Authors: J Gregory Moxness
Arguments have been raised against several of the central ideas in theoretical physics, such as M-Theory's (MT's) inability to provide for the falsification necessary to avoid relegating it to the scientific dustbin of an anthropic principle based rationalization, such as the Multiverse. Along similar lines, ideas of a uniquely falsifiable inflation era after the Big Bang (BB) have also lost some of their traction. Recent major experimental results too have sent shock waves, such as the confirmation of the low Higgs mass constraining notions of super symmetry, and the Planck satellite's detail mapping of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) fixing the Hubble parameter at odds with other more traditional methods. Even the null results of major experimental apparatus are causing consternation, as in the search for particle based Dark Matter (DM). Thankfully, all this seems to be opening the door for a more serious investigation into alternative theories that attempt to answer the big questions related to the causal relationships between the Standard Model (SM), General Relativity (GR), and 95\% of the known Universe, namely cosmology's dark sector (Dark Energy (DE) and DM). This paper attempts to connect the dots between some of these alternative ideas as they relate to MOdified Newtonian Gravity (MOND), covariant emergent gravity (CEG), and the fundamental parameters used to fix Natural or Planck units-of-measure. The result is intended to point the way toward a fresh discussion in the directions available for unification of GR with SM while resolving the now more open problems in theoretical physics today.
Comments: 5 Pages.
[v1] 2018-04-04 17:38:45
Unique-IP document downloads: 27 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.