Absolute Reductionism?

[rloldershaw]

Could it be that the prevailing assumption of Absolute Reductionism, which claims that fundamentality and the most important answers in understanding nature are to be found at ever-smaller scales (higher energies), is leading us down a dark rabbit hole and ever-farther away from the light of testable theories and a unified physics?

Certainly those who view nature as an infinite fractal system would strongly question the theoretical assumptions of absolute scale and absolute reductionism.  Unfortunately, theoretical physics is like the Spanish Inquisition when it comes to changes in its liturgy.

Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology

[rloldershaw]

So here is a slightly longer version of an appeal to the fractal community to make their presence felt more keenly in theoretical physics.

Silence is complicity, in my opinion.

For the last century or so physics has totally bought into the idea of strict reductionism, which means that things always get more fundamental as you go to ever-smaller scales. There has been some interest in emergent modelling, but this still puts the most fundamental phenomena on the smallest scales.

In a discrete global fractal paradigm, reductionism works very well within the limited context of single cosmological Scales, such as the Atomic Scale, Stellar Scale or Galactic Scale. But crucially, this reductionism does not work between and among cosmological Scales. Each cosmological Scale is equally fundamental, i.e., none is more fundamental than any other.

This is a radically new way of looking at nature, i.e., a new over-arching cosmological paradigm.

Dimensional constants (except velocities like c which are completely scale invariant) are different on different Scales. The gravitational constant, for example, has values that differ by ~10³⁸ on neighboring Scales. This changes everything in a profound manner. It yields a far more natural, physical and sensible Planck mass and length. It radically changes the dynamics of the microcosm.

A huge amount of empirical and theoretical evidence supporting the discrete fractal paradigm can be found at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw . Any question one might ask is answered there in one or more places. I am also more than willing to help with explanations or listen to thoughtful comments and criticism.

We desperately need a new paradigm in theoretical physics. Not a new mathematical model detached from observations, not a highly abstract theory that takes 10 years to master, but a new and comprehensible conceptual paradigm that is founded on observational knowledge, makes testable predictions, and actually passes those predictions.

Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology

[rloldershaw]

On Friday at a CERN conference it appears that it will be announced that the bump at 750 Gev, which got theoretical physicists very hot and bothered (about 500 papers put on arxiv.org), has effectively disappeared with more data. Particle physics is "on the ropes" and the time would seem ripe for fractalogists to speak out and demand new ideas. We are stuck with an old and badly failing set of paradigms from the previous century.

Fractal paradigms offer an empirically well-motivated and testable alternative to the continued mediocrity of false positives, no-shows, completely unexpected discoveries and ad hoc "fixes" that have characterized the last 40 years of theoretical physics.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Fractal Cosmology/Discrete Scale Relativity