past, no 13.7 billion years of evolution for cosmologists to retrace. Instead, there are many possible histories, and the universe has lived them all. And if that's not strange enough, you and I get to play a role in determining the universe's history. ...

It is a very sad statemet about the state of theoretical physics that assumptions about infinites and quantum weirdness have enabled this kind of causality-lacking approach to become the norm for resolving the fine-tuning problem.

...the sum over histories is formed by calculating the various probabilities for a universe like ours to arise out of literally nothing: that means we can never know anything for certain about how our universe got to be as it is.

We shouldn't be surprised, Hertog says: quantum theory has long shown us that it is impossible for us to know everything about the world around us. In "classical" physics, we can predict both the exact momentum and position of a particle at any time, but quantum mechanics doesn't allow it. No one suggests that quantum mechanics is wrong because of this, Hertog points out - and experiments have shown that it is not.

Whoa, wait a minute there, Tom. No one suggeststs that QM is wrong, but a number of respected theorists, like Roger Penrose, think that quantum theory will have to be modified more than relativity will, so don't pretend that your assumptions aren't up for dramatic revision just because you think that you understand something from an interpretation that can be thrown right back in your face given only very little new information.

For many, it remains a difficult argument to swallow. Science since Copernicus has aimed to model a universe in which we are mere by-products, but top-down cosmology turns that on its head, rendering the history of the universe a by-product of our observations. All in all, it is very like the "anthropic landscape" argument that is causing controversy among string theorists.

Which is a really nice way of saying that Hawking too is grasping at infinities and uncertainty, and that is a cop-out on the long-held understanding that there must be a good physical reason, (a stability mechanism), why the universe is the way that it is. Thank "god" that I'm not alone:

Princeton University physicist Paul Steinhardt says:
"It's kind of giving up on the problem. We've all been hoping to calculate things from first principles. Stephen doesn't think that's possible, but I'm not convinced of that. They might be right, but it's much too early to take this approach; it looks to me like throwing in the towel."

Stanford University's Andrei Linde is similarly unconvinced:
There are a number of technical assumptions that make him sceptical. "I don't buy it," he says.

I don't either, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that first principles can possibly be disassociated from the human evolutionry process in an anthropically constrained universe... *duh*

Sit back and watch it "evolve".


Monday, May 01, 2006

Try As They Might... the anthropic principle just won't go away...

Poor poor pitiful LuboŇ° Motl is a string theorist who hates the anthropic principle with a passion. This puts him in conflict with most of the rest of the string community, but it doesn't put him any closer to reality than they are. He commonly goes to Peter Woit's blog and argues with the loop quantum gravity theorists that frequent that group, and I found this jewel in one such conversation:

I tend to agree with you that according to everything we know, a measurably evolving proton/electron mass ratio would imply a much more dramatic evolution of the vacuum energy [...] unless there exists some more robust cancellation mechanism that keeps vacuum energy tiny.

I still hope that both the anthropic principle as well as the conjectured evolving constants will be superseded by future research.

Dear Lumo,

You seem more than just a little bit lost and confused. If you want to find the "robust mechanism" that keeps the vacuum energy "tiny", then you should go have a look in the mirror. Okay, bad example, but the reason that we are here is the answer to what holds the expanding universe flat and stable, so if you want to know the answer to your question then you have to figure out what it is that humans do that makes us important.

Brandon Carter correctly noted that... "our situation is not necessarily central, but it is inevitably privileged to some extent".

This point is critically important to this, because the anthropic principle readily extends to, and cannot be restricted from incuding the arms of every spiral galaxy that evolved within the same "layer/habitable-zone" of conditions, (time and location-wise), as our own galaxy, (in terms of the commonality and continuity in the evolution of the same basic raw materials that were produced by our observed carbon chauvinistic universe). In this case, the principle is "biocentric", meaning that life is more-generally important to the physics of the universe at this particular time in its history, and so it will necessarily be every bit as common to the universe as the physical need for it demands.

In this same scientific context, scientists will ask questions like; I wonder if intelligent life does something that cumulatively affects the physics of the universe that makes it necessary to the process? The implication that we're not here by accident isn't so special if something that intelligent life does makes it cumulatively necessary to the thermodymaic process of the universe, because life will then be as common to the universe as the need for it demands.

If the most accurate cosmological principle is anthropic in nature, then it is highly probable that the connection between the forces of the universe and humans also extends to the evolutionary process of humans and the universe to higher-orders of the same basic structure.

So there should be some identifiable mechanism for this that will prove it.

If you don't knee-jerk react to automatically reject observational evidence for biocentric structuring, then one of the first questions that should come to mind is... "What is it that intelligent life does that makes it cumulatively advantageous enough to the physics of the universe that the constants of nature would naturally fall into place in a manner that brings intelligent life into existence at a specific time and location in the history of the universe?" This is an honest scientific question that naturally falls out of the implications that biocentric input into the evolutionary process of the universe derives a possible solution to why the forces are constrained in the manner that they are. If the most accurate cosmological principle is biocentric in nature, then the principle is telling us the good physical reason why the forces are constrained in the manner that they are. This science should not be ignored because politics and misplaced perceptions about geocentric arrogance get in the way.

Lee Smolin and others have noted that the structure of our universe is set-up to maximize the production of black holes... 'there isn't a universe that could exist that would create more black holes than this one.'

So it should be no great surprise to find out that black holes and intelligent life are two of only three known or expected sources for creating matter/antimatter pairs, which directly affects the symmetry/flatness of the universe...

hmmmmmm... isn't it amazing what you can figure out once you lose the lame rationale for hating something that you haven't bothered to seriously investigate?

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