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.
- A false interpretive prior in the 1800’s had 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 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 (often squared).
- 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 I calculate Lp/2 center to center, but try it yourself using the basic formulas. Also, assign the charge magnitude of |e/6| to the two point charge flavors.
- 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 spherical orbital shells at vastly different radii scales. Start with a simple dipole of two equal and oppose point charges. Imagine it has fixed radius and the point charges can, with the right stimulii, roam all over that spherical shell. Then add another shell with another dipole of two point charges. And a third shell. 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 three shell orbital structure. Think about why I called it a Noether core. Yep, it does nearly all the accounting for energy and momentum. It’s also a perfect black body. I could go on.
- Now add a fourth shell with six point charges. Pick any combination. That is a fermion. Six negative point charges in shell 4 is an electron. You are allowed to think of the fourth shell and the Noether core in terms of wave equations if you like. You can easily imagine the quarks now as a mix of positive and negative point charges in the 4th shell. 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 was a false prior interpretation, leading to a tree of false priors, and the present crisis in physics and cosmology. No worries. Now that I understand the architecture, the math and simulations will be forthcoming, hopefully in 2022.
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 response 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.