Roger Penrose and the gadget physics

In a Discover Interview (October 6, 2009, by Susan Kruglinski, http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics ),  Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics.

In that interview, she wrote, “Because he has lived a lifetime of complicated calculations, though, Penrose has quite a bit more perspective than the average starting scientist. To get to the bottom of it all, he insists, physicists must force themselves to grapple with the greatest riddle of them all: the relationship between the rules that govern fundamental particles and the rules that govern the big things—like us—that those particles make up. In his powwow with DISCOVER contributing editor Susan Kruglinksi, Penrose did not flinch from questioning the central tenets of modern physics, including string theory and quantum mechanics. Physicists will never come to grips with the grand theories of the universe, Penrose holds, until they see past the blinding distractions of today’s half-baked theories to the deepest layer of the reality in which we live.”

The deepest but most obvious layer of reality in which we live is about

      a. our own biological lives,

      b. our intelligences.

Until physicists are having the courage to face the above issues, physics will be forever blocked from entering the gate of the final truth.  However great that Roger Penrose is, he is only a single man, unable to move a big crowd. But, in the Introduction to The Common Sense, Paine wrote, "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." (page 3)

Thus, the article “Higgs Boson, a bad idea, part seven, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/08/higgs-boson-bad-idea-part-seven.html “ is here to witness the outcomes of these great visions both of Thomas Paine  and of Roger Penrose. 

Dark matter, yes and yes

A month ago, a group led by Moni Bidin claimed that no dark matter found in the area of their study. Now, their work was discredited by another group. See the report in the article “Science Down, Up, and Inside-Out, http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/05/25/science-down-up-and-inside-out/ “. It wrote, “The article that I described last month by Moni Bidin et al. that claimed (loudly, in the press) that there was little evidence for dark matter in the Sun’s interstellar neighborhood (but far from the center of the Milky Way galaxy) has been discredited by one of the world’s leading astrophysicists, working with a younger collaborator. ... In short, the Moni Bidin argument, once corrected, actually leads to more evidence in favor of the existence of dark matter!”

Also a month ago, a researcher claimed that dark matter was discovered in the Fermi data. Now, Fermi group officially published its data without confirming that claim. See the report in the article, “How to make a line, http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-to-make-line.html “.  It wrote, “An independent analysis of publicly available data from the Fermi gamma-ray telescope found a peak in the photon spectrum near 130 GeV. ...

Actually, 1 month after the finding, the Fermi collaboration put their own gamma-ray line study on arXiv in which they don't claim any signal but only set upper limits on the production cross section. …

Sincerely, what do I think?  Well, Nature is a bitch, and that has been especially true with regard to dark matter. So far we've been denied any insight into the identity of the dark matter particle, in spite of tedious efforts in numerous direct and indirect detection or collider experiments. A monochromatic gamma-ray line -- an undeniable smoking gun of dark matter -- just sounds too good to be true. Thus, my best guess is that she's screwing with us again, and the line will be explained away by some instrumental effect.”

Well, dark matter is a direct consequence in the Super Unified Theory (Axiomatic Physics). See the article “Dark matter, mystery no more!  http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/dark-matter-mystery-no-more.html “, and  DARK ENERGY/DARK MASS: THE SILENT TRUTH (https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/ ).

The misconceptions of centuries

In the article “Questioning the Foundations: 4th FQXi Essay Contest, http://blog.vixra.org/2012/05/25/questioning-the-foundations-4th-fqxi-essay-contest/ “, it reports that “The Foundational Questions Institute [FQI] has announced its 4th Essay contest on the question ‘Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?’ Scientific American is co-sponsors again along with Gruber and submeta.”

I am not a contest goer but do think that this question of FQI is an important issue.

The reason that LHC is still struggling for some answers is that the mainstream physics community does not know the correct foundational physics principle yet, as otherwise the entire framework of the physical universe would be known. In fact, even if the SM Higgs were discovered, it will still not help one bit for the final understanding on physics. There are two possibilities for this ignorance.

     1. This correct physics principle is simply not discovered yet.

     2. This correct physics principle is rejected by the mainstream physics community because of the deep rooted beliefs of a set the wrong principles.

 Here, I must say that the second possibility is the case.

The concept of 4-dimension space-time continuum was a very useful base for the Relativities. Yet, the correct physics principle should be as,

     a. The time is a quantum, while continuum is a very good approximation.

     b.  In addition to the real time (+/- t), there are imaginary time (+/- t, +/- it). That is, time has four dimensions. This is the true supersymmetry, not the s-particle type.

     c. Instead of being completely different between space and time, the space is only a trait of time.

The above three constitute the correct physics principle which gives rise to the Axiomatic Physics, and it is described in the article “Axiomatic physics, the revolutionary physics epistemology, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/axiomatic-physics-revolutionary-physics.html “.

Three and only three generations of quarks

In the Standard Model (SM), there is no constrain for how many generations of quarks should or could have.

 In a recent article “Three Generations in Minimally Extended Standard Models, http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4483 (written by Paul Frampton, Chiu Man Ho and Thomas W. Kephart)”, it stated that all anomalies in the Standard Model can be canceled if there are three and only three generations. They can find infinitely many models that cancel all gauge anomalies, but all of these new models require three generations.

However, this new discovery was published in the book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325) long ago, and the brief discussion of this issue is also available in the article “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/48-exact-number-for-number-of.html ”. 

In fact, in Super Unified Theory (Axiomatic Physics), the three and only three generations are the absolute, way beyond as a requirement for cancelling the anomalies.

Multiverse, not possible universes

In my article “Multiverse, a semantic gimmick? http://tienzen.blogspot.com/2012/05/multiverse-semantic-gimmick.html “, I have showed that the argument about the possibility (or the fact) that there could be multiple big-bangs simultaneously cannot be the reason for multiverse.

Yet, Greene also said in his article “… detailed analysis of the theory’s [string theories] equations revealed numerous solutions, each representing a different possible universe. And numerous means numerous. Today, the tally of possible universes stands at the almost incomprehensible 10⁵⁰⁰, a number so large it defies analogy.”

The possible universes are well-studied subject in philosophy. There are many ways to define the “current” universe. For me, the best way to define it is with my four kids. About some years ago, I had three choices for my kids’ mother. If I selected a choice different from the history, this “current” universe will be significantly different, and that difference can be clearly identified by my kids who would have carried different mother’s genes. Thus, the three “possible” universes some years ago have only one manifested. There are zillions possible universes at any given point, but there is still only one universe.

The argument that “… that the big bang would likely not be a unique event. Instead, …  it would power countless other bangs, too, each yielding its own separate, expanding universe. Our universe would then be a single expanding bubble inhabiting a grand cosmic bubble bath of universes—a multiverse.” cannot be the base for multiverse.

In Greene’s article, he did said, “And rather than merely imagining that our universe might have had different properties, proponents …  now suggest that there are other universes, separate from ours, most made from different kinds of particles and governed by different forces, populating an astoundingly vast cosmos.” This description is not about possible universes. They are definitely different universes. Then, there are two vital questions.

      1.  Can those different physics laws be tested in “our” universe? If not, the Multiverse theory cannot be a viable science. 

      2.  Can those different physics laws be “reasoned” with the intelligence of our universe?

Before these two questions are answered, the proposal of Multiverse is meaningless.  The bottom line is that we must not confuse the multiverse with the possible universes.

Multiverse, a semantic gimmick?

In a cover story of Newsweek (May 21, 2012), it reports Professor Brian Greene’s new physics, and it is carried by The Daily Beast with the article “Welcome to the Multiverse, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/brian-greene-welcome-to-the-multiverse.html “.

In the conclusion, Greene said, “... because the proposal is unquestionably tentative,  ... the multiverse can be a cop-out that diverts scientists from seeking deeper explanations. On the other hand, failure to consider the multiverse can place scientists on a Keplerian treadmill in which they furiously chase answers to unanswerable questions.”

In the article, Greene gave three points to support the proposal of the Multiverse.

     1. The observed dark energy of “this” universe is much different from the theoretical calculation. He used the Keplerian treadmill analogy to kill the issue. That is, if this universe is not the only one (similar to the Earth is not the only planet of this solar system), then the dark energy issue will become a nonissue in a Multiverse.

    2.  Inflationary cosmology makes accurate predictions about microwave background radiation, and it allows the multiple-big-bangs. Thus, the Multiverse proposal does have scientific foundation.

    3. The String theory has multiple solutions which allow the manifestation of the Multiverse.

Seemingly, this Multiverse proposal is not coming out from any wild imaginations, but Greene did admit that the string theory remains hypothetical.

Semantically, the term of “universe” is commonly defined as the "totality" of everything that exists. Thus, even if the multiple-big-bangs were allowed by the inflationary cosmology or there were more than one Cosmos, they are still parts of the universe.

If we define the “universe” as only the part that is observable by us, then there is, of course, something beyond this universe, as there is indeed an event horizon. Then, this multiverse exists without the need of Greene’s three supporting points.

In terms of physics, only if the other universes are having the different physics laws than ours, then we are in a multiverse. The many manifestations of other cosmos with the same physics laws are still parts of this universe both in physics and in linguistics.

If the multiverse physics is searching for a new set of physics laws which are not parts of this universe, then it is a genuine science. Otherwise, it is just a semantic gimmick.