Yes, from the perspective of the higher-energy physics theory, the lower-energy physics theory has emerged. Higher energy physics particles have formed amalgations that are resistant to changes from their environment.

And the forces present in this environment has changed as the high energy particles amalgate. These amalgams will over time become bound objects resistant to environmental forces, responding to them but not being changed by them. Eventually they will settle to form the particles within our present physics.

If I'm contractuallly bound to you then we are engaging in transfers of energy between ourselves to maintain ourselves in some state. A simple example would be the earth and sun exchanging energy gravitationally to maintain their rotation around their common centre of gravity.

Here, we get a little more. If a set of higher-energy physics particles become contractually bound together to form a particle in our effective field theory then they must necessarily act in manner that is

a.) codetermined - like the atoms within a molecule, they move as one. The motion of the molecule and the motion of the atoms are conjoined. To say one moves is to say the other does.

b.) constant - they must travel in a way that does not engage in net energy exchanges with the external environment. There motions are fully determined by their internal relations. Their contractual relations.

If a higher-energy physics particle does exchange energy with another entity then there is a causal change to the particle within the effective field theory.

Though we are talking about interactions these mild causal conditions are enough to get us back to a standard view of fields. We get back our (excellent) standard model.

But, the changed perspective does bring a little to the table. The heart of saying contractual relations is placing particles as ontological entities before spacetime ( a common, causal worldline to which measurements are, possibly probablistically, localised.)

When our length scale changes attributes like mass which depend on the length scale alter in response. Lets flip this perspective. The attributes of particles alter and this induces us to say that the length scale has changed.

Why?

1. Unraveling lengths won't necessarily unravel new physics.

We place causality within our physical interactions and not a length scale at which which we take our measurements. When we say length scale we have in mind something continuous in character. A length is a portion of a continuous thing, a stavle background environment that underlies all of physics. But does this microscope analogy work to all levels? I'm not certain that the environment we are currently determining our lengths from relates to the environment where higher physics emerges. So some arguments based on this belief might not make sense.

As we increase in temperature we need not smoothly transfer from one regime to another. Certain kinds of proablistic arguments might fail, we might not have a sensible notion of high-energy physics processes occurring with a certain very low probability at a certain temperature. Ramping up the temperature and examining the data for rare signals might fail as a strategy. Or, better: I dont see why it must necessarily succeed.

You might not get traces of new physics till you reach the point where present physics no longer protects past physics objects. So you get a desert and preservation of discrete quantum numbers over a vast temperature range.

2. We can treat particles, and the relationships between them, as more primary than spacetime

I believe the attributes of particles are physical in nature.

The elimination of the classical vaccuum combined with the notion of a field leads naturally to a notion of HB loops. These are loops which return to our entity without interacting with the external environment in a manner that leads to a net transfer of energy. There is no classical vaccuum to impede or alter their motions.

For me, these loops and their properties when localised to our worldline, correspond to all the possible properties of a particle. Attributes are physical in nature. And, a particle is the bound object which is the sum of these attributes.

String theory is then perhaps an attribute theory. Its a theory of the containers, the collection of hb loops, which have become our particles.

I explained the switch in perspective and why it might be useful more fully here: https://figshare.com/s/4b1f1473b1f1fbd1d761

A renormalised theory says there's a relationship between length scales. I'm saying this relationship coud break at a certain length scale, while being appropriate at levels below it.

The cut-off is a feature, not a flaw.

At cutoff in an effective field theory, we usually say that the parameters of our lower energy physics arise by the averaging of higher-energy fluctuations.

But, Im not saying this: I'm saying the lower energy effective field theory arose to protect entities created by the higher energy physics. The parameters dont represent averaged behaviour but contractual relationships.

So, the transition need not be smooth. For a large temperature range an effective field theory can remain valid and without modification explain all present physics before higher energy physics eventually comes through.

The key idea is that forces may arise in a discontinuous manner.

And that at a certain point past physics freezes out, and what has been frozen out will be preserved by the physics now present, consequently discrete preserved quantum numbers like baryon number in complex present interactions.

String theory extends the principles behind general relativity and quantum mechanics from a simple entities thesis to a localisation thesis.

attributes are physical

The elimination of the classical vaccuum combined with the notion of a field leads naturally to a notion of HB loops. These are loops that return to our entity without interacting with the external environment in a manner that leads to a net transfer of energy. There is no classical vaccuum to impede or alter their motion.

For me, these loops, and their properties when localised to our worldline, correspond to all the possible properties of a particle. Attributes are physical in nature.

How do we experience attributes?

We experience attributes because there are two perspectives at play.

From the perspective of a particle, the motion of an element of it upon an hb loop is everywhere identical.

But, from the perspective of our common, causal worldline there are different causal outcomes to encountering a particle at each positions on an hb loop. This is its cs aspect.

The physical attributes of a particle are determined by our causal encounters with it.

A simpler case is thermodynamics. From the perspective of a ball filled with gas, each collision upon its boundary is identical.

1. They leave the ball in the self-same state from the perspective of the worldline it lies upon.

2. the motion of the elements of the field is constant. They maintain their nature or internal relations.

But, we may externally individuate these collisions by the notion of volume (which separates collisions in space) and the notion of the number of 'atoms' present and arrive at the notions of temperature and pressure.

The simple entities thesis

1. We can come to know the internal nature of particles by our external encounters with them.

2. These are the only properties a particle may have.

We can come to know hb loops by our cs encounters.

Our initial method of individuation was by special relativity and the combination of the bosonic wavefunction and special relativity gave us fermions and bosons.

To these we added in null loop 'vaccuum' interactions to get us qft. When we do this, all that we are saying is that our hb loops need not be simple.

String theory is an extension of this philosophy and process, with hb loops taken as primary and their vibrations generating the particles we experience.

Under bosonic string theory our external individuation is via special relativity and out pops the (acausal) particles behind general relativity and quantum mechanics.

If we now take our individuation to be via supersymmetry then out pops the standard model as seen above.

the viewpoint thesis

One consequence: a bound object, in this case a particle, offers just as valid a viewpoint as the external common causal worldline.

This is where the viewpoint behind this diagram comes from.

The difference between this viewpoint and that of our external, common causal worldline lets us see the attributes of particles.

the localisation thesis

But, there is for me a difference with string theory.

String theory follows this philosophy of properties by the conversion of hb loops to cs loops by their external individuation. But, for me, string theory is a theory of containers and their possible nature. It's an attribute theory.

If we put forward a possible attribute theory, then for it to be good:

1. distinct containers must correspond to distinct particle types in the lower energy theory.

2. All distinctions ought to be accounted for.

Bosonic string theory creates entites which we can distinguish topologically, and which are individuated by special relativity. And these gives us all of our particles (though acting acausally).

Susy string theory extends individuation by special relativity to individuation via supersymmetry. In so doing it creates entities which we can distinguish model theoretically.

The concept of reconciliation is this: our theories of the motions of particles is a series of elimination of disturbing influences (like friction) by at first excluding them from our theories, and then explaining their behaviour within the context of our theories.

What guarantees that this process terminates or endless progresses forward?

How in this process do we account for the processes behind the

a.) release and capture of our theoretical elements

b.) and their measurement?

But rather than fall into a philosophical morasse, I simply put forward that we can, and we can because we have a pair of theories.

The process of release and capture of one is told by the motions of the opposing field. And the process of release and capture of the first field is told by the motions of the first field.

And of course, the natural question is what if you have elements which dont quite sit in this framework, are intrinsically better explained by higher energy physics and not a lower energy pairing? How would they relate to the elements that do?

The simple entities thesis is this:

1. Let us take our particles as pre-existing our causal worldline.

2. Our common causal worldline is something formed by their behaviours and not a thing upon which they move.

3. A particle interacts causally by being localised to this worldline.

4. When it is localised some of its behaviour will present as motions on the common causal worldline and some will appear as loops. The latter necessarily will form the attributes of the particle.

5. The simple entities thesis is this: we can write the attributes of our particles in terms of motions upon the common causal worldline.

6. This viewpoint serves as an underlying conceptual basis to the theory of general relativity and to quantum field theories.

In general relativity this is the general philosophy behind the equivalence principle. In particle physics this is why the causal restrictions to motion on a special relativity obeying worldline induces restrictions on the nature of particles. It's a similar thesis, though presented very differently.

This is useful to have because conceptually these theories look very different.

And when you fully explore the consequences of this model several puzling aspects of particle behaviour are cleanly explained.

The concept of bound objects is this: if we presume that particles are spun from higher-energy physics then this presumption actually ought to change the fundamental nature of how we view particles.

They should be considered as elements of this higher-energy physics environment. But, they have become immune to this environment. Having formed contractual glows of energy between themselves they preserve themselves as they are. And, by doing so they have frozen in the nature we observe in lower energy physics.

This leads to a twofold conception of present forces: 1. They preserve past contracts 2. They relate our present bound objects (out particles) to one another.

and this explains the nature of discrete, preserved quantum numbers in interactions, and if present forces preserve past contracts a particle desert seems much more natural.

Look, I dont want you to wade through a strangers theory to get to the ideas at play.

I'm just going to put them down below, as cleanly as I can.

The concept of bound objects is this: if we presume that particles are spun from higher-energy physics then this presumption actually ought to change the fundamental nature of how we view particles.

They should be considered as elements of this higher-energy physics environment. But, they have become immune to this environment. Having formed contractual glows of energy between themselves they preserve themselves as they are. And, by doing so they have frozen in the nature we observe in lower energy physics.

And this leads to the twofold conception of present forces: 1. They preserve past contracts 2. They relate our present bound objects (out particles) to one another.

and this explains the nature of discrete, preserved quantum numbers in interactions.

The concept of reconciliation is this: our theories of the motions of particles is a series of elimination of disturbing influences (like friction) by at first excluding them from our theories, and then explaining their behaviour within the context of our theories.

What guarantees that this process terminates or endless progresses forward?

How in this process do we account for the processes behind the

a.) release and capture of our theoretical elements

b.) and their measurement?

But rather than fall into a philosophical morasse, I simply put forward that we can, and we can because we have a pair of theories.

The process of release and capture of one is told by the motions of the opposing field. And the process of release and capture of the first field is told by the motions of the first field.

And of course, the natural question is what if you have elements which dont quite sit in this framework, are intrinsically better explained by higher energy physics and not a lower energy pairing? How would they relate to the elements that do?

I think its useful to try new concepts when it comes to unification.

I have tried.

If I have failed, I have failed. But, I do not suck for trying.

The simple entities thesis is this:

1. Let us take our particles as pre-existing our causal worldline.

2. Our common causal worldline is something formed by their behaviours and not a thing upon which they move.

3. A particle interacts causally by being localised to this worldline.

4. When it is localised some of its behaviour will present as motions on the common causal worldline and some will appear as loops. The latter necessarily will form the attributes of the particle.

5. The simple entities thesis is this: we can write the attributes of our particles in terms of motions upon the common causal worldline.

6. This viewpoint serves as an underlying conceptual basis to the theory of general relativity and to quantum field theories.

This is useful to have because conceptually these theories look very different.

And when you fully explore the consequences of this model several puzling aspects of particle behaviour are cleanly explained.

Lets assume reductionism does hold for our present particles and they are composed of string(y) objects.

What distinguishes one particle from another from the viewpoint of the string theory?

A particular particle corresponds to a particular string configuration. But if a particle is a site where string theory holds, why doesnt all of string theory hold: why are particles fixed and distinct?

String theory has to see these particles as distinct in the same manner as quantum mechanics/quantum field theory sees electron shells as distinct.

What are the distinctions? One possibility is topological distinction, with particles not being able to alter their topological dimension. Different particles must then correspond to different topological entities.

And each possible topological entity ought to correspond to a particle. Further, their is a general dimensional limitation in string theories (26 dims). The sum of the particle dimensions should meet this limitation.

But, what if for susy string theory it is not topological distinction but model distinction that matters. We take particles to be the motion of the some basic entity. Different ways of moving correspond to different particles.

However each way of moving is also a path along which some basic higher physics entity remains constant. Its equivalent to a worldline. And these worldlines correspond to different ways of viewing the same, common string physics.

This lead to the above diagram.

I’m assuming it’s worth the read?

Without spoilers, it asks the questions:

Is the purpose of love happiness or a change towards being truer to ourselves?

And if truth, what happens if your truths fix you, and not you your truths?

Is love both a holding on to something deeply true within us and a venturing forth to something new and as true?

I will reccomend reading the book but it did disappoint me.

It doesn't quite end there; there's a sequel of sorts, a little more to see.

I missed that. Thank you for all the good you did do.

Sorry, I was completely off the mark here. Been too busy. I have removed the spam content and reported the user as a spammer to Reddit.