Dear Rafael,
Thanks for studying my essay sufficiently to ask good questions. I'll attempt to answer them.
We seem to have no disagreements upon the relevance of 'local mass density', which, by the way, General Relativity cannot deal with.
You are correct that I begin with a single field. But my only assumption at the beginning is that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE EXISTS.
Now, if that is true, and if my goal is do 'derive physics', then I would like to find some relevant equation, since that is the way physics is 'done'. And, in particular, I would hope to find some 'operator equation' [for the same reason]. But if there is nothing else at all, then the only possible meaning of 'operation' on the field is 'interaction' with the field, and the only possible interaction is 'self-interaction', since nothing but 'self' exists. This can FORMALLY be written as: OPR op Phi = Phi op Phi, which becomes my Master equation. OPR and Phi are UNDEFINED, with the exception that Phi is the 'primordial field'.
But physics requires 'data' and 'facts' and Maxwell and Einstein taught that fields have energy and energy has mass, and with these I can make simple conjectures and see what happens. What happens is that I can almost immediately derive the FORM of Newton's equation from my Master equation.
This SUGGESTS that OPR is the 'directional derivative' or 'tangent vector' and that Phi is the gravity field, G. So we try that interpretation. With these interpretations I can now SOLVE the Master equation (NOT Newton's equation) and I find perfect radial symmetry AND scale invariance.
So how do we 'evolve' from a perfectly radially symmetric field that is 'motion invariant' (implied by 'scale invariance')?
We need to break symmetry. Somewhere else in these comments, last week, I agreed with another author that "why there was a big bang" is the same type of question as "why did symmetry break?", that is, there's no point in going there.
Yes, I agree with you that "it's not logical". But you seem to think that a field that begins as "infinite in time and space" IS logical. I don't think logic has much to do with how our universe came to be. But, once it's here, I do pretty much believe in Marcel's "Principle of logical non-contradiction". That is, I don't think the physical universe sustains contradictions.
Now you might say that, in that case, either choice is equal, and you would probably be logically correct. But in favor of my model is the fact that the C-field (existing after symmetry breaks) explains inflation, and, even more important, the C-field provides (given the energies of the big bang) a mechanism that produces left-handed massive neutrinos, electrons, up and down quarks, their anti-particles, the W, Z, and gamma bosons,and NO HIGGS. In other words ALL of the known particles, including three generations.
If you can derive all of this from your (infinite in time and space) field, and explain current anomalies of physics, then I would be very interested in how you do it, otherwise I don't think you have the complete solution that is required to explain today's world.
It may feel 'logical and rational' to you, but it's got to account for everything physical before it's sufficient.
You say: "I thought it was enough to answer the question regarding what realities are discrete and what realities are continuous. I thought it was enough to explain a unification of relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics..."
The fqxi contest does ask for 'analog vs digital' essays, and there are plenty, but if you want to supplant all other theories you have to provide more.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
