Misleading Assumptions by Robert L. Oldershaw

One can well understand why the fundamental assumption of strict reductionism was embraced for so long. As science gained a full understanding of stellar scale structure and dynamics, a detailed understanding of the structure and processes of biological systems, and a decent heuristic understanding of atomic scale systems, reductionism seemed highly appropriate to each of these three cases. It was natural to go the next step and assume that strict reductionism applies throughout nature's infinite hierarchy.

However, if one studies systems from all the observable scales that are available, and does so without the bias of previous assumptions, one sees that nature has a fundamental fractal organization and dynamics, with discrete cosmological self-similarity. As noted in my essay, we have good evidence for the appropriateness of limited reductionism within any cosmological scale, but a strong indication that strict reductionism is definitely not the right assumption for the infinite hierarchy.

To understand nature adequately we must recognize that a pulsar is just as fundamental as an excited subatomic nucleus undergoing de-excitation, and that the stellar scale Kerr-Newman ultracompacts that comprise the galactic dark matter are as rigorously fundamental as the protons, electrons and alpha particles that dominate the atomic scale of the hierarchy.

Thanks for your comment. I looked at what you linked, but I am not sure I understand your point there.

Apropos of nothing: I wonder what the hype-masters like F. Wilczek and L. Krauss are going to say if the latest resonance turns out to be a spin 2 particle?

Hi Jim,

This little poem by the strange and wonderful William Blake has appealed to me ever since I was an adolescent.

I use it as one of the "philosophical essence" quotations on my website. It captures the feeling of relativity of scale quite nicely.

Here is another quotation that has appealed greatly to me of late:

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." - Albert Einstein

Amen. Time to show the Platonists, and their misleading over-idealizations, the door. Time to start studying nature again, instead of analytical abstractions. Time for natural philosophers to rise again to their proper leadership roles in fundamental physics.

Robert L. Oldershaw

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Discrete Scale Relativity

To gain a working understanding of Discrete Scale Relativity and the new fractal cosmological paradigm, one needs to read 2 papers.

These papers are Papers #1 and #2 at the "Selected Papers" page of

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

They go through the technicalities, retrodictions and predictions of the paradigm.

What is meant by a "cosmological Scale" is defined using the Atomic Scale as the archetypal and best known example.

The self-similar scaling equations and how to use them can be found in these papers.

After mastering the material in these 2 papers, one becomes a leading expert in Discrete Scale Relativity, since virtually all the members of the physics community have ignored this new paradigm for 35 years and remain clueless about it. :)

When the dark matter is identified, I expect that DSR's definitive predictions of its mass spectrum will be vindicated and the barrenness of the old paradigms of particle physics and cosmology will be revealed for all to see. The 40-year No-Show for "WIMPs" is a preview.

RLO

DSR

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Hi Dirk,

Assuming that Discrete Scale Relativity applies only in the cosmological realm is not correct. It applies to ..., Subquantum, Atomic, Stellar, Galactic, ..., Scales. It unifies the physics of all scales of nature.

-----------------------------------------------

7/18 "manifesto" from nature online:

String theory has failed to even generate a single definitive prediction after 44 years of hype.

SUSY promises much, but nature (via LHC, Tevatron, etc) says: "No, no, no".

The more you objectively study the "Higgs Mechanism" the more it sounds like it was cribbed off the back of a cereal box. Expect multiple additional epicycles to keep the thing floating.

The standard model has 7 serious problems that clearly show that it is purely heuristic model-building.

Conclusion: We need to start over with a new paradigm for the 21st century. New ideas from a new generation of theoretical physicists. Trying to patch up the old paradigms of cosmology and particle physics is just going to keep us wandering in the desert for another 40 years.

The new paradigm will almost certainly be based around the discrete cosmological self-similarity of Discrete Scale Relativity.

Robert L. Oldershaw

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Fractal Cosmology

ADDENDUM:

If you cannot resolve the vacuum energy density crisis,

if you cannot explain the fine structure constant,

if you cannot identify the dark matter,

if you cannot predict the masses of fundamental particles,

if you cannot reconcile General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics,

if you cannot explain why galaxies exist, or come in radically different flavors like ellipticals and spirals,

then you do not know diddly-squat about the cosmos.

Particle physicists seem to be making it up as they go. Here's a nice example: They could not find a single free quark, so they made it a "law" that quarks are hidden inside other particles (just so!).

It's mainly Ptolemaic epicycles in theoretical particle physics, no matter how vociferously they sell it to a credulous public.

Robert L. Oldershaw

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Discrete Scale Relativity

Hi Yuri,

Yes, I am quite aware of all of Nottale's work.

Whereas I applaud many parts of his general outlook and his call for a fractal model of nature, I find the following problems with his proposed paradigm.

1. Nottale assumes that there are upper and lower limits to nature's hierarchy.

2. Nottale accepts the conventional scaling for gravitation and believes in the conventional Planck scale.

3. Nottale downplays the crucial role that dark matter plays in cosmology.

My research suggests that each of these assumptions is profoundly wrong, especially #1.

His Scale Relativity may apply within any single given discrete cosmological Scale of nature's hierarchy, but I seriously doubt that it is the correct fractal paradigm for the entire infinite and eternal hierarchy.

I have been a great admirer of Spinoza since I was made aware of his work by the work of Einstein.

I firmly believe that Spinoza has given humanity the final word on the true identity of "God", although very few seem to agree with Spinoza, Goethe and Einstein that the infinite eternal hierarchical Universe, with its elegant laws, principles and symmetries, is all in all.

God = Nature = everything natural and nothing supernatural.

If others need a more anthropomorphic God, let them believe what they will. I would only argue that they are selling God short, in fact infinitely short.