Logic Isn't All It's Cracked Up To Be

I was browsing the Perimeter Institute’s video library the other day and came across a talk by Gerard t’Hooft on his new cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics. The theory is in the early stages of development and I understood little of what he said, but based on his opening remarks, I would bet that the idea will go nowhere and will simply waste the time of this brilliant Nobel laureate, one of the most respected physicists in the world.

Dark Matter Isn’t Matter

 Dark matter is that mysterious stuff that’s known to form halos around galaxies and galaxy clusters, but can’t be seen or—so far—detected, We first met dark matter in this post. It’s energy left in spacetime after inflation.

The Black Hole Information Paradox...Isn't

Black holes are dead stars that have collapsed under the gravitational attraction of their own mass. The matter density at the center of a black hole is extremely high. Some say it is infinite and the center of a black hole is a singularity. The density is so high that a horizon exists outside of the black hole where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Nothing that falls through the horizon can escape, even light. Thus, a black hole is  black because nothing inside can be seen from outside the horizon.

Yes, We Do Need A New Paradigm

Sean Carroll’s recent blog post is typical of the arrogant physicist confronting questions that he has no idea how to answer but is absolutely certain that no one but a physicist like himself could possibly find the answers. Musing about the origin of life, the origin of the universe, and the origin of consciousness, he says,

Spin, Statistics, and Forces

While the physicists are thinking about the universe and coming up with nothing, they’re not giving me anything to blog about, so I’m going to make good on a promise I made in this post. I’m going to show how the law of spin and statistics is responsible for three of the four basic forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak force.

Another Negative Positive Result

A report on the arXiv describes an experiment that searched for “chameleon fields,” a modified gravity theory that seeks to explain dark energy without a cosmological constant. The negative result rules out these fields in a large part of the parameter space, but not all of it.

In our model, dark energy is a true cosmological constant, as I explained here, so for us this result is positive and expected.

News of Interest

In terms of new ideas, things have been pretty dull in the physics community lately. However, there have been a few negative experimental results that are bad news for some old ideas and favorable news for the model I’m describing in this blog.

Whaddaya Mean, It's Not New???

As I explained here, dark matter in the universe is a remnant of inflation. At the end of the inflationary period, the universe is left in an oscillating state. These oscillations can be viewed as particles, or inflaton bosons, the inflaton being the scalar field that drives inflation. These oscillations decay to form matter particles, the stuff we’re made of.

Sorry, No Supersymmetry

An Economist article asserts that the main search target for the upgraded Large Hadron Collider, due to start up in a couple of months, will be supersymmetric particles, heavier partners of the standard model particles that have so far never been seen.  Supersymmetry is vital to string theory and to other theories aimed at solving standard model anomalies. Since no evidence of it was seen in the LHC’s first run, many physicists feel that it has already been falsified, but many others still think it will be found in the next, higher-power, run.

In the spacetime model I’m telling you about in this blog, there’s not even a hint of supersymmetry, so I feel confident in predicting that it doesn’t exist and won’t be found by the LHC or any future collider.

Paul Steinhardt's New Inflation Theory--Better Than Most, But Still Wrong

On Scientific American’s blog Cross-Check, John Horgan shares an interview with superstar physicist Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University on the subject of cosmic inflation, the period of rapid expansion of the universe immediately following the big bang. In “Physicist Paul Steinhardt Slams Inflation, Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive,” Horgan quotes Steinhardt’s explanation for his change of heart and on the cyclic model he’s developed to replace the current leading models. He says, 

The cyclic model emerged when my collaborators and I asked the question: is there any way of explaining the smoothness and flatness of the universe and small ripples in density without inflation?  The answer was yes: the key is to have a universe in which the big bang is replaced by a big bounce.   In this picture, the present period of expansion and cooling is preceded before the bounce by an epoch of contraction, and the important events that shape the large-scale structure of the universe (smoothing, flattening and generating fluctuations) occur before the bounce during a period of slow contraction.   There is no high-energy inflation phase – the universe goes straight from the bounce into a period of slow expansion and cooling.  Inflation is not needed to smooth and flatten the universe.  Consequently, there is no multiverse. The bounces can repeat at regular intervals resulting in a cyclic universe.  In some versions, the theory is geodesically complete (existing infinitely into the past), unlike inflation, which requires a beginning and special initial conditions.

The remarkable thing about Steinhardt’s cyclic theory is that it is actually correct in its gross outline. As we saw here, what actually happens is a contraction in the size of the universe that is simultaneous with a rapid inflation in the number of spacetime points. This is followed by a phase transition to the period of slow expansion and cooling that Steinhardt mentions. So he’s right about the contraction and subsequent expansion, but he’s wrong when he asserts that there’s no high-energy inflation phase. He doesn’t know about our spacetime model with its discrete points.

 I once tried to tell Dr. Steinhardt about the correct theory, but I got no response. Physicists develop the ability to smell correspondence from nonphysicists trying to help them do their jobs, and it goes directly into the trash. Such is life.

 

 

 

Neutrinos Are Serious Physics

I want to continue developing our spacetime model in some of its more sophisticated aspects. We need to know about left- and right-handed particles and why there are no right-handed neutrinos. We’ll show that when you have the correct spacetime model, these esoteric subjects aren’t as intimidating as they’re sometimes made to seem.

Win Some, Lose Some

A couple of new takes on dark matter showed up this week. One is completely wrong and the other is exactly right in concept if not in the model proposed to explain the concept.

In Physical Review Letters, a group of British and Italian physicists has published their conclusion that dark energy is increasing as it feeds off dark matter. As we saw here, dark energy is the proliferation of spacetime points by self-reproduction. It drives inflation, ultimately leaving spacetime in a state of coherent oscillation. The oscillation energy is dark matter, some of which decays to form luminous ordinary matter. So these scientists have it exactly backwards, Dark matter comes from dark energy; it doesn’t decay to dark energy.

On the arXiv, P.Q. Hung and K.J. Ludwick have come out with a model that has the inflaton (the field that drives inflation, which we know is dark energy) decaying to dark matter (correct), a proportion of which decays to luminous matter (correct). Their mathematical analysis is based on something called the luminogenesis model, which isn’t a very widely accepted model. I don’t understand the mathematics, but it looks way too complicated to be correct. However, it’s remarkable that they have the basic interaction right. Unfortunately, their fellow physicists will probably ignore it.

 

Still Not Getting Warmer

At Not Even Wrong, Peter Woit answers the question, “Are there any plausible alternatives to string/M-theory as a fundamental theory of physics?” with a resounding “No!” Lee Smolin begs to differ, commenting that “There is a whole generation of brilliant young theorists working on alternatives to string theory you should meet.”

Readers of this blog know what spacetime and matter are made of, and can be pretty confident that all of that young brain power is barking up the wrong trees. Wish I could help.

Evil says, "I'm possible, therefore I am."

I found the following item on Peter Woit’s blog, Not Even Wrong.

The New Scientist article has Don Page pointing out that this [the many worlds interpretation] explains the problem of evil. God likes the idea of everything possible happening all the time so much he’d rather not be bothered to stop bad things from happening:

“God has values,” he says. “He wants us to enjoy life, but he also wants to create an elegant universe.” To God the importance of elegance comes before that of suffering, which, Page infers, is why bad things happen. “God won’t collapse the wave function to cure people of cancer, or prevent earthquakes or whatever, because that would make the universe much more inelegant.”

Remarkably, this is very close to the truth. The glaring problem with it, however, is Page’s attribution of human-like qualities to God. As we saw here, God is the atemporal aspect of existence. It is a thought thinking itself. It simply is. It doesn’t like or want. In observing itself it sees one world of the many possible worlds, and it sees everything in that world that is possible, thereby creating it. This is not because it wants to create this kind of world, but simply because it is existence, the creator of everything possible. We see some things as evil and some as good, but to God everything simply is. A fundamental tenet of quantum mechanics is that if something is possible, there is a nonzero probability that it will be observed. That’s exactly what you’d expect in a universe that consists of existence observing itself.

Many Worlds, Yet Again

On his blog, Not Even Wrong, Peter Woit reports that the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is getting favorable press again. We dealt with this interpretation here, showing that the many worlds form a population of possible worlds from which, in true quantum mechanical fashion, only one is chosen as atemporal existence observes itself. The many worlds interpretation proves that you can't do accurate physics if you ignore metaphysics.