Hi Peter,Adel, Colin,

You know when I speak about spheres I insist, about their 3D SPHERICAL VOLUMES.Whe I speak about a fractal, I see a serie of volumes from the main central. The planck scale is like a bridge for me ,like is the bridge between the matter baryonic and not baryonic simply. Like a BH also ,it is the same logic.

Infinity is a relative concept like the finite groups and series.The planck scale is not infinite in its serie of particles, nor in energy, that said we go towards a paradoxal entire entropy more we go towards our singularities, the main centyral codes which are gravitational and not baryonic in logic.

The infinity like the numbers, the groups, ...the number of 3D sphers must be ranked in fact like all. A fractal for me is a serie from a singularity in my model of quantum and cosm 3D spheres inside an evolutive 3D sphere in spherisation optimisation of matter energy on a irreversible entropical arrow of time. They turn so they are these 3D spheres baryonic and not baryonic.The infinity is a very complex thing needing a relative interpretation.Eternity,infinity, time ,physicality, energy, matter, evolution,encodings.....all this is an incredible mechanic after all and we know so few, the planck scale at 10^-35m is like a bridge between these two matters baryonic and not baryonic.

Best Regards

Hi Peter ,

Thank you for your comment.

While I do agree that I need to make a better presentation with jazzed up mathematics (which I will one day), however I do think I have made important connection with QM/QFT. Notice I said important and not good, because you and me (and other researchers) only try to show important points in the beginning and once those are accepted then further development can proceed.

Beside the clean and coherent build up of the physics, I have made the connection with the electron/proton mass ratio with the proton size, that is a hell lot more than what the "standard model" can dream of. As you know the SM contains many unstable particles and the proton construction look like a shack in a slump:) and all permeating Higgs with utter mismatch with known CC, and so on.

Thanks again.

P.S. the interaction problem which you are working with will be the next step in exploring my model which I hope it will show the origin of the problem by automatically providing the solution which it should IF my model is fundamental. BTW, what is you latest.

Kind of you to ask, Adel. You can see a few comments above a YouTube link to how I find it most congenial to think about quantum mechanics; that's four months old. My latest is that I'm continuing to try to fix the approach in arXiv:1507.08299. I've added my most recent version to this comment as an attachment, so I'll say to look at that, not at the arXiv version.

I see this as an approach to doing interacting QFT mathematically correctly, but Appendix C, almost the very end, contains the killer sentence, "there is no immediately obvious construction that implements the U(1) and other gauge symmetries that have been so effective when using Lagrangian and other dynamical methods." I don't know how to fix this, or at least I don't know how to gloss it so a journal editor/referee would perhaps accept the paper.

Even if I could fix it, I see the paper as an approach to QFT, not as a final solution, particularly for its suggestions by example as to which of the Wightman/Haag-Kastler axioms I think it might be good to weaken so that there would be non-trivial interacting models.Attachment #1: MP.pdf

IMO you are on the right track with dodecahedra. And we may ask what provides the pressure inside the "bubbles" and what is the membrane between "cells" of the foam? I suggest a unit of charge in each cell and dynamic membranes formed by surrounding units of charge. Maximum packing density of elements would be "close packing" for solid round static bits of charge. But for charged dynamic particles density is greater than "close packing." This "shape" may be described as a distorted dodecahedra. This maximum in the packing density prescribes the background temperature of the cosmos! And it varies with direction! Can you see the dodecahedral structure in the cosmic microwave background (CMB)? Yes. And the maximum density of the "vacuum charge" distorted dodecahedra-- is less symmetrical than one may at first assume. It has a natural twist.

Hello,

It is beautiful extrapolation with strings and the primordial fractal considering this dodecahedre. I consider presonally the 3d SPHERES but I see convergences with these works. The relevance was about the fact to conside this 1D primordial field and the building by this infinite entropy if I can say. We see a kind of luminiferous aether in this reasoning connected with our main central codes, mathematical or physical.It is relevant but that does not explain this quantum gravitation.Because I beleive humbly that we must consider an other logic not baryonic nor relativistic. But it is just my opionin of coure?The photons are not relally the main primordial quantum of E.Best

Thank you for the link to Event Thinking, Peter. I watched that but have put dipping into the SEP on hold for a while! Event and Particle Thinking must come together from time to time, I guess, e.g. your experimental set-up may be recording the event of a particle emerging from the QV?

Using Particle Thinking for a moment, is there a separate class of Field Thinking, or are P's and F's too closely related to be split apart?

I believe quantum mechanics teaches that some?all? particles exist as fields until they are observed. Probability fields ... probably ... but are they also energy fields? In which case, the QV must be like a kind of great, all-purpose "field reservoir" of energy.

"Ya wanna see a photon, OK, I'll collapse this bit of the QV into one. Sorry, didja say ya wanna see a proton? OK, I'll carve you off a bigger piece of the QV and let you have one."

Is this how it all works?

    Personally, I now try to think mostly in terms of fields. Quantum fields are quite different from classical random fields, because of measurement incompatibility, "quantum" doesn't just go away when one thinks in terms of fields, but I find the difference to be subtly less than between QM and classical particle mechanics. What I think can be said about QM: Event Thinking is that it's rather different from most other empiricist interpretations of QM just because of really trying hard to avoid particle talk. Not many other people are as anti-particle as I am, however, so I have to try to speak both languages.

    Also with my curmudgeonly hat on, I've come to think that "energy" is overrated as an organizing principal, at least in QM, because conserved energy is a global observable. Not many other people ...

    Although I backslide all too often, I prefer to try to think about ways to describe what happens rather than to think too much that I understand "how it all works". It is what it is, it does what it does, we can engineer some parts of it, which is useful.

    Thank you for your comment, albeit I have to apologize for talking too much at a tangent to its concerns.

    Write a Reply...