It can be shown that the conservation of momentum would be violated if the inertial force were not the same for the confined photon and fundamental particle of equal energy. The point of this is that the Higgs mechanism supposedly gives inertia to fundamental particles. However, the amount of inertia given to an electron, for example, must exactly equal the amount of inertia exhibited by 511 KeV of confined photons. If a Higgs field is required to externally supply inertia to an electron (which would otherwise have no inertia), how does the Higgs field give exactly the correct inertia to preserve the conservation of momentum? The above website examines the question of how fundamental particles acquire the correct inertia.

“How can physics live up to its true greatness except by a new revolution in outlook which dwarfs all its past revolutions? And when it comes, will we not say to each other, ‘Oh, how beautiful and simple it all is! How could we ever have missed it for so long!’.”

John Archibald Wheeler, 2000
—————————————

Amen,

The new fundamental symmetry is global discrete cosmological self-similarity, which yields an infinite discrete fractal cosmos.

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

However, if somone should try to steal the idea, the dim bulb would only be too happy. That is because he is not looking for money, fame or power, or access to pretty young women. No, his only motivation is to teach people this new way of seeing nature that has always been staring them in the face.

Mandelbrot got the ball rolling but then everyone settled for the easily reached fruit and did not pursue the fractal paradigm far enough.

Phil Helbig did corrctly identify the dim bulb, but he has no idea who I am and I prefer to keep it that way so as not to excercise undue influence one way or the other.

Just search on Discrete Scale Relativity or “discrete fractal cosmology” and you are off and running.

Unlike string theory, it does not take 16-20 years of drudgery to learn the new paradigm. With an hour or two a day, one could be one of the world’s leading experts in about a month, at least that is the case at this point.

Caveat: no pain – no gain. If you want to understand nature in the elegantly unified way, you must commit to putting in some sustained and sincere effort. The principles upon which nature is based are not back-of-the-cereal-box affairs that can be mastered with one skim through a website.
One must think, think, think. And study the empirical properties of nature assiduously. Expect a few upsetting changes to previous assumptions. Well, what did you expect? That has to be so.

Lucky for you, the dim bulb has broken the one path (out of thousands of false starts) that leads to the top of the mountain. At least that is the way I see it, after putting in a lot of effort to understand is paradigm and how it can stand up to all attacks. Believe me I have tried my best to shoot it down, and the best I could get on any issue was a draw. He turned out to be right in virtually every aspect that can and has been tested so far. My bet is that the new paradigm will have the integrity of general relativity, only it will now include the Standard Model and Quantum Mechanics (suitably reinterpreted), because it is in essence an extension of GR and EM using more sophisticated geometrical symmetries.

Very easy to understand conceptually, analytically a real bear, fully testable.

Good Luck,
Albert Z

Sounds like some joke I’m missing, but in case not ..

I’d be interested in a reference to somewhere your student’s theories are outlined, refereed or not. It would be interesting to compare them with my ideas, such as these are.

I really don’t understand why you are so coy about giving a reference here though. If you fear someone might pinch this student’s ideas and run with them, you can be reassured by the fact that professionals are amazingly (although understandably) resistant to ideas which deviate much from their preconceptions!

j h n r m s d n @ y a h o o . c o . u k

The new paradigm makes a virtually unlimited number of predictions that are testable and are of the make-or-break kind. They cannot be altered or fudged.

The dim bulb (and don’t worry, he refers to me as “fossil”; it’s just our form of sarcastic fun) has published somewhere in the range of 10-15 such predictions.

Two have been vindicated already, but the big one is yet to be fully tested. Should be soon.

In the 1980 the dim bulb went to a party of grad students and profs and someone brought a psychology text showing a picture with much visual information subtracted out. The test was to see if you could figure out what the “chaotic” array of dots, lines and weird shapes actually represented. 60% eventually figured it out, 20% did so with help, and 20% even had trouble when helped.

The dim bulb solved it in an order of magnitude less time than the second fastest.

The party-goers at first thought he was just saying he knew what it was, but in truth he did (a Dalmation walking in a woods); black+white photo made it a real challenge.

When asked how he could solve it so fast, the dim bulb said the critical thing is identifying the crucial clues that are always there waiting. Then someone with exceptional pattern recognition let’s their mind fill in the missing parts of the underlying fundamental pattern.

So it is with paradigms and nature . Some will get lost in the infinite details and end up with complicated and strained theories of little real explanatory power. Others see the underlying physical principles. It appears that you are going to have a very difficult time, my friend. To others it will come with little effort, like it did with the dim bulb. Five years from no science at all to the new paradigm, at least in crude outline. Exceptional!

Good Luck,
Albert Z

Has it been published in a refereed journal? If so, please give a reference. If not, why not? Wherever it has been mentioned (forums? which ones?) please give a reference so that we can check it out. Otherwise: I was thinking of a plan to die my whiskers green but always use so large a fan that they cannot be seen. In other words, what’s the point?

Talks of “paradigm” usually gains one points on the crackpot index.

I don’t know which, if either, of you I insult if I mention that this sounds rather like RLO.

Note that there is another Albert Z who often comments on blogs who usually uses his full surname. If you are not he (and I suspect that you are not), I suggest using a less confusing moniker.

Has this new paradigm made any testable predictions? If so, what are they?

We cannot throw it in the dust bin until we have something better to replace it.

The Standard Model is model-building effort to fit the observations, and as I said above, it does a creditable job in many sectors. However, it is heurisitc and incomplete. Provisional.

It should not be treated as dogma, as some (many) do.

What we need is a new unified paradigm that can explain nature at all scales without tooth-fairies and ad hoc epicycles.

The new paradigm already exists and has been published repeatedly in many forums, but it is almost completely ignored because its author is a “nobody”. To those who are steeped in the old paradigm, it sounds more than a bit strange, but it extends nature’s fundamental symmetries in an amazing and beautiful way. It is conceptually, and in principles, very simple but very complex in detail.

What is this new paradigm, you ask? Well, you must ask my somewhat dim student. Although the fellow is a bit of a slow study and mathematically unsophisticated, he has laser-like instincts when it comes to nature because of his obsession with knowing the observational properties of nature at all scales – particles to galaxies and and then some. Not many people do this, being focused in their one limited and rarefied sector. It has been interesting to work with him. Seek and ye shall find.

Best,
Albert Z

Who ordered that?

Assuming a standard Higgs comes through as the simplest theory, at a guess that cries out for environment selection again. Mirroring #4, multiverses seems popping up many times over…

#19:

I like how #4 claims unnatural vacuum energy vs Planck energy (and calls it a crisis, when for example environmental selection nicely predicts it), then turns around in #5 and claim unnatural Planck energy vs inhabitants of said vacuum. You can really turn that gear to count if you crank it twice every count.

Then “honesty and integrity” seems an inept description – nothing personal, mind. How about “irrelevant digging for details outside of the theory as is (i.e. complete)” and “counting twice”?

(Edit: I was partly addressing Pah@21 until I re-read the post).

Oh the credulity is impressive, but see below.

1. The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be “put in by hand”.

2. The Standard Model cannot predict the masses of the fundamental particles that make up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.

3. The Standard Model did not predict the existence of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes heuristically the “foam on top of the ocean”.

4. The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics. The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy densities predicted or measured by particle physicists (microcosm) and cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 1070 to 10120, depending on how one estimates the particle physics VED).

5. The Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e., it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature, and calls into question the foundations of the quantum chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.

6. Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have never been directly observed. Rather, their existence is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely built on inference, conjecture and speculation. It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.

And so on, if we care to be honest and scientific.

Rant on now,
Albert Z