Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9314.
To develop a new paradigm you must be fully acquainted with the well-known accepted laws of physics. You would also need to know and notate the instances wherein these laws did not mesh with the latest experiments. In taking this approach you should list all the known issues and contradictions within the Standard Model. You may optionally include this model's failure to explain parapsychological phenomena; Although most theoretical physicists are not concerned with that. If you work diligently, you should end up with about 15-18 from on your list. They should include the usual suspects and perhaps a few on the periphery of science. For the typical items you would likely include problems like the conflicting experimental results of astronomical measurements concerning dark matter and dark energy (i.e., wherein observation of the rotation of galaxies suggests that the gravitation force holding them together is significantly greater than what can be accounted for by our laws and comments). You may also elect to include the current theory of gravitation needs that a more fundamental explanation.
As well, you should note that measurements of the speed of recession of Galaxy reveals that our universe is not just expanding... its rate of expansion is accelerating. You should also include science's inability to combine general relativity and quantum theory, along with the need for a theory which provides a unified explanation of the existence of the various particles and forces (a major objective of superstring theory). I would suggest that you also add to this list an entry stating that the values of the fundamental constant which make up the Standard Model of fundamental particle physics seem rather arbitrary and quite unrelated. Of course, you MUST include The Standard Model inability to explain Aspect's experiments. You also should consider throwing in a few fringe issues, such as the apparent instant speed of gravity.
After compiling such a list you should then consider and reflect upon the fundamental scientific and philosophical problem within the foundation of quantum mechanics: i.e., what is reality? I suggest this addition because the response of mainstream physics is the Copenhagen Interpretation, which essentially states that until some measurement is made on it, the existence of an entity remains in question; However, that doesn't really answer the question. At the conclusion of this exercise you should have amassed quite a list, with as many as twenty items. That is step one.
The next step is to spend sufficient time contemplating a new model that solved all of these issues by mass, and spend your time performing this exercise while concurrently reviewing theories that others have been coming up with to solve these issues. What you will likely find is that most of the proposed theories have two things in common. First, most new theories add to the complexity of nature's laws (this is contrary to the logical direction of unity); Second, and more important perhaps, none of them attempt to address all of the problems at once. If you take a piecemeal approach you will find that it will likely lead to other problems; ERGO you should seek an inclusive, comprehensive theory.
With all of this in mind, you may well find that your best option is to, in effect, mentally construct a model of nature that works within all the scientific measurements and experiments. This tact will afford you the luxury to entirely fabricate any model of nature you wish so long as it solved the known issues collectively without violating any accepted scientific principles. You are free to invent as many different scenarios of nature that you can imagine, and you should do so at nature's most fundamental form.
However, even with full license to create a new model it won't be easy. You will likely discover extensively issues and run into many stalemates. You would be well served to seek the help of other knowledgeable and practical physicists to help point the countless dead ends you will likely encounter. However, with dogged determination and a lot of trial and error, and with the well-known problems of physics constantly ringing in your head, you just may land upon a successful proposal of nature. To make it work you may need to reinterpret some laws and think outside the box concerning some well-known equations, but you must do so without changing their time-tested outcomes. For example, instead of considering that light travels at "c" and the speed of space as infinite, you could consider the speed of space as traveling at "c" and EM radiation traveling in zero time. You would find that every experiment and every formula based on light traveling at "c" would still work, but it could lead to other views that would help your objective. Also, you could perhaps tip toe around Einstein a bit. For example, instead of gravity being a factor of geometry as Einstein proposed in General Relativity, you could have it follow pure Newtonian Mechanics while adhering to precisely the same behavioral characteristics as Einstein postulated.
Instead of solely a physical universe, you could define physical space as having a complementary consisting of the metaphysical realm. Heck, instead of space itself being fundamentally empty, you could construct a model wherein it was comprised of tiny (The Planck Length-sized) elements. You could call these tiny geometries of space "Spaxels" most smartest pixels that make up your computer screen and TV. You could perhaps combine the concept of Spaxels with that of Zero Point Energy ("EPZS") and consider that this pairing, depending on whether the vibration is circular or linear, understood the realms of the physical and metaphysical. For that matter, instead of considering that gravity is a physical strength, you could link it the realm of the metaphysical and tie it with consciousness. You could call the phenomenon of your creation "gravicon". There are ways of looking at nature differently and thinking outside the box, but all the pieces of your new puzzle must fit.
If you follow this model and succeed, you will have accomplished what no one else has done before. In addition to explaining matter and energy as well as resolving all the issues on your guiding list of known problems, you will have at once created the Theory of Everything ("TOE") and the Grand Unified Theory ("GUT"). The two Holy Grails of physics in one fell swoop...
Of course, your new model will have to make some specific predictions that future experiments will be able to prove or disprove (such as the behavior of equal-sized binary stars). Good luck with your effort.
Joseph e. Donlan, while outwardly a successful business man, is, at heart, a quintessential philosophise. As such, he has spent the last thirty years investigating and challenging the world of mainstream physics and tackling the mysteries of life and science. Donlan holds a BA in English from Northeastern University, undertook graduate studies in Software Engineering with an elective emphasis in Artificial Intelligence ("A.I.") at Boston University, and is currently pursuing his doctorate in Metaphysics. After Software Engineering graduate studies he continued his research into A.I. at a high level of interest and became increasingly incredulous concerning the direction that a. i. research was headed. His skepticism led him to intensify his investigation of the inner workings of the human brain to more fundamentally understand the very entity A.I. experts are trying to emulate. This examination, in conjunction with the plethora of problems within the laws of physics began a chain of events which culminated with his Ordaining Reality books.
