Originally Posted By: zorro1
...your theory is physics, so it has to have math...
  • No such rule exists
  • AWT describes more, then just physical phenomena
  • I'm using a logic in my derivations, and the logic is (fundamental) part of math
The true is, the consecutive logic of formal math describes the heavily parallelized physics of multiparticle systems poorly. Even the gravitational system of five bodies is (nearly) impossible to describe by formal math and the resulting description would be so complex, so that nothing useful can be derived from it. This forces the formally thinking physicists to use the probabilistic interpretation, like at the case of quantum mechanics - although such system remains deterministic apparently.

By such way, the formally thinking physicists are effectively blocked from understanding, our Universe can be interpreted by multiparticle system for two hundred years. Their formal math and way of thinking is simply incompatible with this trivial idea - even at the case, the illustrative understanding of such system can be quite simple. This is dual approach to philosophy, which cannot describe some connections by using of formal math, even at the case, such description can be quite simple. It's evident, the optimized approach in reality understanding should involve both strategies (the formal and nonformal one) in balanced ratio.

Of course, the above problem just illustrates the limits of math and formal thinking - not the limits of AWT concept. We should simply face the fact, here exists a certain group of phenomena and geometries, the handling of which by formal math is noneffective with respect to their understanding, that's all. This doesn't say, the formal math is nonsense - it's simply inappropriate tool for their description.

From certain perspective, the AWT is extrapolation of free fermion models of string field theory to zero dimension. These models are nothing very new in physics, as some physicists have assumed, the strings are composed from more fundamental particles (so called preons) already. The one-dimensional strings are just the lowest number of dimensions, which the formal math can handle without problem, while avoiding the singularities. The concept of environment composed from zero dimensional particles is naturally singular from formal math perspective, so it cannot use it. It can be replaced by one-dimensional strings partially, but here's a technical problem: such approximation leads to landscape of 10E+500 possible solutions, so it's unusable from practical reasons. While from particle model of Aether is evident, such system enables the only way of it's compactification, leading to dynamic mesh of one-dimensional density fluctuations (i.e. "strings") naturally - so no assumption of strings, no assumption of relativity and quantum mechanics postulates is required here at all. By such way, the zero-dimensional approach follows the Occam razor criterion, which minimizes the number of postulates in theories.