Does string theory with the finite nature hypothesis provide a new paradigm for understanding uncertainty?

Louis Marmet founded "A Cosmology Group" (ACG) to publicize problems with the Lambda-CDM model.

ACG Position (with empirical evidence聽against the Lambda-CDM model)

Louis Marmet, York University

In string theory with the infinite nature聽hypothesis, the string vibrations聽are not synchronized among alternate universes -- thus allowing 聽a chaos of incomprehensibility in terms of physical experiments. In string theory with Wolfram's cosmological automation, there are 2 highly testable predictions:

(1) relativistic MOND (i.e. dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9卤.5) * 10^-5) and

(2) the Riofrio cosmological model (which allows the replacement of Guth's inflaton field by a new inflaton field defined in terms of the Riofrio cosmological model).

Can supersymmetry be empirically refuted? No, because all of the superpartners might have wavelengths that are too short or too long for detection. Is supersymmetry useful in theoretical physics? Yes, supersymmetry is needed for the Einstein-Riofrio duality principle. In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, we assume that, after quantum averaging, Einstein's field equations are 100% correct. In string theory with the finite nature hypothesis, we assume that, after quantum averaging, Einstein's field equations need 3 corrections. Put D-brane supercharges on gravitons, gravitinos, inflatons, and inflatinos. This allows an embedding of a model of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis into a model of string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis.

    Is uncertainty infinite or finite? Is nature infinite or finite?

    According to Tegmark, " ... infinity is an extremely convenient approximation for which we haven't discovered convenient alternatives."

    "Infinity Is a Beautiful Concept -- And It's Ruining Physics" by Mag Tegmark, Discover Magazine, 2015

    I have suggested 3 modifications to Einstein's field equations:

    "Einstein's field equations: 3 criticisms", 2017

    One modification attempts to refute the hypothesis that energy-density continuously approaches zero. Another modification attempts to refute the hypothesis that energy-density can be infinitely large. The modification dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 attempts to provide a model for relativistic MOND. The hypothesis that nature is finite seems to be in conflict with the hypothesis that, after quantum averaging, Einstein's field equations are 100% correct.

    Marmet is a very nice man...

    He spoke at one of the first Physics conferences I attended CCC-2 (2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conf.) and Louis was inspirational. Many of the objections raised in his stated position linked above still stand. Possibly of interest would be the diagram from his proceedings paper which is reproduced on its cover, detailing the redshift predictions for various (10 different) models 'Angular distance a s a function of redshift.' I think I still have an electronic copy of that volume on one of my working computers, and I can forward his paper with that diagram if you like.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    8 days later

    According to Kroupa, the Lambda-CDM model is now ruled out. Is there considerable uncertainty about dark matter particles? (According to my speculations, the Riofrio model need a Koide cutoff and a Lestone cutoff.)

    According to contemporary scientific thought, the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years. However, if the Riofrio cosmological model is correct, the radius of our universe is constant, the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is steadily decreasing, and dark matter particles do not exist. If the Riofrio model is empirically valid, the universe is far smaller than most astrophysicists now believe it to be. The question is: How much smaller?

    Let us assume that the fundamental basis of nature is an Einstein-Riofrio duality principle, in which string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis corresponds to the (original) Einsteiniian field equations with dark matter particles (Einstein part of the duality), and string theory with the finite nature hypothesis corresponds to modified field equations with the Riofrio cosmological model and without dark matter particles (Riofriio part of the duality). There is a serious problem in understanding the Riofrio model because all the cosmological data is presented in terms of the paradigm with dark matter particles. I speculate that the way to overcome this problem is to assume that ordinary matter is steadily converted into dark matter particles (which might, or might not, exist).

    A 3-sphere with radius r has 3-dimensional cubic hyperarea = (2 pi^2) * (r^3).

    3-sphere, Wikipedia

    The Planck time is approximately 5.39 * 10^-44 seconds.

    Planck time, Wikipedia

    Our universe is approximately 13.82 billion years old.

    Age of the universe, Wikipedia

    Hypothesis 1: Assuming that the Einstein-Friedmann model is valid and dark matter exists, the mass-density of our universe is approximately 9.9 * 10^-30 g/cm^3 . (See the WMAP data.)

    Hypothesis 2: Wolfram's Reset recurs every (81.6±.1.7) billion years.

    Hypothesis 3: During each Planck time interval, precisely one unit of Fredkin-Wolfram energy is converted from ordinary matter to dark matter (which is equivalent to the loss of precisely one unit of Fredkin-Wolfram energy from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse). Here the assumption is made that astronomical time is different from atomic time. See the article "On the compatibility of a proposed explanation of the Pioneer anomaly with the cartography of the solar system" by Antonio Fernández-Rañada and Alfredo Tiemblo-Ramos, 2009.

    Step 1: Calculate mass-energy of our universe at the beginning of the Big Bang (assuming that dark matter particles exist) and almost all of the mass-energy at the time of the Big Bang consisted of ordinary matter.

    (Planck mass) * (81.6±1.7 billion years)/ (Planck time) =

    (4.733 ±.14) * 10^61 = (1.02±.02) * 10^57 grams .

    Step 2. Assuming that ordinary matter is steadily converted to dark matter, calculate how much ordinary matter is converted to dark matter in 13.8 billion years.

    (1.02±.02) * 10^57 g * 13.8/(81.6±1.7) = (.17±.01) * 10^57 g = (1.7±.1) * 10^56 g .

    Step 3. Calculate how much mass-energy in non-converted form now exists, according to the various hypotheses assumed. The answer is roughly 8 * 10^56 grams.

    Step 4. Estimate the radius of our universe (assuming the Riofrio model).

    (2 pi^2) * (r^3) = (8±.5) * 10^56 g / (9.9 * 10^-30 g/cm^3) = (8±.6) * 10^86 cm^3 =

    (8±.6) * 10^80 m^3 .

    r = (3.4±.15) * 10^26 m = approximately (36±3) billion light-years. This is considerably less than the diameter of the OBSERVABLE universe, according to the Einstein-Friedmann paradigm. There are a number of speculative hypotheses in the preceding estimate, so the estimate might be completely wrong and misrepresent the Riofrio model, even though the Riofrrio model is empirically valid.

      In the previous post, in the 3rd sentence, replace "need" by "needs". In Hypothesis 3, assume that the conversion of ordinary matter to dark matter occurs with the dark matter having negligible mass-energy; in other words, ALL of the dark matter has negligible mass-energy.

      Is the Lambda-CDM model empirically valid?

      Sanejouand, Yves-Henri'"Has the density of sources of gamma-ray bursts been constant over the last ten billion years?" arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05303 (2018)

      My guess is that the the tired light hypothesis has been ruled out by empirical evidence, but the tired light hypothesis and string theory with the finite nature hypothesis share several predictions that contradict the Lambda-CDM model.

      How uncertain is the empirical validity of the Copenhagen Interpretation? My guess is that the Copenhagen interpretation is the correct "psychological" interpretation of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. Consider 5 questions: (1) What is an observer? (2) What is an observation or a measurement made by an observer? (3) What is a measuring apparatus? (4) What, if anything, determines quantum probability distributions? (5) How are the empirical successes of MOND related to the foundations of physics?

      According to Famaey and McGaugh,

      "Either (i) there is a vast amount of unseen mass in some novel form--dark matter-- or (ii) the data indicate a breakdown of our understanding of dynamics on the relevant scales, or (iii) both."

      [link:link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2012-10]Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): Observational Phenomenology and Relativistic Extensions, Living Reviews in Relativity, volume 15, 7 September 2012[/link]

      According to McGaugh,, "One of the frustrating things about ΛCDM and MOND as competing scientific paradigms is that where one is elegant and predictive, the other tends to be mute. This makes a straightforward comparison difficult."

      The MOND Pages, ΛCDM and MOND compared

      What is the uncertainty concerning the economic value of string theory?

      I have conjectured that by the year 2025 C.E. the yearly economic value of string theory will be at least 50 billion U.S. dollars per year -- because string theory with the finite nature hypothesis will make it easier for scientists and engineers to understand quantum field theory. Is something wrong with Big Bang cosmology?

      Site Web de Louis Marmet

      Does supersymmetry occur in nature? Are string vibrations confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice? Which is empirically valid -- Big Bang or Wolfram's Reset?

      Viewpoint 1. Electrons travel through spacetime. Electrons are wave-like when they are not measured. Electrons are particle-like when they are measured.

      Viewpoint 2. Electrons and spacetime are approximations generated by Wolfram's cosmological automaton. Electrons do not travel through spacetime. Measurement is a natural process that separates the boundary of the multiverse from the interior of the multiverse. The multiverse is mathematically isomorphic to a 72-dimensional holographic, digital computer. An electron is an approximate pattern of Fredkin-Wolfram information, and the electron's pattern is computationally and holographically propagated through the interior of the multiverse. The electron approximately consists of discontinuous displays of Fredkin-Wolfram information that are psychologically merged together in the minds of those electromagnetic fields called the "minds of physicists". How might Viewpoint 2 be tested?

      Prediction 1: dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 .

      Prediction 2: The Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model is empirically valid, i.e., the radius of our universe is a constant, and the speed of light in a perfect vacuum steadily decreases as our universe ages.

      I make 3 fundamental claims: (1) String theory is definitely the mathematical way to geometrize Feynman diagrams so as to derive Einstein's field equations -- the only question is whether nature is based upon string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis or string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. (2) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology -- on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence. (3) If Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino are not geniuses then my basic theory is wrong. Does quantum information reduce to Fredkin-Wolfram information? Is quantum field theory unsatisfactory in that it theoretically allows many types of fanciful quantum fields?

      According to Steven Weinberg,

      "Quantum mechanics is not itself a dynamical theory. It is an empty stage. You have to add the actors: You have to specify the space of configurations, an infinite-dimensional complex space, and the dynamical rules for how the state vector rotates in this space as time passes."

      ''Towards the Final Laws of Physics: The 1986 Memorial Lecture" by Steven Weinberg', published in ''Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures'', 1987, Cambridge University Press; 1999 pbk reprint, p. 72 (Feynman gave the other lecture.)

      Is it impossible to empirically disconfirm string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis?

      Argument 1. Put D-brane supercharges on gravitons and gravitinos. This allows arbitrary manipulation of the graviton field.

      Argument 2. Put D-brane supercharges on inflatons and inflatinos. This allows arbitrary manipulation of the inflaton field.

      Argument 3. By creating more and more complicated arguments, superpartners can always be assumed to have wavelengths that are too short or too long for detection

      .

      Dear David Brown,

      A general concern regarding String Theory: How can a theory that is limited to one slice of reality, say the Planck scale, determine and define the actions at the atomic scale (it should explain this), at the molecular scale (it can do some of this), at the macro-molecular and protein level, at the cellular level, at the ligament and tissue level, at the organ level, at the human body level, at the meteorological and planetary climate level, at the solar, black hole and solar system level, at the galactic level, at the galaxy cluster level?

      How can any theory limited to just one slice of this continuum of scale expect to describe and determine the actions and interactions at all these levels?

      When we touch our hand to a pane of glass, and visually see our hand touching the glass and feel our hand touch the glass, should we believe a theory that says "those experiences are not real, the only reality is what occurs at the atomic or particle level where your hand and the glass are mostly open space". Or should we require our theories to explain the Planck level, the cellular level, the surface of our skin and the glass surface level all together?

      We are measuring the universe in thin slices, like measuring only in the plane of Flatland when the universe is three-dimensional.

      The concept of MOND should indicate we are not looking at the universe correctly, rather than being the solution.

      We are barking up the wrong tree, using mathematical and measuring tools limited to only slices of this continuum of scale. We need to be able to measure and devise equations across scale, from the atomic to our macro level to the galactic level and back down.

      We need new tools.

      Don

        According to Wikipedia, "A Feynman diagram is a graphical representation of a perturbative contribution to the transition amplitude or correlation function of a quantum mechanical or statistical field theory." If we assign a positive number to each internal line in a Feynman diagram so that each internal line is associated with a gravitational energy-density, then there is a mathematical problem of how to formulate a quantum-gravitational action that yields an averaging procedure. It seems to me that the answer is the Nambu-Goto string action (or something mathematically equivalent to it). Study the following:

        TASI Lectures on Perturbative String Theories" by Hirosi Ooguri and Zheng Yin, 1996, arXiv.org

        In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, there are string vibrations at the Planck scale -- and there is the string landscape at the cosmological scale. In string theory with the finite nature hypothesis, the string vibrations are entirely virtual and never emerge from Wolfram's cosmological automaton -- and there are a huge, but finite, number of alternate universes on the boundary of the multiverse (which is approximately generated by Wolfram's cosmological automation using a network of Fredkin-Wolfram information.)

        My guess is that the string theorists are not "looking at the universe correctly" because they have underestimated (or have remained ignorant of) Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, Scarpa, Sanders, Koide, Lestone, Riofrio, Sanejouand, Pipino,, and several other physicists and astronomers. I think that the problem is now to find Wolfram's conjectured 4 or 5 simple rules -- and to show that the rules are empirically valid.

        How does a point particle cross scale? The question needs to address objects and actions at all scales in between the largest and smallest - and not just the extremes or black holes.

        Statistics and probability are one-way tools, only able to move from the smaller to the larger. Are our tools biasing our theories? A bouncing beach ball is best described at the scale of the beach ball. The actions at this level impact what occurs at the molecular level, were we might want to describe the scuffing of the ball surface. How do any theories at only one scale perform both (plus what happens at in between scales)? If the only tools we have go from smaller to larger, will we even be able to model action or movement in the reverse direction?

        MOND is an attempt to connect the large with the small, however do we even have appropriate (mathematical) tools to address this situation?

        Basing theories on geometric points, smallest spaces or point particles does not give any confidence that such a theory can traverse the scales from smallest to largest.

        We seem to be developing theories as if we live in Flatland, only able to measure in one plane at a time. However, we perceive the three dimensional scale aspects of reality. Our theories do not match our wide scale-continuum perceptions and the limitations of our mathematical tools might be the reason why.

        Don

        "How does a point particle cross scale?" According to string theory, something is wrong with the concept of "point particle". Feynman explains the basic problems with the concept of a "point particle" -- quantum field theory does not entirely resolve the problems.

        According to Feynman, "First, we compute the energy of a charged particle. Suppose we take a simple model of an electron in which all of its charge聽q is uniformly distributed on the surface of a sphere of radius聽a, which we may take to be zero for the special case of a point charge. ...

        It is all fine until we set a equal to zero for a point charge--there's the great difficulty. Because the energy of the field varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance from the center, its volume integral is infinite. There is an infinite amount of energy in the field surrounding a point charge.

        What's wrong with an infinite energy? If the energy can't get out, but must stay there forever, is there any real difficulty with an infinite energy? Of course, a quantity that comes out infinite may be annoying, but what really matters is only whether there are any observable physical effects. To answer that question, we must turn to something else besides the energy. Suppose we ask how the energy changes when we move the charge. Then, if the changes are infinite, we will be in trouble."

        "28-1. The field energy of a point charge" in Chapter 28. Electromagnetic Mass, Vol. II, The Feynman Lectures in Physics, 1964

        The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, Mainly Mechanics, Radiation, and Heat

        The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume II, Mainly Electromagnetism and Matter

        The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume III, Quantum Mechanics

        My guess is that are 2 (and only 2) ways to resolve the basic problems with the concept of "point particle" -- string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis or string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. One way predicts MOND is wrong -- the other way predicts MOND is (approximately) correct.

        How uncertain is string theory? How might string theory be related to money? Consider 2 dicta: (A) Watson's Dictum: DNA makes RNA makes protein. (B) Brown's Dictum: Money drives technology drives science. Is science more important than money? I have speculated that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis will make quantum field theory somewhat easier to understand -- am I wrong? There are 2 competing views of Witten: (a) Witten is greater as a theoretical physicist than a mathematician. (b) Witten is greater as a mathematician than a theoretical physicist. Which of the 2 preceding view is correct -- or is it a 50-50 split? According to Graham Farmelo, in 1995 Witten at a conference held at the University of Southern California "demonstrated that the five different string theories and supergravity are each valid, but in their own separate domains--they are simply aspects of a single, overarching structure. He gave it the temporary name of 'M-theory'' ... the audience looked on in awe, as he cast the entire subject in a new light. ... The string framework was never going to be the same."

        "The Universe Speaks in Numbers: How Modern Math Reveals Nature's Deepest Secrets" by Graham Farmelo, 2019

        Are the following speculations wrong?

        PROFOUND INSIGHT??? If dark-matter-compensation-constant were equal to zero, then Wolfram's cosmological automaton would not have a timing mechanism.

        The Seven Sagacities of String Theory with the Finite Nature Hypothesis: (1) There is a profound synergy between string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. (2) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology -- on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence (implying dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5). (3) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (4) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (5) The idea of Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos that atomic time is different from astronomical time is correct. (6) There is genius in the ideas of Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino concerning the hypothesis that the speed of light in a perfect vacuum steadily decreases as our universe ages. (7) Quantum information reduces to Fredkin-Wolfram information, which is controlled by Wolfram's cosmological automaton in a mathematical structure isomorphic to a 72-dimensional, holographic, digital computer

        6 days later

        According to Milgrom, "... cosmology and local MOND will be understood as two aspects of the same construct ...".

        [link:arxiv.org/abs/2001.09729]Milgrom, Mordehai. "The a0 - cosmology connection in MOND." arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09729 (2020), page 8[/link]

        The string theorists (as of early 2020 C.E.) reject MOND -- they believe that nature is infinite and furthermore dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0. Are the string theorists correct? My guess is that the Fredkin-Wolfram viewpoint leads to string-vibrational synchronization among alternate universes, but string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis leads to supersymmetry, the string landscape, and lack of string-vibrational synchronization among alternate universes.

        Consider 4 speculative hypotheses: (1) The Koide formula suggests there is a maximum wavelength in the physical universe and there is a Koide cutoff that needs to be introduced into Einstein's field equations. (2) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might suggest that a Lestone cutoff needs to be introduced into Einstein's field equations. (3) The empirical successes of Milgrom's MOND might suggest dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 . (4) The Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model is (approximately) empirically valid if and only if string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid if and only if there exist 4 of 5 simple rules (as conjectured by Wolfram) implying empirically satisfactory approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory if and only if the monster group and the 6 pariah groups can be used effectively in string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.

        According to Bílek, Thies, Kroupa, and Famaey, "Observations show that if gravity is to be modified, then the MOND theory is its excellent approximation on galactic scales."

        Bílek, Michal, Ingo Thies, Pavel Kroupa, and Benoit Famaey. "Origin Of Tidal Structures In Modified Gravity." arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.07537 (2019)

        Do the empirical successes of MOND require a new paradigm for the foundations of physics, including a new concept of time? I have conjectured that there are 3 basic concepts of time: Newtonian, Einsteinian, and Wolframian.

        In 2012 Wolfram wrote, "... in the mid-1980s one of the great attractions of string theory was that it seemed to support graviton excitations without the problem of infinities seen in point-particle field theories. But it had other problems, and to avoid these, supersymmetry had to be introduced, leading to the presence of many other particles that have so far not been observed. .... spin networks and spin foams seem to be viewed just as calculational constructs that must be evaluated and added together to get quantum amplitudes - quite different from my idea of associating an explicit evolution history for the universe with the evolution of a network."

        SOME HISTORICAL NOTES From: Stephen Wolfram, A New Kind of Science, Notes for Chapter 9: Fundamental Physics, Section: The Phenomenon of Gravity, Page 1054[, wolframscience.com

        In 2015 Stephen Wolfram wrote, "One of the key realizations that led to General Relativity 100 years ago was that Euclid's fifth postulate ("parallel lines never cross") might not be true in our actual universe, so that curved space is possible. But if my suspicions about space and the universe are correct, then it means there's actually an even more basic problem in Euclid--with his very first definitions. Because if there's a discrete network "underneath" space, then Euclid's assumptions about points and lines that can exist anywhere in space simply aren't correct."

        "What Is Spacetime, Really" by Stephen Wolfram, December 2, 2015, writings.stephenwolfram.com

        "How a mathematical point that has no dimension could extend into infinite space of the universe nobody has an answer. From where all the energy of the universe came in the hypothetical explosion also there is no answer. Big Bang cosmology is not falsifiable (Karl Popper), it is not bijective (A.S. Sorli). Maybe 50 years ago it was an interesting idea. Teaching this theory today at universities seems not right. The universe as a system in a non-created permanent dynamic equilibrium is more appropriate and in accordance with all measured data and observation." My guess is that the empirical evidence supports the preceding ideas. I believe that Green, Schwarz, and Witten are more-or-less on the same level as Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga -- however, they fail to realize that Big Bang cosmology contradicts the empirical successes of Milgrom's MOND. Sorli's idea that Big Bang cosmology is not logically bijective is, in my estimation, an important insight.

        According to Wikipedia, "In mathematics, a bijection, bijective function, one-to-one correspondence, or invertible function, is a function between the elements of two sets, where each element of one set is paired with exactly one element of the other set, and each element of the other set is paired with exactly one element of the first set."

        Bijection, Wikipedia

        If fundamental information describes nature precisely, then fundamental information should be bijective from one Planck time interval to another. It seems to me that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid -- although I might have the details wrong.

        David. I found your questions about whether nature is infinite or finite and their relationships to the incompleteness theories thought provoking. In my essay "Clarification of Physics--", I introduce a new perspective that starts from a different "beginning" and accounts for the creation of a finite physical multiverse that includes our visible universe. In order to "discover" this natural process, I had to get rid of the basic assumptions and impossibles currently imposed on physics, start from a different beginning and "find" the mathematics hidden in its finite processing and results. I think you will find the essay interesting and I would appreciate your comments.

        Hello, here are my thoughts about these strings. Can we affirm that these strings, Branes, fields Waves are the pure essence of our geometries, topologies, Matter and properties in this space time ? no, we cannot affirm and even philosphically speaking, we cannot affirm that we have a 1D main field oscillating permiting to these tsrings t this planck scale to create our physicality. In fact I beleive strongly and it is just my opinion of course that Witten has created a prison now and a fashion. But don t forget this, if the strings are false , so all the philosphy correlated and the works about the geometrisations are not correct simply. Imagine we have coded particles, not points or strings but 3D coded spheres in a superfluid coded aether? I doubt really that we have an infinite energy , a heat and that this energy oscillate and create so the QFT only to create all our physicality. We have probably a deeper logic to all this puzzle, the same about the geometrodynamics am points , or the E8 or Yang mills, in fact imagine if we have coded particles and that they can create all SHAPEs and properties with the Ricci flow, the Hamilton Ricci flow, an assymetric Ricci flow, the heat equation, the topological spaces and euclidian spaces, the lie dervivatives and other mathematical Tools ? it is maybe a solution too to explain all our geometries, topologies and properties of matters. So a thing that I have difficulties to encircle is why these strings are Always utilised, maybe it is just a fashion and that the thinkers had forgotten to consider the coded particles, my model with spheres and spherisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere respect also the Waves particles duality in this aether where the space disappears. All this is a philosophical problem I beleive and all we are free to Think like we want but maybe the sciences Community could focus on different roads and not forget that the universe is simple generally. Spherically Yours,

        ps I liked your general essay, congrats and good luck for this Contest.