Key mission of life

@Phil Gibbs: “If you think that life arises naturally no matter what the parameters of physics are then you would expect life to take a very diverse range of forms. …  I mean that there should be different solutions to the chemistry of life that work on other planets. … If we find that all higher lifeforms on other planets uses these same processes then we can be sure that physics is fine-tuned for life.”

 

The following is my comment at (http://blog.vixra.org/2013/07/18/naturally-unnatural/#comment-33594 ).

 

This is the issue of massive confusion entanglements on “multiverse, preciseness and fine-tuning”.

 

First, even with a set of absolute precise laws of life (with “zero” wiggling room), there will still have zillions of different human faces, as there are zillions different boundary conditions. The absolute preciseness of a law will not necessarily kill the diversity of the boundary conditions.

 

Second, the “chemistry” of life is a very high “tier”-expression of life. The laws of life underlie many tiers below the chemistry. I will discuss only two laws of life here.

 

1. The “key” mission of life is about “individuality”, that is, distinguishing a self from the other. Even the “identical” twins are two “individuals”. When “a” virus moves into two cells, there are two individual viruses. There is a “four color theorem” which is able to produce zillions “distinguishable” balls. Thus, the life of “this” universe uses “four color codes, the (A. G, T, C)” as a way for the manifestation of the essence of life (the individuality). Thus,

Law of life (1) in “this” universe —- the essence of life (the individuality) is expressed with the “four color theorem”.

 

2. The key functions of life (reproduction and/or metabolism) are carried out by processing information. Any information can be processed with a computing device, such as the Turing computer, the abacus or a set of counting straws. Thus,

Law of life (2) in “this” universe —- life must carry a computing device.

 

If a life in the (multiverse + 1)th-verse,

a. not about “individuality”, such as, only  as a gigantic blob for the whole-verse,

b. not using 4-color-theorem for individuality but using another way (not available and/or known in “this” universe) for the manifestation of individuality,

c. needs no computing device or uses a device not available (or known) in “this” universe, (note, the life of this universe uses “Turing”-computer as the computing device, see http://www.prequark.org/Biolife.htm ).

then, that (multiverse + 1)th-verse life is “different” from the life of “this” universe. Otherwise, it will be no different from the life of “this” universe even if it is “silver”-based instead of the carbon-based life of this universe, as they two are still governed by the same two laws of life.

 

So, that the life forms (high or low) in the other -verse use these same (or completely different) processes (on chemistry level) as in “this” universe needs not to be the consequence of any “tuning”.

 

Furthermore, any-verse is governed only by some measuring rulers (which are the sources for the axiomatic expressions of laws). Those rulers are “nature-constants” for that any-verse. Yet, there must be a “lock” to lock those rulers absolutely tight. In the case of “this” universe, the “final lock” is the Alpha.

 

If the (multiverse + 1)th-verse uses four rulers (instead of three), such as (Turtle-speed, dog-charge, tail-spin and the whatnot-else), is it different from “this” universe, that is, not a part of this universe?

 

The answer is in its “lock”. If its lock is different from our “Alpha”, then, it is definitely not a part of “this” universe. If its lock is also a dimensionless number with the numeric value identical to Alpha of “this” universe, then it is still a part of this universe even if it has completely different “measuring rulers” (the nature-constants). Multiverse or not is not about those zillion parameter spaces but is about the “lock”. If the locks are different, there are different-verses. The “Lock-physics” ends the story.

 

@Phil Gibbs:  “The only significant difference for the multiverse of string theory is that many of the string theory states describe different stable vacuua whereas in the standard model the stable vacuua are identical under gauge symmetry.”

 

If the physics of (multiverse + 1)th-verse does not provide a computing device while there is something called “life” in this-verse, that “life” is definitely different from the life of “this”-universe.

 

If the physics of (multiverse + 2)th-verse provides an abacus  computing device, then its “life” is not fundamentally different from the life of “this” universe. Yet, I do not know how an abacus can be embedded in its physics laws.

 

It is our great fortune that the physics of “this” universe has G-strings, and a set of Turing computers are embedded in the G-strings. That is, when a boundary condition of “this” universe is able to stretch its legs, those legs can immediately stand up and walk as a computing device is ready available [embedded in its (life’s) building blocks] free of charge. There is no fine-tuning of any kind needed for the rise of life in “this” universe. Furthermore, the G-strings provide the followings.

 

1. It is the only theoretical base for quark-color (red, yellow, blue, white), and it is the manifestation of the four-color-theorem in physics. That is, the “individuality” of life is guaranteed by physics laws.

2. Tommaso Dorigo’s post of July 21, 2013 is “Do Measurements Of The B_d Decay To Muon Pairs Indicate Four Generations Of Matter ?  (http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/do_measurements_b_d_decay_muon_pairs_indicate_four_generations_matter-116800 )”. In G-string, there is simply no room to house a 4th generation of matter. Neff is neither 3.1 nor 2.99 but =3 exactly in G-strings.

 

@Phil Gibbs: “The answer is that we have learnt that the mass of the Higgs boson is around 125 GeV and that this lies near the minimum end of the range of masses that would allow the vacuum to be stable even if there are no new particles to help stabilize it. …  Instead we have seen that the Higgs sector is probably fine-tuned at least by some small factor. If no SUSY is found in the next LHC run at 13 TeV then it is fine-tuned at about the 1% level.”

 

Again, the LHC new particle should have a mass exactly one-half (1/2) of the spacetime “vacuum” energy. That is, the “minimum end” calculation is simply wrong. The fact is that the entire “Higgs saga” is wrong, only as a fairy-tale and hallucination. A detailed story about this fairy-tale is available at (http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-forces-of-nature/the-strength-of-the-known-forces/#comment-61734 ). There is no need of any fine-tuning for “life” as the entire Higgs saga is just fairy-tale.

Advertisements

Is there nothing else offering a viable alternative to M-theory?

Phil Gibbs wrote an article defending the M-theory with the key reason as that there is nothing else offering a viable alternative to M-theory.  Luboš Motl also wrote, “If there’s no theoretical revolution that will immediately and convincingly change our opinion about what is right around the corner behind the Standard Model, the status quo will simply continue whether you like it or not.”  The followings are quotes of their sayings.

 

Phil Gibbs wrote, “The problem is that there has been evidence for fine-tuning in nature for a long time. One of the earliest known examples was the carbon resonance predicted by Hoyle at precisely the right energy to allow carbon to form in stellar nucleosynthesis. If it was not there the cosmos would not contain enough carbon for us to exist. Hoyle was right and the resonance was soon found in nuclear experiments. Since then we have realized that many other parameters of the standard model are seemingly tuned for life.

“The conclusion seems to be that string theory cannot predict low energy physics at all. This is unacceptable according to the scientific method or so they say. There must be a better way out otherwise string theory has failed and should be abandoned in favor of a search for a completely different alternative. But the string theorists carry on. Why is that? Is it because they are aging professors who have invested too much intellectual capitol in their theory. Are young theorists doomed to be corrupted into following the evil ways of string theory by their egotistical masters when they would rather be working on something else? I don’t think so. Physicists did not latch onto string theory just because it is full of enchanting mathematics. They study it because they have come to understand the framework of consistent quantum theories and they see that it is the only direction that can unify gravity with other forces. Despite many years of trying nothing else offers a viable alternative that works (more about LQG is for another post).

“The only significant difference for the multiverse of string theory is that many of the string theory states describe different stable vacuua whereas in the standard model the stable vacuua are identical under gauge symmetry.

“People can complain as much as they like that the multiverse is unscientific because it does not predict the standard model. Such arguments are worthless if that is how the universe works.

“If you think that life arises naturally no matter what the parameters of physics are then you would expect life to take a very diverse range of forms.

“ I mean that there should be different solutions to the chemistry of life that work on other planets. … If we find that all higher lifeforms on other planets uses these same processes then we can be sure that physics is fine-tuned for life.”

 

 

Luboš Motl wrote, “I used the number from the fine-structure constant because it’s going to be my example. It is equal to and this dimensionless number quantifies the characteristic strength of one of the most familiar fundamental interactions, the electromagnetic force. Note that the value is also “much smaller than one” and we could say that it is rather unlikely (less than one percent probability). However, with some extra knowledge, we may argue that the value isn’t too unnatural. Why?

“However, in the electroweak theory, and electromagnetism are no longer fundamental. They are produced as a mixture of two interactions, those mediated by the and gauge fields, respectively, and the extra angle determining the mixing – the Weinberg weak angle – is another source of the potential smallness of the low-energy fine-structure constants such as the electromagnetic one.

“So if you imagine that the success of the Standard Model will continue during or after the LHC run that will begin in April 2015, it would mean that we will have a proof of some 1% fine-tuning in Nature. That’s great but it will only be evidence that our naive, egalitarian, uniform probability distribution is no good – and rather weak evidence, for that matter. If there’s still a 1% or 0.1% probability that such a smallness occurs by chance, its appearance is a 2.5-3.5-sigma signal supporting “something new”.

“Nothing fundamental has really changed about our inability to experimentally probe Nature at the fundamental scale. And the idea that some new physical phenomena would “have to” occur at the LHC has always been more wishful thinking (plus promises used to convince everyone that a new collider has to be built) and less solid, justified reasoning.

If there’s no experimental breakthrough and no theoretical revolution that will immediately and convincingly change our opinion about what is right around the corner behind the Standard Model, the status quo will simply continue whether you like it or not.  In particular, some kind of a supersymmetric scenario remains the most likely candidate for new physics that will be observed on a sunny day in the future. In fact, we have repeatedly argued that supersymmetry’s relative odds have increased due to the “negative” LHC data so far. But without a theoretical revolution, we can’t really know when the Standard Model will finally break down.”

 

The following is my comment (http://blog.vixra.org/2013/07/18/naturally-unnatural/#comment-33501 ).

 

This is how “Nature” works; “ready, get-set, go”, no tuning of “any kind” at all.

 

If the axiomatic expression of a (any) physics theory (not Nature) cannot “directly’ make contact with “Nature” but relies on some “tuning”, it is simply “wrong”.

 

 Luboš Motl used a dimensionless parameter (Alpha, fine structure constant) as an example of this fine-tuning issue. Is the smallness of Alpha (= 1/137.03599) unnaturally too small?

 

Richard Feynman asked another question, “Why is this Alpha so damn mystically unnatural? No ‘formula’ of any kind (physics equation or otherwise) can calculate it”.

 

 Phil Gibbs wrote, “The problem is that there has been evidence for fine-tuning in nature for a long time. One of the earliest known examples was the carbon resonance predicted by Hoyle at precisely the right energy to allow carbon to form in stellar nucleosynthesis. If it was not there the cosmos would not contain enough carbon for us to exist. … Since then we have realized that many other parameters of the standard model are seemingly tuned for life.”

 

Is Alpha the Hall-mark of unnaturalness and of the fine-tuning? Of course, not, as the Alpha is not damn mystically unnatural after all; (Feynman, Sir). It can be easily calculated with the following “physics equation”.

 

Beta = 1/alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order sharing + sum of the higher order sharing)

        = 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …) = 137.03599…

 

A(2) = 28.743 “degrees” is the Weinberg angle (θW ), the most important quantum parameter in the Standard Model.

 

The sum of the higher order sharing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + …+(1/n)(1/64)^n +…] = .00065737 + …

 

Alpha is “precisely” derived, not fine-tuned. Alpha is not just a coupling constant for electromagnetism but is a “central” lock which locks the DNA of the universe, the three nature constants [e (electric charge), c (light speed) and ħ (Planck constant)]. After this DNA is firmly locked, the universe is allowed to evolve with total “freedom”.  Thus, carbon resonance and all parameters of the standard model which are seemingly tuned for life are the “precise (not fine-tuned)” outcome of this locked DNA; no fine-tuning at all. Nature is precise, not fine-tuned.

 

Luboš Motl wrote, “If there’s no experimental breakthrough and no theoretical revolution that will immediately and convincingly change our opinion about what is right around the corner behind the Standard Model, the status quo will simply continue whether you like it or not.”

 

A theoretical revolution will definitely face the “debate” for it being right or wrong. Yet, there is no argument of any kind needed for the above “physics equation” for Alpha, as its correctness can be verified by any 8th grader with a piece of paper and a pencil.  Furthermore, no LHC dancing (or any other whatnot steps) of any kind is able to “alter” the Alpha formula, that is, to challenge the “physics” which underlies beneath the Alpha formula. In this Alpha-physics, SUSY (with s-particles), M- and F-theory are all wrong. There is no nightmare but death-sentence for them.

 

“If the axiomatic expression of a (any) physics theory (not Nature) cannot ‘directly’ make contact with ‘Nature’ but relies on some ‘tuning’, it is simply ‘wrong’. “

 

The followings are the “direct” outcomes (via the axiomatic expressions) of the Alpha-physics, no tuning of any kind.

 

1. The Alpha equation.

 

2. The G-string (available at http://blog.vixra.org/2013/05/16/why-i-still-like-string-theory/#comment-32550 ), which produces 48 known elementary particle.

Note:

a. Phil Gibbs wrote, “The conclusion seems to be that string [M-] theory cannot predict low energy physics at all.”

b. Peter Woit wrote (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6002 ),  “…  since the story of the last thirty years is not one of evidence for string  [M-] theory unification [getting the Standard Model out of it] accumulating, but the opposite:  … String [M-] theory unification is an idea now discredited in the scientific community … The most common attitude I hear among string theorists is that the ways people used to hope to connect it to the SM have failed.”

 

Yet, every 8th grader (not knowing any physics) is able to make a proofreading check between the G-string and the 48 known elementary particles.

 

3. The Super-unification (including the gravity) with the unified force equation.

Force (degenerated) = K (degenerated) F(unified), K is the coupling constant.

 

F (unified) = ħ / (delta T * delta S) ; T, time; S, space.

 

4. Uncertainty principle:   Delta P * Delta S = Force * Delta T * Delta S = K (degenerated) ħ

The “strength” of the quantum effect is determined by K (the coupling).

 

5. The expansion of universe is accelerating, see page 50 of the book “Super Unified Theory (US copyright #  TX 1-323-231, issued on April 18, 1984)”.

 

The 5 above are only some examples of the “direct” consequences of this Alpha-physics, no tuning of any kind involved.  The Nature is Precise but not fine-tuned.

 

 

The followings are some comments from some commenters and with my answers.

 

@ Bill Evans, “The question of whether alpha can be derived is irrelevant – you have not understood the issue at all.”  

 

 

Thanks for your great insight. It will be a nice thing to do for sending an email upstairs to Dr. Richard Feynman on this great news right the way.

“Dear Dr. Feynman:

I knew that you went upstairs with a great regret, without resolving the damn mystery of Alpha which bugged you all your life. But, a great gentleman just assured me that the damn mystery of Alpha is totally “irrelevant” after all (as you simply did not understand the issue at all), that is, all your fuss was the result of a hysteric anxiety. Just stay calm, and you will be fine.

Furthermore, this new Alpha-equation is predominately determined by a weak-mixing-angle which is the rock bottom base for Electroweak Unification, which was published right before your journey to upstairs. That is, you did not have the time and energy to evaluate it. Otherwise, you would surely have resolved that damn mystery before your long journey.   

Yet, the most comforting news is that one physicist has assured me that this new Alpha-equation is purely numerological, having nothing to do with physics. The weak-mixing-angle in the equation is only numerological smoke-screen. So, really, nothing you have missed.

Yours truly,

Tienzen Gong”

 

Is the modeler the Model?

In Erik Andrulis’ (a life-scientist) article “The Modeler is the Model”, I made the following comments (http://erikandrulis.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/the-modeler-is-the-model-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-508 ).

 

If I were 15 years old, my understanding of the life theory (including yours) is as follow:

 

1. Life is the highest expression (manifestation, via self-similarity transformations) of the Nature laws.

 

2. The Nature laws are eternal, life (species) is immortal. The immortality of life is sustained with a music-chair games (having three chairs, parent, kids and species).  This music-chair game forms a spectrum of a continuous cyclical, gyrating system. As life needs three music-chairs, the rock bottom elementary particles “must” also need 3 “generations”.

 

3. Intelligence is the highest expression of life-force.  “So, the theory models the reality that you/I know: you/I cycle ions, water, oxides, and organic, phosphoric matter, nitrogenous, sulfury, genomic, cellular matter through your/my body to read/write this line of text. And so, with the theory, I am modeling me.  I am modeling you.”  Indeed, all these were known zillion years ago by life (species). The “Sexevolution — The Grand Design (rise of Intelligence), Species Intelligence” at (http://sexevolution.wikia.com/wiki/Sexevolution_Wiki ) discussed them all.

 

Life is more than (DNA/protein) and (reproduction/metabolism). Life is about eternal and immortality, about consciousness and intelligence.

 

Consciousness is about knowing the self from the other. Immortality is about the music-chairs among “individuals”. That is, consciousness/immortality is the two sides of the same coin, all about “individuality”. Even identical twins are distinguishable two individuals. The whole business of “life” is to identify “individuals”.

 

There is a four color theorem  —- with “4 and only 4” colors, we can produce zillion (infinite) distinguishable balls. Every “individual” life has 4 colors (A, G, T, C).

 

Yet, a “single” life is not the best (or easiest) way to reach the immortality. The “cloning” needs a fifth color to identify the new individual.

 

There is a “seven” color theorem —- with “7 and only 7” colors, we can produce zillion (infinite) distinguishable torus (donuts).  “Cloning” needs to punch a “hole” on the “ball”. Most high level lives have a structure as a topological donut (with digesting track and sex tracks).  Gyre is a dynamic representation of a topological torus, and it can sweep out a topological sphere.

 

Identifying zillion “individuals” is the task of linguistics, and the article “Metaphysics of Linguistics (http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cwr018.htm )” has a detailed description on this.

 

Erik Andrulis replied, “I, the center of the universe. I is you. I is all. I is the universe. “

 

These are not only the center of philosophy but must be the foundation of physics laws. And, indeed, they are the base of the final physics laws. For a life-scientist, your insight on such a deep philosophical thought is truly extraordinary. I would definitely like to discuss this great issue with you more in the future.

 

But, your saying, “Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world…. Metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms: ‘What is there?’ and‘What is it like?’” is wrong.

 

 “‘What is there?’ and ‘What is it like?’” are the tasks for physics. Metaphysics deals the issue of “why” the physics laws are there.

 

Many things in Wikipedia are wrong. While many of those issues are debatable, one is simply arithmetic, decidable by any 8th grader with a piece of paper and a pencil.  In Wikipedia, it says that the fine-structure constant [(α, Alpha = 1/137.03599…), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant ] cannot be derived with any physics equation.

 

Please get your pencil and a piece of paper to calculate the following equation.

 

Beta = 1/alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order sharing + sum of the higher order sharing)

        = 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …) = 137.03599…

 

A(2) = 28.743 “degrees” is the Weinberg angle (θW ), the most important quantum parameter in the Standard Model.

 

The sum of the higher order sharing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + …+(1/n)(1/64)^n +…] = .00065737 + …

 

Erik Andrulis  replied, “Myself to one of those thing is possible in practice but impossible in theory.”

 

Wrong, absolutely wrong.  The “indivisibility (http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm )” is the rock bottom “theoretical” base for both mathematics and physics (that is, “I is all”). Although the totality is indivisible, there are still right and wrong. 

 

Multiverse of Bert Schellekens

Dr. Bert Schellekens (a M-string Theory physicist at the university of Nijmegen) discussed the multiverse at Erik Andrulis’ blog (Anacephalaeosis)

 

Dr. Bert Schellekens said that “As I say in the introduction, there is also no empirical evidence of the contrary, namely that our universe, and especially its laws of physics are unique, …  The main reason is that they seem to violate the general Copernican belief that human beings are not central to anything, and hence that their existence should play no role in deriving the laws of physics”

 

The following is my comment at that discussion (http://erikandrulis.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/my-email-interview-with-the-theoretical-physicist-dr-bert-schellekens/comment-page-1/#comment-475 ).

 

Peter Woit (from “not even wrong” blog) wrote, “…  since the story of the last thirty years is not one of evidence for string  [M-] theory unification accumulating, but the opposite: the more we learn about string [M-] theory, the less likely it seems that it can predict anything.  … String [M-] theory unification is an idea now discredited in the scientific community, …  I actually know many people who work on string theory who have given up on the idea of getting the Standard Model out of it. The most common attitude I hear among string theorists is that the ways people used to hope to connect it to the SM have failed.”

 

There is no single argument of Dr. Bert Schellekens making Woit’s statement invalid. Yet, in Dr. Philip Gibbs’ blog (ViXra log), the G-string (at http://blog.vixra.org/2013/05/16/why-i-still-like-string-theory/#comment-32532 ) showed that Woit is wrong while he is not wrong about the M-theory.

 

M-theory was a true theoretical attempt as a physics theory but failed dismally. Its arguments do not make sense any more.  Woit despises  the M-theory for the reason that it did not make any testable prediction. On the other hand, I can happily accept the concept of multiverse if it can find one-verse from its zillion-verses to make a perfect “match” with this “known” universe. By failing to do this simple request, Dr. Bert Schellekens’ saying that “As I say in the introduction, there is also no empirical evidence of the contrary, namely that our universe, and especially its laws of physics are unique” is simply nonsense.

 

Even if we do not know the final theory, we do know the criteria for the final theory. Again, M-theory just needs to show us one-verse from its zillion-verse to encompass the bio-lives. That is, the physics laws of this particular “one-verse” do have a “hyperlink” to bio-lives. Show us the “Link”. By failing to do this simply request, Dr. Bert Schellekens’ saying that “The main reason is that they seem to violate the general Copernican belief that human beings are not central to anything, and hence that their existence should play no role in deriving the laws of physics” is simply nonsense.

 

At least, in this “universe”, there is “life”. Your gyre theory is indeed the topological representation of the life-force. As far as we know, all hierarchies building are done with the self-similarity transformation. That is, the physics laws of this “universe” must have the “seed” of a gyre representation, and this is the “must” criterion for the physics laws of this “universe” while might not be true for the other zillion-verses.   

 

By not being able to know what is going on around us but bragging about the details of Alice-wonderland, it is simply nonsense. It goes way beyond of being not the correct and final model of reality.

 

Erik Andrulis’ reply : “ It [multiverse] does not include you and it does not include me. As it excludes both of us, it is an incomplete theory. It is not the correct and final model of reality.”