SuperPolymath

Yes but if the model is built on a poor concept it won't be any good! Einstein & Mandelbrot, & even Isaac Newton, were out of box thinkers before they were half way through learning the math. That's not what you said. You said "I can do everything with SO(10)" & then attempted to discredit fractal cosmology saying you've already been exposed to those articles I cited before as they were published after arguing about how much fractal geometry complicates things further than even SO groups do. Good! The right model will probably end up being the most difficult to solve, that's usually how things work.

You seem to be under the misconception that the mathematics are more important than the concept. This is why physics hasn't yielded a single major advance since GR. Even string theory is a joke as far as what it's yielded, the fruits of it, compared to GR. I mean, what seems more conceptually sound to you? A: that a subatomic particle, the smallest unit of measurement, is a small expanding universe just like ours because it seems to behave just like our universe as per particle wave duality. And that you can always find smaller objects in nature B: that a subatomic particle has no smaller components, is the mystical building block of nature, & turns into pixy dust as a wave. & that objects cannot be smaller than a Planck length (these are OLD school, like Capernicus, philosophies still taught in today's world)

Yes but by your reasoning it's not worth your investigation because I'm not spending time & money on it myself. But you know that, as far as speculative cosmology, it's golden. It just doesn't agree with the Planck length, therefore it doesn't agree with anything but literally the hardest math. But don't you think the right theory of everything would use the math you'd least want to do? Because you said "I've studied fractal geometry, and there's no danger of that [discrediting most of what's behind the standard model] happening" but you didn't even model it Then Strange puts me in the negatives for daring to learn how model it myself. Lol, I should have let you mislead everyone, take an L, & stayed rep neutral.

You do realize it's going to be a while before said topic is made, right? You did read a couple posts ago what I'd need to start learning the basics for what I'm trying to show mathematically But I've spent about a year on this conceptually, so it's not going to change. I don't know why youd be biased to the concepts I've expressed as opposed to the quantum interpretation based purely on a lack of mathematical acumen. The concepts are the same regardless of what is used to express them. Pictures, words, math One can't PHYSICALLY test the concepts without math, but they can test it logically. I don't know why it hasn't gotten more embrace. It solves the antimatter problem, logically. Again it can't be physically tested because it can't be plugged into a set and modelled yet but you read the thread You could test it physically with what you know already. It would just take a very long time

& I hope you turn that bachelor's into a PhD by then Obviously it is but there's bigger things than you realize in regards to a microverse interpretation. It is a steady state, that white hole in which we reside, that black hole in anti de sitter space, that never goes away. It may shrink or grow infinitely, but it never goes. Like the proposed micro black holes at the center of each atom, as per my ideas they were broader than our cosmic event horizon at one point & will be again as per my theory. Do you understand?

I'll tell you what, let me get prepared and I'll make a topic in speculations for model building but you have to be willing to delve into hardcore fractal cosmology while lecturing me on the basics & by prepared I mean courses in the very particle physics which I hope to debunk. So I hope you'll still be here in a few years when I attempt to pick up where this left off. I'll be looking this over a lot so I don't forget where I want to challenge the standard model & quantum interpretation & everything old school that you stand for.

The only problem I can tell is lax in regards to how complex nature really is. Just like how Max Born merely treated a symptom in this infinite condition of reality by assigning a wave of probability that completely avoids the issue of energy, reduced from matter, having it's own reduction. Einstein even set out for a steady state model, & after it all he still sat on action at a distance as bunk till the day he died. However more tedious, fractal cosmology is still a common resort for people with phds in particle physics

Actually it's fractal cosmology. Mandelbrot designed fractal geometry from the Julia sets to fix problems in electrical currents through country-wide cable grids

I'm not expecting anyone to do anything. I hope non-steady state model, the big bang singularity theory, action at a distance, & the Planck length get discredited for the advance of science. All I can do is throw in my two cents, thank you for at least looking at my ideas

Which is exactly why I'd like you, vmedvil to stop brushing this off and take more time exploring these alternatives. Im reading you won't because I'm "not credible" but vmedvil actually shares more of my sentiments, especially regarding black holes

So even though I don't work in the field you do, I obviously stumbled on to something with my ideas. What these articles as late as 2014 are touching on is related to what I've been trying to explain. So either I'm prescient, or I've looked into more than you think when I made that thread because that's exactly what they're resorting to

Than why would those physicists bother making said equations?? I looked at the dates of those articles. This stuff is newer, a LOT newer than what you've used in this thread.

There are other ways than what you're familiar with, ie field theory, string theory, etc that are better geared towards my potential microverse theory https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3866471/ http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=72482 https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0007224

That's exactly it, we could really be overcomplicating things with conventional equations like these, something totally different would need to be utilized in defining a microverse theory. Something more like fractal geometry

I know, & yet might thread is talking about particles as euphemisms for microverses in hypertime made out of tiny bodies in accelerated SR motion, more of the same. The only thing like that mathematically was the madbelbrot set. This would indeed require math to define, but certainly not anything that's used for the standard model. Say there's a possibility, & there is one, that this is how the universe is, that Zeno's paradox isn't a paradox but a truth, even the smallest possibility is worth investigating

I think we're miscommunicating here. I'm saying that no field theory was designed for interactions beneath the Planck length. Becaus

Field treatments need to be held accountable to the physical world, not the other way around. And if the physical world has infinite motion of infinitely tiny bodies (particle waves, the energy that energy releases) infinitely beyond the Planck length & time, where lorentz transformations need to he used for SR in quantum gravitational interactions, than you could be doing all of this wrong. This really aught to be looked at, QM really really needs to be reconsidered.

Okay, now how does this pertain to fractal geometry, specifically non-static quantum gravity waves seen in scale relativity, which isn't so much GR as SR Moreover,SR beyond the speed of light Because that's what's really going on down in the "quantum" world you know. It's puppet is 4 fundamental interactions, not the other way around. & this is actually supported by observation

You don't think it's possible that's you've been taught the wrong way? That the standard is not really all that accurate to the way things really are? It's actually more probable than not, in Einstein's time math was not having it's limits tested by fractals - so all the math we use for modern physics isn't even close to representing nature under the Planck length, where it becomes more necessary as quantum gravity is being explored Fractal cosmology is a minority approach. I'd seriously consider learning more about it for your personal research

The mandelbrot set, infinite as it may be, was used for making more precise finite measurements Even for something as close to particle physics as the electrical pathways in telephone cables across an entire grid. You don't work fractal geometry but I've cited three articles that show how this is done for particle physics

You'd obviously get the credit though if you thought the idea was good enough to pursue. I understand that it's a house without a foundation, certain things said there would have to be changed, such as the 5 dimensions. You need to add the string theory dimensions of charge, flavor, etc. But that shouldn't take away from it looks like when it's built a foundation. I would do it myself if I had decades, but the microverse theory just makes sense, even without a foundation. See how many problems we're linked in that thread that it addressed, it even addressed the current issue you're dealing with regarding why there was so little negative spin in the first observable atoms all antimatter in the cmb which I touched on earlier. But all that would have to be added into that thread before I made a topic but I hope the thread ends up doing what I posted it to do & that is catch the interest of someone who can add that foundation I've spent so much time on getting someone else to adopt some of the concepts knowing I'd never get credit for it because it would lead to innovations like ftl communication, stable fusion & nano replication of precious materials. I could buy a car for a dime & go into an avatar body in a real life version of the matrix There is no rule of thumb amongst physicists to ignore every idea they're hit with simply because they come from a layman. Think about how many epiphanies in physics were the result of a road-sign, an advertisement, or the musings of a stoner buddy.

What good would that do? It would take you years to turn that into a full model, we're talking about applying a plethora complex equations such as the schwarzchild metric to those sets. & even if you did develop it into a theory that could presented to physics journal A, I wouldn't understand it.

That's what I hope someone will do.

Yes it's necessary, yes I applaud your efforts & agree with everything you've said. But I also think it's not a bad thing to keep certain logical concepts in mind, like that thread I keep linking. I also think that idea is something that's been known for centuries.

Why does physics get more complicated when you reduce the amount of what's being measured? Why do infinities always arise at the quantum level? Because all you're doing is complicating the simple truth that every action has an equal reaction. & even when you complicate it you find that truth again & again.