Hey Clinton. It is really nice to read from you again. It has been quite a long time. I hope you are fine.
I appreciate your concern, thanks.
I'm very much okay. I just decided to take some time off and deal with some other stuffs.
It seems superluminal, but it is of course not. Nothing can violate this golden rule of physics (at least so far).
I like the last part of this statement (at least so far). Personally I don't think the principles of special relativity presented by Einstein and co is the full story. It seems like they discovered part of it. I suspect that the remaining parts are hiding due to the nature of Maxwell's equations - I have papers that seems to suggest this.
The complete one should predict the quantum mechanical principles naturally (which should include why it appears non-deterministic) and possibly make it easier to unify general relativity and quantum physics when extended to a general relativistic kind of theory- though i don't have a model for this yet.
In order to trigger some further discussion (you know I like this ;) ), I am not feeling very comfortable when you relate your stranger story to the beginning of the universe.
The kind of universe treated in the Predeterministic part is an hypothetical universe, so therefore, we can describe it as we like. I did not say that's how our universe is/should be.
The reason is that at some point, in its very early moment, the universe was so small that it should be subjected to quantum mechanics. This therefore consists in a non-deterministic period.
I may disagree with this from the perspective of size. Quantum mechanics doesn't say the size or scale that we "must observe it". It happens that "currently" experiments shows that it (quantum mechanics) appears very obvious in the small world. And if you go ahead to tell me about Planck's constant, then i can show you a theory that predicts almost everything conventional quantum mechanics predicts, including the general properties of atoms in the periodic table without having to solve Schrodinger's equation or any other valid equation or even take into account Planck's constant, the theory suggests quantum mechanics isn't absolutely fundamental. Planck's constant could take on any value but we would have to go with the one experiment tells us. In essence, quantum mechanics may not be fundamental. We would have to wait for a complete and accurate theory (theory that describes reality both at small scale and large scale) before we can make any conclusions.
I can easily imagine that no one thinks so. There is a vast world to explore beyond the known frontiers. We may get there one day, or not. This is impossible to predict. This is precisely what makes it exciting (IMO).
I do not think what we said is incompatible. Let me explain what I meant.
We have tested quantum mechanics at specific scales and energies up to now. In this regime, we know that it works for sure, and all predictions made from a small set of core principles agree with all data recorded. This of course does not tell us anything about any potentially more fundamental theory, except that this other theory should resemble quantum mechanics in some domain(s).
Now concerning this new theory, there are a few requirements. Does it theory globally do better than quantum mechanics? And there, it is tricky to answer because it is not sufficient to focus on a selected set of observables. We need to consider all of them for which quantum mechanics as something to say, and possibly more (otherwise what is the point of a more fundamental theory if it does not do more?).
In the meantime, there is no way to answer the question about whether quantum mechanics is fundamental or not, as there is a vast domain in which there is just no data points (and in some, not even any theory point). However, it works where it is supposed and known to work. It is already something...
Ook, whatever you say boss.