Standard Model vs Other Model
God is not part of religion
concepts in physics can affect society
God becomes a testable concept
mass virtual Higgs temporal curvature
gravity graviton/GR temporal curvature
e-m virtual photons charged anti-photons
strong virtual gluons temporal curvature
weak virtual W-bosons geometry/vibration
self-int random-nature spacelet-nature
multi-states random-nature spacelet-nature
grav-time-dil GR temporal curvature
rel-time-dil path-length temporal curvature
big-bang inflation God
The Standard Model is a product of convention. So is General Relativity. i do not take issue with GR; i take issue with the SM. With each model, we have (at least) 10 things to explain: mass, gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, self-interference, multi-state behavior, gravitational time-dilation, relativistic time-dilation, and the Big Bang.
Occam's Razor should be called Occam's Test because we need to compare the number of assumptions associated with each model. If we're generous and allow all virtual Higgs, virtual photons, virtual gluons, and virtual W's to be called virtual bosons (one thing / assumption), then there are five on the left and five on the right. Tie.
From a purely objective perspective, the weakness of the SM is over dependency on virtual particles (4 items); the weakness of the OM is over dependency on temporal curvature (5 items). But this is NOT the reason convention rejects the Other Model. The obvious reason is item 10. Convention cannot embrace God because it rejected religion's influences on politics and science years ago. "God is part of religion" (science has declared) and so any model that includes God is seen as antiquated, silly, stupid, passe, and just plain wrong.
i did not arrive at the OM starting with the assumption of God "in the picture". i began with spacelet-nature and temporal curvature then arrived at God as a realistic alternative to inflation. If we see temporal curvature as a strength (in terms of explaining power) rather than a weakness, the right side is preferable until point 10.
It should be clear why i've done the utmost to exclude religions in all of my writings. Religion is an autonomy sucking device intended to strip human beings of all: self-reliance, independence, judgment, critical and objective thinking,.. and replace them with: idolization, mindlessness, superficial placidity, and sheepishness among the general public.
i've successfully been able to conceptually divorce God from all religions and so, as a result, the concept of God is allowed back into science; because i intellectually explicitly sever ties between God and all religions (as in Better Way), God is no longer part of religion. Science is free to consider God again (without attachment to religion).
From a minimalist perspective (last essay), God only has one requirement: acknowledgement. Is it such a leap to go from that to point 10? ^^ Convention has labored for decades to erase God from 'the big picture' .. But in the process, random-nature, virtual particles, and inflation have dominated science and concurrently - philosophy. Please realize the impact of these concepts on society:
2. virtual exchange
3. inflation (something from nothing)
1. People are no longer accountable to anyone/anything because everything is inherently random starting from the atoms in your body to the thoughts in your mind.
2. Money is essentially virtual exchange; we don't trade anything substantially real; it's just little pieces of paper/cloth with ink on them.
3. Inflation has been a part of the world since money has.
i know the last item means different things in physics and economy, but the concept means the same thing: something from nothing. (Perhaps i should rephrase that to be: inflation is less of nothing over time caused by deliberate devaluing of virtual-currency.) Inflation is essentially the intentional devaluing of virtual-currency over time.
They say theoretical physics has nothing to do with social systems but we see above that physics and society have some frightening parallels. Science's rejection of God as part of religion is now invalid: God is no longer part of religion; God does not belong to any one particular religion (or even to all of them); the concept of God is separate from religion. The rejection of God, as a concept, is no longer a 'given' in science. At this point, we can consider the Other Model more objectively (without focusing on item 10), consider temporal curvature with an open mind, and charged anti-photons as a realistic alternative to virtual photons. There are explicit tests outlined in WfM.
.. When we allow the possibility of God, when we divorce the concept of God from religions, when we allow the possibility of a deterministic quantum mechanics, we allow the concept of God back into science. This is not the reversal of historical scientific progress; this is allowing a more accurate view of reality.
Historically, science rejected all religious influence - including the concept of God.
This was a good/beneficial thing since religions had a stranglehold over politics/science.
But rejecting the concept of God was overkill and virtually eliminated any God-based physics.
Contrary to common notions and prevailing opinion, determinism is not dead in physics.
Determinism is still shown to be a valid alternative to conventional probabilistic QM.
In any case, convention has contorted rationality to the point of absurdity with inflation.
Markus Lazar has independently shown elementary particles can be viewed as distortions in space-time. His inclusion of Higgs (due to conventional pressures/expectations) does not invalidate his research direction/thrust.
The rejection of religions by science is understood but goes too far excluding God.
In the context of probability, rejection of determinism is understood but unreasonably exclusive.
Lazar has independently shown spacelet theory is a valid approach toward elementary particles.
The holism of temporal curvature appeals to our rationality more than randomness/virtualness.
Determinism is revived and allows for a fully realistic view of elementary particles and interactions.
The clause of including a minimal concept of God is not a detriment but actually a coherent / holistic advantage.
The concept of God becomes testable in conjunction with determinism, temporal curvature, and charged anti-photons mediating electromagnetism.
God is part of science not religion.