Turing computer vs Boltzmann Brains

A week ago, Greer Heard hosted a debate on ‘God and Cosmology’ with the participants of William Lane Craig, Tim Maudlin, James Sinclair, Sean Carroll and Alex Rosenberg.

Without discussing the cosmology, Alex Rosenberg used evolutionary biology and the 2nd law of thermodynamics refuted all theists’ claims. His key argument is about the ‘first’ adaptation which must (no other way) arose from the blind random thermo motion of atoms, that is, with the Boltzmann Brains.

In science, there are two kinds of ‘proof’, the empirical (such as physics) and the logical (such as mathematics). The Boltzmann Brain is not supported neither by the empirical evidence nor by any logical deduction, and it is a pure speculation at this moment.

On the contrary, a much better scenario can be provided for the rising of the first adaptation.
One, the life is an information processing machine, that is, it needs a counting device (such as, counting straws, an abacus or a Turing computer).
Two, if a counting device (such as, Turing computer) is embedded in the fundamental particles (such as, proton or neutron), then the first adaptation can arise ‘intelligently’ by some information processing.

Although there is no empirical evidence thus far on this Turing imbedding thesis, it is fully supported by a ‘logical’ evidence, that is, both proton and neutron can be written as Turing machine by a mathematic ‘language’ (see, http://www.prequark.org/Biolife.htm ). Furthermore, this logical evidence is supported by a ‘Master Key’ principle. When a key can open one lock, it is no big deal. When the same key can open two different locks, it becomes a bit special. When that same key can open many different locks, it must be a kind of master key. When, that same key can open ‘all’ locks, it will be the ‘Master Key’.

This ‘Master Key’ principle is the litmus test for all theories. As great as the Standard Model is, it cannot open many known locks. With all the hypes for SUSY, it cannot open all known locks even if it were true. The more locks a key can open, the more true that key is. See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/natures-master-key-cuts-out-susy-the-undead/ for details.

Note: The videos of the debate are available at http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/04/15/talks-on-god-and-cosmology/

BICEP2 and its implication

 

Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler wrote, “This offered me an opportunity to hear some of the world’s leading experts talking about the recent measurement [BICEP2] and its potential implications (if it is correct, and if the simplest interpretation of it is correct). Alternative explanations of the experiment’s results were also mentioned. (http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/04/07/a-week-in-canada/ )

  

Indeed, there is some cautious about the accuracy of the ‘data’. In addition to data, there are two more ‘interpretations’ in the story.

One, B-mode = Primordial gravitational waves

Two, Primordial gravitational waves = inflation

 

For the ‘inflation’, it is only a ‘stage’ in this universe’s history, not the ‘structure’ of it. Thus, I will use the ‘structure’ to show that the BICEP2 data is good. Again, by using the Alpha-equation below.

 

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

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

           =  137.0359 …

 A(2) is the Weinberg angle, A(2) = 28.743 degree 

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

                                                                  = .00065737 + … 

 

This formula has five important attributes.

  1. It matches the measured Alpha number to fourth digits (in fact, can be to any digits). The calculating accuracy of this formula can be checked by any 8th grader who knows no physics.
  2. It encompasses a very important physics parameter, the Weinberg angle.
  3. It encompasses an underlying physics framework, the Alpha-physics (based on the Weinberg angle and two numbers [64, 48]).
  4. With the Alpha-physics, both Cabibbo and Weinberg angles can be ‘derived’ (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/theoretical-calculation-of-cabibbo-and.html ). Then, this equation is based only on two numbers (64, 48).
  5. It is a ‘structure’ constant, based only on two numbers (64, 48).

  

Now, without any ‘interpretation’, the BICEP2 has produced two data,

One, CMB Tensor To Scalar Ratio (r) is from 0.2 to 0.3

Two, Neff is about 4.0

  

Neff is a measurement about the number of neutrino species. The most pre-BICEP2 data showed it to be about 3.5, that is, there are either four species of neutrino or three with one sterile neutrino. Of course, most of scientists are waiting for more ‘data’ on this issue.

  

But, for the Alpha-physics above, this universe is ‘structured’ with two numbers (64, 48) only. That is, there are 64-dimensions while 48 of them are scalars (matter) and 16 are tensors (energy). The 48 are divided by two, matter and anti-matter, that is 24. The 24 are further divided into 3 generations with each having 8-dimensions (2 quarks with 3 colors each + 2 leptons).  Thus, Neff = 48/16 = 24/8 = 3 for the matter fields. Then, Neff = 4 if the dark energy is also included in its measurement.

 

Then, the Tensor To Scalar Ratio (r) = (64 -48)/48 = 0.33

Yet, the dark energy can also produce the E-mode in addition to the B-mode. Thus, the r ration can be rewritten as r = (64 -48)/64 = 0.25

  

Now, the Alpha-physics can be the ‘evidence’ for the BICEP2 announcement, before any additional data. BICEP2 data is correct.

  

For more detailed BICEP2 results, see http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/03/16/bicep2-updates/   

  

Then, I would like to add three points.

 

One, the gravitational wave is the consequence of the General Relativity. Now, the B-wave is a feature of the ‘structure’ of this universe. That is, both of them are not special features of the inflation which is only a ‘stage’ in the history of this universe. Thus, the media excitement on this BICEP2 data as the confirmation of inflation is just hypes from some interest groups, without any physics-merit.

  

Two, before we know the ‘structure’ of the universe, we need ‘data’ to find out it. When the structure is known, it becomes the check sheet for checking the validity of the data, as everyone can see that the (64, 48) structure is fixed, not a prediction or a post-diction. Yet, this structure is the master key for all current open-questions (such as, dark matter, dark energy, etc., see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/natures-master-key-cuts-out-susy-the-undead/ ).

  

Three, the BICEP2 has probed the physics at the energy near the Planck scale, and the ‘structure’ analysis has showed that the SUSY played no role at all in BICEP2 data. That is, SUSY is not here (LHC, 8 Tev.) and is not there (BICEP2, near Planck). It will be a very confident bet for SUSY being at nowhere (see http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/03/21/has-anybody-seen-my-supersymmetric-particles/#comment-180198 ).