Theory of Everything?

On Feb 12, 2005, at 6:22 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

The only issue I am concerned with here is whether Lorentz invariance is universal and why.

I don't know what you mean and neither do you. The question is ill-posed.

In GR Lorentz invariance is a local symmetry not a global one because T(4) is locally gauged whose compensating field is the non-trivial part of the Cartan tetrad. This solves one of your problems, i.e. intrinsic vs coordinate.

Do you mean there are exotic vacua where O(1,3) is wrong even locally? No evidence for that at all.

G. E. Volovik has emergent O(1,3) at a fixed point low energy effective field theory in a renormalization group flow from a Galilean sub-stratum. Is that what you mean?


I am not arguing against spontaneously broken symmetry. Obviously you can get preferred frames in a physical vacuum by breaking the underlying dynamical symmetry in the solutions at the macro-level, which I think is what you are saying.

That's all the Cahill/Consoli data show, if they are real. Interesting and important to be sure - another triumph for PW Anderson's theory of emergent complexity! No change in paradigm needed.

The mainstream paradigm

1. Symmetries

2. Locally gauging symmetries to get forces (complementary to geometrodynamics)

3. "More is different" emergence via spontaneously broken symmetries in the locally lowest energy valleys of the landscape of the parallel worlds of the multi-verse.

This is all we need for the theory of everything from large-scale universe today to small-scale lepto-quarks & gauge force bosons.

From Stormy Pre-Inflationary Dirac Sea to Post-Inflationary Pacific Higgs Ocean. Oil on Water.

Einstein's gravity with anti-gravitating dark energy and gravitating dark matter emerges as phase and amplitude modulations of the post-inflationary calm Higgs Ocean (AKA Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field, AKA vacuum coherence of ZPF).

I do not see what you are worried about. BTW the affine/vector space distinction for the space of Lorentz inertial frames is an elegant way to look at the contingent Einstein/Lorentz empirical significant difference. The alleged experimental anomaly is strictly isolated - no major damage control needed. Now if you could give me a counter example on that, then you would have something. At the moment you are charging windmills.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Stop making vague statements. Simply write a review paper in complete detail with logic like Euclid step-by-step what you think Einstein says, what you think Lorentz says etc. Stop using polemics. Don't talk about it. Do it.