Samir
Contrary to your proposition I've never seen Planck length physics as anything other than a means to explain classical effects, giving unification. I've also never been inspired by string theory's ability to derive classical observation, but in building an ontological model the torus figured at all scales, and your reference to it sprang out. But perhaps from a new view point.
Can you see the cylinder of your 2.1(d) as a slice of the body of a torus? A line has no thickness, so if strings 'exist', then must a loop not be a torus!?
And have you considered not just the torus but it's effects as a 'twin vortex' em entity. As an astronomer I'm very familiar with toroids as real em entities from magnetic fields of all bodies to the AGN's (SMBH's) at all galactic centres . They are accretion phenomena, drawing in the disc matter crushing, re-ionizing and ejecting it as astrophysical jets, in a cycle of dormancy and high activity.
From this a cyclic universe seems to emerge, exactly matching the CMB anisotropies that we struggle to rationalise; the helical resolution, quadrupolar symmetry, flow, axis of evil, lower limit, frames last scattered etc. etc. A scale invariant model also provides an interesting derivation of the string force via some work by Tamari on dipoles rotating around the toroid body. But that is an aside to what else emerges.
I enjoyed your essay, well written and clearly presented but found it steeped in outdated concepts with less consistency with observation than arising from the abandonment of more deeply held assumptions. Food for thought? Or too much to consider?
I do hope you'll read my essay and comment anyway.
Best wishes.
Peter
