[Paleopsych] Observer: (Sir Roger) I can explain everything

[Werbos, Dr. Paul J.]

At 10:33 AM 8/17/2004 -0400, Premise Checker wrote:
>I can explain everything
>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1283324,00.html
>
>    Distinguished mathematician Roger Penrose has written a thousand-page
>    explanation of physics that rivals Newton's Principia in its scope and
>    ambition
>    Robin McKie

1,000 pages?

Sir Roger has shown a remarkable degree of.. partial openness to new ideas...
in a world where many scientific institutions remind us at times of the 
College of Cardinals
from the time of Galileo...

But as he himself often says, reality itself may be even more deviant than 
he is.

So here would be my deviant alternative to his 1,000 pages -- my recipe
for "the next grand synthesis" of the laws of physics. Can't prove it
in one page of course, but can state it.

First, start from a theory expressed in one equation plus some words --
the dual SU(5) Lagrangian proposed by Vachaspati in hep-ph 1997.
(Go to arXiv.org, and use the index to locate it.) Do keep
the symmetry breaking assumptions he states on the side.

Second, INTERPRET THIS LAGRANGIAN AS A STRICTLY CLASSICAL,
EINSTEIN-STYLE Lagrangian.

Third, to explain how this can be reconciled with Bell's Theorem,
see my papers at quant-ph in 2000 and 2003. A quick summary: if we learn to 
accept that
"future" and "past" are emergent local directions in the space-time continuum,
EXACTLY LIKE "up" and "down," and give up hardwiring human intuition into 
our assumptions
about measurement, everything falls out naturally. See also the work of Huw 
Price.
I hope someday I'll have time to write up some additional details.

Fourth, be careful to pick coefficients in the function "V" which are 
"epsilon" close to the
ones which yield the standard model of physics, but different enough that 
the theory predicts a
universe of topological solitons (parallel to the "fundamental fermions") 
and diffuse radiation, without point singularities.
(This eliminates the need for what quantum field theory people call 
"regularization,"
in defining the theory.)

Fifth, verify that the very slight modifications to the standard model here 
do accommodate
the recently proven fact that neutrinos have mass, and that the magnetic 
moment of the muon is
about 1 percent different from previous predictions.

Sixth, DO TO THIS classical Lagrangian exactly what John Wheeler did to 
Maxwell's Laws
to "metrify" them. (For this he got the Nobel Prize -- the "already unified 
field theory.")

The result is a tenable, well-defined mathematical theory of how the 
universe works, which accommodates
everything explained by either the standard model of physics or by general 
relativity. And it
doesn't need to throw in the kitchen sinks (or luxuriant baths from 
Babylon) assumed
in the untested imaginings of superbrane theory. The geometry would be pure 
Einstein, no more.

---------

It is strange that I am telling the world how they need to learn about new 
breakthrough technology,
to help solve energy disasters coming in 20 years... which is actually 
based on an algorithm I developed 30 years
ago. (The math underlying the use and design of the $1 chip which can 
provide fuel flexibility more cheaply.
Some pieces of the story are posted on a link at www.iamcm.org/publications.)
Thirty years ago people wondered why I wasted so much usable slave labor on 
something
so hard to understand and far off... and Rational Effective Managers did 
their best to try to put a stop
to it.

I do hope that by 30-50 years from now people will catch up with the new 
stuff above
(and other new stuff). But this time I will not have so much personal time 
or latitude to put into it...
In fact, I can only write this email today since I took vacation time; this 
has been the first really quiet week
at my job in more than a year!!

---------

Yes, I would agree with Roger that the greater cosmos is weirder and richer 
than this.
But we cannot start to learn about the weirdness which is really there if 
we get lost in
the weirdness that we made up in order to boost our egos. Heisenberg's yoga 
teachers
would probably have told him something similar. (Though a trip
no further than Trinity College might actually take one a bit deeper...)

Best regards,

     Paul