Tying Up the Multiverse with String

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, if they wave their legs vigorously enough, pigs will fly.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

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

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

Well I thought you might find this amusing.Attachment #1: angry_string_theorist.jpg

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.

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

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.

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

"And 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

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

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

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

One could at least imagine a new Age of Reason, wherein rationality dominated over superstition, ignorance, fear and greed.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

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

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