1 / 6

Assumptions of each perspective: SM/convention OM

Assumptions of each perspective: SM/convention OM mass virtual Higgs temporal curvature gravity graviton/GR temporal curvature e-m virtual photons charged anti-photons strong virtual gluons temporal curvature

callia
Download Presentation

Assumptions of each perspective: SM/convention OM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assumptions of each perspective: SM/conventionOM mass virtual Higgs temporal curvature gravity graviton/GR temporal curvature e-m virtual photons charged anti-photons strong virtual gluons temporal curvature weak virtual W-bosons geometry/vibration self-int random-nature spacelet-nature multi-states random-nature spacelet-nature grav-time-dil GR temporal curvature rel-time-dil path-length temporal curvature big-bang inflation God If we allow convention the collective 'virtual particles' as one assumption, then each virtual instance above counts as only one assumption for them. Counting the number of unique assumptions on both sides gives five each; they are equivalent under Occam's Razor.

  2. How many parameters does each model require? • Convention states the SM requires 20. • Let's count for the OM.. • Implicit below is the proton/electron mass ratio.. • So that's one..

  3. How many? If we count variables as 'parameters', and as we counted assumptions – one param for each instance, then.. As mentioned in the previous slide, one is used for proton / electron mass ratio,.. If we allow one for Gaussian/exponential shape above,.. Then that's 13 parameters required for the OM. 5 vs 5 assumptions.. And 13 vs 20 parameters.. So again, there's a tie under Occam's Razor but a clear winner if we count required parameters.. So..

  4. SM vs OM • If we look at number of assumptions only, there's no winner under Occam's Razor • If we compare the number of parameters required for each model, the OM clearly wins • It becomes clear that convention prefers the SM for historical reasons: rejection of 'the aether' and anything like it.. • And rejection of Prime Cause again because of the historical pull away from religion..

  5. The impedance of space/time is not equivalent to 'the aether'. • Engineers recognize the importance of media impedance, why not physicists? • Engineers recognize the importance of media elasticity, why not physicists? • … • If convention 'bends over backwards' in attempting to create cosmologies without the Prime Cause, but if the Prime Cause was involved in creation, then it becomes a kind of delusion/insanity to attempt to create cosmologies without It. • i have long argued that religions' dominance over the 'concept of God' is Wrong. • The 'concept of God' does not belong to religions. • If we must create cosmologies based on multiple dimensions or unrealistic physics (such as inflation) to explain creation without a Prime Cause, doesn't that indicate something 'funny' is going on? • If a Prime Cause was involved in creation, doesn't it make sense to acknowledge and respect that? • .. i realize we must attempt to develop cosmologies and models without God – that's our duty as scientists.. We must 'probe the possibilities'.. But.. If after 100 years of probing, all we're left with is: multiple dimensions or unrealistic physics, doesn't that indicate the possibility our 'prime assumptions' (such as associated with the SM) might be incorrect?

  6. Most humans believe in some kind of deity anyways.. Is it such a 'leap' to assume a Prime Cause was involved in creation? • Must we forever live with science and faith disconnected? • .. Engineers have valuable and practical viewpoints.. Physicists could 'learn a thing or two' by emulating engineers.. • Impedance, elasticity, wavelets,.. these concepts come from engineering.. • Would it be 'so wrong' to try?

More Related