Science > Physics > Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 44.0: CFT, AdS/CFT, Braneworlds Are Wrong
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
10 Dec 2006 01:12:09 AM |
| Object: |
Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 44.0: CFT, AdS/CFT, Braneworlds Are Wrong |
From Osher Doctorow
The indications from study of CFT (Conformal Field Theory) and in fact
from Conformal Transformations in general are that they compound the
errors of the Logarithmic and Conditional Probability Approaches which
led to Mainstream misconceptions of Entropy and (Syntactic)
"Information" and Quantum Entanglement. Conformal Transformations and
CFT are heavily tied up with logarithms and statistical
mechanics/statistical thermodynamics which use conditional probability.
They also involve complex variables far "beyond" their relationships
with Probable Influence/Causation in which 1 + y - x of PI relates to x
+ iy or y + ix (preferably the latter) of complex variables. This
causes complications because complex multiplication deviates
considerably from PI properties and appears to violate closure of PI
except in certain very restricted environments (which are not usually
specified by theorists).
Wouldn't dropping AdS/CFT which Juan Maldacena pioneered (the linkage
at least) and the Randall-Sundrum type brane worlds result in too much
"throwing out" of current theories and results? Not if they are
misleading in respect to Quantum Gravity.
The brane worlds scenarios on restrospect have always suffered from
logical paradoxes and arguably physical paradoxes. Most worrisome is
the question of where the experimental or observational evidence or
indications are. As a mathematician, I am very sympathetic to the idea
of theoretical concepts that aren't experimental or observational, but
to believe in unobserved branes "outside our brane" or in bulk vs brane
stretches theory a bit too far from perception. The supposed original
link was the Kaluza-Klein 5th dimension, which itself was based on
generalizing and/or repairing GR and cosmology. But indications from
PI are that GR is not what we thought it was and that it is an
over-complicated theory using an insufficiently Causal tensor analysis.
Probable Influence/Causation (PI) does not require postulating
"non-existent probabilities" since we all agree that Probability is an
accepted mathematical concept and except for the most die-hard
physicists that it is an accepted physics concept. If I told you
tomorrow that PI has an analog of invisible branes or bulks in addition
to or alternative to compactification, PI would be subject to endless
criticism. But because of Kaluza Klein and Mainstream GR, there seems
to be no limit to proliferation of unobservable and unobserved concepts
in scenarios based on CFT/AdS, CFT/dS, Randall-Sundrum, etc.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 44.0: CFT, AdS/CFT, Braneworlds Are Wrong |
10 Dec 2006 01:37:51 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
There are two points that I want to add.
a) If you must introduce an unobserved or unobservable idea into a
theory, it is arguably least dangerous to introduce a minimal or very
little amount of such, or to say it another way, to introduce a
quantitative rather than qualitative unobservable which takes on one
value in your theory or the previous theory. For example,
Non-Euclidean geometry introduced spatial or spacetime curvature, of
which Euclidean geometry was the zero/nil case. But introducing 2
branes and an inter-brane space, or a brane and a bulk (a second brane
going to infinity) as in Randall-Sundrum and its generalizations or
modifications, is too qualitative rather than quantitative, with
nothing like curvature in between.
b) Wrong theories or "misleading theories" (theories that lead one away
from Quantum Gravity instead of toward it, in our context) do often
have value in introducing some good concepts as "side effects" (in the
computer sense). For example, Kaluza-Klein introduced
compactification, but very few people have noticed that it also
introduced the idea of a boundary to the Universe and arguably opens up
a debate as to whether a boundary can be invisible to the "inhabitants"
or observers of a region in a Flatland sense. Isn't it possible that
the word "everything" involved in the idea of "Universe" is really
meaningless if we can't specify where the "Universe" ends? We can
certainly specify where a finite interval begins and ends and where a
finite set of discrete points begins and ends, but why should the same
ideas apply to infinite sets whose beginnings and ends are not even
indicated? Remember, for example, that the integers give an
indication of where they are going by incrementing and subtracting them
by 1 in each case, but we don't even know whether the Universe is
closed or open or even whether we can even talk about where its parts
are or will be or were at different times. It might even be that we
should specify the "Universe at our time (and maybe known spatial)
interval or region or at the present" and so on instead of using an
open-ended concept of Universe.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 44.0: CFT, AdS/CFT, Braneworlds Are Wrong |
10 Dec 2006 01:54:01 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Where then should we go with Quantum Gravity if almost everything in
String or Superstring/Brane Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity and even
HUP are wrong?
I suggest that the answer is so obvious that it is almost invisible
unless we think about it. We need to actually go into space for the
"long run" with human beings to test out the Axioms of physics
including the speed of light c. Being ultra-conservative about light,
it might well be that c differs for different regions of the Universe
even in vacua. Being ultra-liberal so to speak, it might be that we
actually reach distant stars even though it looks to earthbound
observers as though we never do (somewhat analogously to the black hole
two-observer scenario).
My guess is that c is infinite in most of the Universe, whether or not
it is restricted near us by some local characteristic (which I
increasingly doubt), and that the "opposite" of gravitation is
acceleration away from the region that you started with. There is no
limit to gravitational pull from our knowledge of black holes, so why
should there be a limit in the opposite direction? Because Einstein
said so? He also said that God doesn't play dice, and that doesn't
make it so.
Osher Doctorow
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
