What’s My Problem With the Standard Model?

The standard model of physics explains quite a bit. There are things it can’t reconcile, like the duality that develops under it between general relativity and quantum theory, but it does a very good job with most day to day things. So did Newton’s classical thinking, before Einstein came along.

The fact is you can still think like Newton and get along pretty well in the world. Newton applies to every day life. The Standard Model applies as well, to all kinds of puzzle pieces that have come together under it. Thinking in the way of the Standard Model has brought the world a lot of innovative success. So why don’t I agree with it?

The truth is something inside of me is not going to be satisfied with a model that doesn’t have an eloquent solution to the problem of the nature of the universe. Instead of providing an alphabet, for instance, the Standard Model has had to provide whole words, and sentences, in order to explain things that the advancement of man has demanded answers for.

There is something else, as well. I don’t see the Standard Model even trying to answer this one. It is the issue, actually, which has compelled me to think about other solutions. That thing is the question of space-time itself. I can’t bring myself to treat space-time as something that can exist as some kind of background state upon which and within which all of the elements of a model play out their interactions. No, I think that space-time cannot exist outside of any Grand Universal Theory (GUT). Any GUT has to explain the nature of space-time, and it has to predict how everything will act in relation to everything else under that paradigm. My theory says that the event that created the universe also created space-time. It also says that the unique relationships which existed at the beginning set up a systemic nature that has gone forward.

That’s why I developed my own theory about the nature of the universe. I didn’t develop it because I happen to be a religious person and I needed a science that allows God in. If my theory does you have to understand that is just a by-product of it and not a purpose behind it. For those of you who are religious like me I will say that God has always said to me concerning science that when I have managed to disprove Him completely I will actually succeed in proving Him. That’s a funny paradox, and not at all the Kierkegaard like leap of faith that for much of my life I lived with.

So I’ve developed a way of thinking about matter that does not separate it from the rest of the universe it exists in. In my theory matter actually creates space-time, in a manner of speaking. The process is actually systemic in nature, as I said, but to call matter the creator of space-time is accurate to a degree. Along the way I’ve been amazed to see how my model not only predicts things like dark matter and dark energy at some remove, but insists that they exist. Quantum gravity is no problem either, as the entire quantum world is subsumed to the system. Quantum dynamics are still as quirky and unpredictable, but they do so as pieces of a construct rather than as individual players which require words and sentences to describe their exceptional natures.

So far I’ve introduced parts of my theory, really just some things to help me set up a context within which I can even talk about it. Some of the posts here refer to that, as well as my posts as granduniversal over on Youtube. There’s also some incomplete and false stuff there, but that’s a place where I’ve done some thinking, the false trails will be cataloged there. I intend to talk about it more as I go along, revealing enough to actually form a basis for criticism. I like criticism, when it actually exists in order to fulfill its ultimate purpose of helping us form a more accurate vision. I don’t necessarily go for it, though, when it has a life of its own, existing only to say, no. Believe me, I bring enough of that kind of thinking to bear upon my own ideas without some joker having to interject out of a need to be right or because of some set of fears.

2 Responses to “What’s My Problem With the Standard Model?”
  1. John Ahmrain says:

    Well. S.O.B. I finally found it. I’ve been working on a cosmological origin theory for over 4 years now. I also call mine Grand Universal Theory (GUT). I figured someone else might’ve taken the name. Looks like you are he. Curious though about the details.
    My equation Er=Ipx (nQ1+nQ2)
    Energy release = interaction potential times name quanta1 and name quanta2, is probably different then yours. Not really sure what to call my variation now. Dang. Good luck though, on your work.

    • micaheaton says:

      I’d still call it whatever you want to. I only used that name because it’s a generalization. I’ve heard these kinds of things called that before, somewhere. I don’t what to call my ideas either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: