(September 8, 2016 at 11:15 pm)Alex K Wrote:

---

Ok I can't sleep so I can just as well answer.
Dude that may all sound completely compelling to you, but you can't construct a serious cosmological or particle physics model with a bunch of words and a few numbers thrown in. It may sound superficially like that's what people did, but that's not how it works. When you say I have a new geometry, where are the differential geometry calculations outlining it, or the group theory? A geometry of what exactly anyway? The many other words you use - if they have a clear scientific or mathematical definition, it is only known to yourself. How does your "star tetrahedron" describe or govern the field? Which field? How does it describe the field and how does this field square with the known symmetries of the standard model? Are you proposing a new discrete symmetry? If so is it quantitatively compatible with known particle masses and interactions? That's 10 pages of calculations right there.

One can propose geometric symmetries (so called flavor symmetries) on the fermions, but then you have to specify the group representations of all known fields, and how they are broken by some dynamical mechanism to yield the observed masses and quark and lepton mixing parameters. That's 10 pages of calculations without which you don't have a model. The problem is that you can vaguely throw together an infinite number of schemes which are all wrong. Only when it quantitatively fits with known physics in all detail does one have anything.

For instance, Gell-Mann and Zweig and all the others working on this in the 60s and later didn't just say, look, the number 8 looks promising, let's make it 8. They  said, ok if we formally introduce three quarks (and the 8 fold way only employs the lightest 3, u d s, not the rest because they are to heavy for the scheme to work), they will exhibit a SU(3)xSU(3)xU(1)xU(1) partially conserved symmetry structure, and from the mathematical representations of these symmetry groups and the symmetry breaking, they could predict the light mesons and baryons, and calculate some of their masses. One of the structures appearing there is the adjoint representation of SU3 which happens to have 8 elements, but there are others with 6 or 10 etc... It's not a fundamental model though, just an old incomplete albeit very useful effective  description of the bound states of the lightest three quarks. What I write here alone though is meaningless without the hundreds of pages of calculations establishing quantitatively what it all means.

To have a serious model for cosmic inflation, you need to specify the fields driving it and their dynamics and the analytic form of its potential from which you can derive parameters such as the spectral parameter and scalar to tensor, and then if you wish to address matter creation, a reheating process and numerical studies how baryon asymmetry is generated. This is a loooot of work.

---

(September 8, 2016 at 7:34 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: There is a very very tiny amount of real substance, flung into and extremely specific and reliable nested structure basically described as a spherical border made by a point, flying around in probability field around a larger spherical center....which is also a spherical field of motion made by smaller points.

(September 9, 2016 at 12:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: Yeah, but you look at the scientists of that day, like Feynman.  And with all their interest in multicultural ideas and their jokes about particle names, etc. there's one very important thing-- THEY STILL DID THE ACTUAL SCIENCE.  And I guarantee you, and this is out of Feynman's mouth, that as soon as you start going to these ideas, and not bothering to do the science, he's done with you.

(September 9, 2016 at 12:29 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 8, 2016 at 7:34 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: There is a very very tiny amount of real substance, flung into and extremely specific and reliable nested structure basically described as a spherical border made by a point, flying around in probability field around a larger spherical center....which is also a spherical field of motion made by smaller points.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

Pretty sure the center, i.e. nucleus, of the atom is smaller than the electron shell in terms of sphericity.

You might want to check your work there, Sheldon.

(September 9, 2016 at 4:03 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: If all the universes are connected to each other as one universe then I guess that ultimately the total of all those universes adding up to make up that multiverse= "The Universe" itself, right?

(September 9, 2016 at 4:04 am)Alex K Wrote:

(September 9, 2016 at 4:03 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: If all the universes are connected to each other as one universe then I guess that ultimately the total of all those universes adding up to make up that multiverse= "The Universe" itself, right?

Yup, it's just a language convention at this point where universe doesn't mean "universe" any more, same way atom doesn't mean indivisible any more.

(September 9, 2016 at 4:00 am)Alex K Wrote: Here's something to blow your minds: The quantum wave functions with sharp energy/angular momentum



And yes, the energies have integer ratios, so you would get harmonic chords out of them if you played them in superposition
Also, I'm sure they look like something someone once drew in their Ashram.

I hope I haven't burnt Arkies fuse with that

(September 9, 2016 at 4:48 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 9, 2016 at 4:00 am)Alex K Wrote: Here's something to blow your minds: The quantum wave functions with sharp energy/angular momentum



And yes, the energies have integer ratios, so you would get harmonic chords out of them if you played them in superposition
Also, I'm sure they look like something someone once drew in their Ashram.

I hope I haven't burnt Arkies fuse with that

I saw somewhere recently that they've made a sonic black hole in the lab using blue lasers or something like that.  But tying QM particles into harmonics in this way is in fact legitimately trippy, and gives a little credence to those who skip all the science and jump straight to the woo.