4gravitons wrote Duality and Emergence: When Is Spacetime Not Spacetime?
Here is my response.
Duality and emergence are wonderful facets of nature. I am going to make a few statements and if you suspend disbelief for a moment, they may help change your perspective on the situation. Please read this with an entirely open mind, unencumbered by the interpretations of physics and cosmology. Their observations are fine.
- I assert that there is an incredibly parsimonious formulation of nature that has been tragically missed by scientists.
- This formulation of nature is 100% isomorphic to the standard model. less the SM’S faulty interpretations.
- Incorrect technical assumptions in the work of Lienard and Wiechert circa 1900 have led to a complicated tree of incorrect prior interpretations which is clouding the vision of the scientists studying physics and cosmology.
- Here are the ingredients to the Universe : Euclidean void in space and time, a density I of immutable point charges carrying a density II of energy in kinetic and electromagnetic potential form. That’s it!
- But wait, how can this be? Unfortunately, physicists discarded point charges due to concerns over the math as idealized point charges approach infinitely closely and the math blows up with the radius in the denominator.
- Point charges were down, but not out. They can be rehabilitated. Let’s explore a natural rule that prevents any two point charges from approaching any closer then a distance near the Planck length. Also, assign the charge magnitude of |e/6| to the point charges.
- What is the way forward? Study orbital systems of immutable point charges. Don’t take my word for it. Examine the research. Can’t find much? That itself is an enormous clue. Why don’t we have a well established body of research for systems of orbiting point charges?
- Imagine a nested set of dipoles orbiting at vastly different radii. Start with a simple dipole of two equal and oppose point charges. Imagine it has a frequency which determines its energy and its radius. Then add another dipole of two point charges. And a third dipole. Label the radii something well below our ability to directly observe, say r = 10-32, 10-28, and 10-24 as an example. I call that the Noether core. It is what inflates, dilates, expands, contracts, and implements Einstein’s spacetime throughout a passive Euclidean substrate of absolute space and time. Einstein’s spactime must be considered from this perspective of a nested tri-dipole orbital structure. I called it a Noether core because it does nearly all the accounting for energy and momentum. It’s also a perfect black body. I could go on.
- Now add six weak personality point charges, one per polar vortex of each dipole. Pick any combination of six weak charges. You have assembled a fermion. Six negative personality charges is an electron. You are allowed to think of the personality charge and the Noether core in terms of wave equations if you like. You can easily imagine the quarks now as having a mix of positive and negative weak personality point charges. By the way, Noether cores come in pro and anti because there are three angular momentum vectors in a Noether core and they are different magnitudes, so there are two symmetry states.
- There you have it. Don’t take my word for it. I’m not a scientist and there is no journal that will accept a non-scientist saying there were a technical false priors, leading to a tree of narrative false priors, and the present crisis in physics and cosmology.
Or, you, yes you, could suspend disbelief and think about what I wrote above and help me accelerate the transition to the next era.
J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts
p.s. 4 gravitons responded. My words went right over his head.
4 gravitons : General thing I’ve warned you about before: try to more explicitly connect your comments to the topic of the post if you want them to not be deleted for being off-topic. Here I can tell what “got you going” (you think of your theory as one in which Standard Model fields emerge from dynamics of point charges), so I’m letting it through, but aside from a throwaway sentence at the beginning of your comment you don’t make that connection clear. In general, comments are for a dialogue with the post, so dialogue, don’t monologue!
Me : Did you read list item 8? I explained how spacetime is implemented. I think that is relevant to your article about spacetime.