Valery Gumarov, physical engineer, 

graduate of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, 1980 

aguma@rambler.ru

Translator – Alexander Solovyov

Text in Russian here https://www.rusnor.org/pubs/articles/18238.htm

Abstract. The article named ‘Physics Of Tomorrow’ and based upon the obvious and generally recognized postulates of contemporary physics, i.e. ‘everything in the world moves, though not just moves, but revolves’; ‘the physical space is quad-dimensional’; ‘elementary particles are a sophisticated lot’; ‘there are two of every kind’ meaning that every particle has its own antiparticle, - suggests not quite evident, but possible assumptions such as ‘the tridimensional physical space is formed as a result of two intersecting quad-dimensional spaces: the space of electrons and the space of positrons’; ‘elementary particles including protons consist of electrons and positrons’; ‘vacuum is a superposition of electrons and positrons’; ‘the spatial motion is the result of birth and decay of electron-positron pairs’; ‘the math model of an electron and a positron is a vanishing torus whose points participate in toroidal and poloidal rotation’; ‘whenever we look into the outer space, we see the world from inside, and whenever we see the microworld, we observe the outer space’; ‘while moving across space towards the infinity, and having passed through the infinite set of spaces, one can get into the same point of the same space, where this movement started from (the infinity is finite, which means that it closes in on the entry point if the end is reached – it looks like Magellan’s round-the-world cruise, only farther and longer)’. You may learn what, how, why, and in what way the author came to the above-mentioned deductions, when you read this article.

Background

This publication is an attempt to organize the stream of consciousness that erupted in the comments to the article named Understanding the Unintelligible

In this world of randomness, we look for patterns and, oddly enough, we find them sometimes. This search is called ‘science’.

For a scientist, there is no harm in delusion, the harm is in persisting in one’s delusion, sweeping aside right away all arguments of one’s opponents. There is no harm in falling down under the blows of fate – the harm is in refusing to rise again. To rise above one’s own and someone else’s biases. Doubt is the driving force of science, as distinct from another instrument used for understanding the world - religion, where everything, which comes from the gods, is beyond doubt, because doubt destroys faith - the fundamental structure, the foundation of religion.

Faith is set in stone, it is guarded by priests, clergymen, preachers, and hierarchs. Faith disappears – and the entire picture of the divine universe collapses, chaos - the fundamental principle of being - triumphs. Only a new religion can confront this, led by new gods who organize the universe according to their own understanding, where man is an instrument of creation (gods are capable if and as long as someone believes in them), and a source of divine inspiration (gods are fed with human emotions, they cannot generate them themselves), and a consumer of divine truths – the forwarder of faith spreading among their own kind. Faith is the constructive and creative origin of all religions, where there is no room for improvisation by anyone except gods, and ideally, the sole presiding deity - the Creator.

The foundation of science is knowledge. Science opens the doors a crack into the world, where man received a chance to live: from the divine perspective, by God’s mercy, or punishment – you will not understand immediately until you live your life to its end, and until having left this world you find yourself in the next world, where you will be presented the claims to answer for all your deeds; from the scientific standpoint, it is nothing but groping in the dark – just interesting, how come that the whole Universe, which exists billions of years, had gathered in a single spot out of an unimaginable number of elementary particles, and lo! the world has seen a certain ‘joe public’, who, in a flash of a second of his existence, has just in time put in his appearance to disappear the very next moment for ever, having left only an information trace after him. Oh well then, it’s just a side remark!

Back to science now. Unlike religion, here is a place for improvisation in the format of knowledge – where the subject himself realizes his place in this world and adjusts his existence based on the knowledge gained.

Knowledge can be tested, proven and recreated many times. It is embodied in achievements of science and technology that are amazing for a layman. This knowledge is obvious, it is a support for researchers, a basis for further comprehension of the mysteries of the universe.

Knowledge can be assumed in the format of hypotheses and theories that have not yet found their experimental substantiation, but opening new horizons of achievements for all humanity. This knowledge is probabilistic. The prospects and possibility of comprehensibility of this kind of knowledge involve thousands and thousands of scientists in their work, and through their incredible efforts the world is presented with something that even science fiction writers did not believe in in the foreseeable future. Take video communications via smartphone, for example. Or rovers studying Mars and reporting to us that there is nothing we can do do there yet, but if we want, then robots will go ahead until the site for the arrival of man is prepared, and not vice versa, as science fiction writers depicted. As for landings on asteroids that we have achieved, this idea never even occurred to science fiction writers.

But knowledge can be incomprehensible, unimaginable and impossible at a certain stage for votaries of science, including luminaries. This is the knowledge of geniuses. Though, sometimes it turns out that the knowledge revealed to a genius appear to be the fruit of his excited mind.

Other than that, the methodology for finding solutions by geniuses is built on combining several elementary definitions, comprehensible for anyone, to explain a complex phenomenon. The originality of the solution lies in the fact that no one before a genius would even think of using the combination of such elementary concepts to simulate and explain a seemingly completely extraneous phenomenon. Before him, thousands of talented persons agonize over the problem, each of whom makes his own contribution to its solution. But only a genius is able to rise a little higher above the problem, look a little wider at the range of possible solutions, generalize a little more heterogeneous concepts and, based on deep analysis, draw conclusions, which, despite their initial paradoxical nature for specialists, will turn out after some time to be generally accepted and indisputable for everyone.

Well, that was all sentimentality, and now let us come to the point.

Introduction

About a year ago, on the NTSR web portal, I posted the article named Understanding the Unintelligible, which indicated a number of problems of contemporary physics, particularly, the inconsistency between the experimental data accumulated since the reboot from the physics of Democritus with Aristotle and Newton with Kepler to the physics of Einstein, Dirac, Bohr, including others down the list, and their modern interpretation, where physics-minded mathematicians submerged so deep into physics that they themselves did not understand where they ended up.

A race of theories reeled, from quarks to strings, from the Big Bang to black holes, from dark matter to ‘we don’t know what’s next,’ all of which not could not be observed by any single experimenter in reality. Except perhaps, in the format of interpretation speculations like ‘there was something, though I don’t know what, but since theorists talk about quarks, then this is what they predicted, something like traces of elementary particles, which, according to theory, must exist. Haven’t seen those quarks myself, but sure, I can confirm, if need be. The luminaries know better, what was that, but not I: quarks, or clarks - my job is to carry out experiments. Figure it out for yourselves! Want to find Higgs boson? OK, we’ll find it. Only give us some money… for experiments’.

But theorists are not fools: they include in their favor those data received from experimenters, who penetrate into the microworld, and from observers of the Universe, who record the unimaginable, if they fit into their theories, but if those data refute their theories and do not fit into the framework outlined by theorists, they put them out of brackets as experimental errors and imperfection of observation instruments (like those signals from the Voyagers that came from the borders of the solar system), and they continue to dig where the verity cannot be seen, but where they must, nevertheless, find it to save their faces in the midst of similar savants. Not everyone is given the courage to admit their mistakes in public, especially when their whole life was spent on it. And even more so, to take aim at the generally recognized luminaries of the past and present, even if you understand with your mind that they are not right in everything, and that somewhere they have turned physics completely in the wrong direction. It would be more trouble for you, when the entire scientific world turns against you.

Well, that was again sentimentality, and the seamy side of life.

In fact, the achievements of contemporary physics cannot be denied; they delight us with the power of the human mind, which allows us to peek where the thought of toilers of science conquering new frontiers of knowledge from religion (another tool used by man to understand the mysteries of the world around us) had never penetrated yet before.

Yet, there are some problems.

This article is an attempt to understand the problems of contemporary physics and to feel for ways to solve them - to understand what is obvious, what is probable, what is not obvious and what is incredible.

Obvious

1. The obvious thing is motion, movement in space is an integral state of the universe. At each moment of time, both the observed objects and the observer himself are located, or find themselves in a different point in space than a moment ago. We, as part of this world, participate in its continuous motion. Physically, this means that the place in space, where we are now, was open space a moment before, just as in a moment it will again become open space, but we will no longer be there. We, together with everything that surrounds us on Earth, every moment become part of a place in the Universe, only to disappear from this place in the Universe in a moment. And ‘you could not step twice into the same river’ not because “nothing is ever the same” in our ordinary understanding. Everything changes in the physical sense: an instant will pass - and not only the river, but also the Earth itself is no longer in that place in the Universe, where all this has just been.

2. In the light of the latest scientific data about the world around us, there is no doubt that in the space we observe, from the microcosm to the outer space, there is no rectilinear motion; there is the participation of material objects, from electrons to galaxies, in rotational motion.That is, all material objects participate in rotational motion, including, apart from their own rotation, the rotation as part of more complex objects.

3. It has been established that physical space is quad-dimensional, where time is a peer coordinate, along with the three geometric ones, universally used in everyday life. The peculiarity of the fourth coordinate is that an observer in tri-dimensional space is rigidly tied to it, deprived of the ability to move freely in time. For us, leaving tri-dimensional space is death: we do understand, we do observe, we do study, but we cannot control.

4. It is also obvious from the point of view of contemporary science that the physical vacuum is not empty space, but a medium, where virtual particles constantly appear and disappear. This is particularly true for always paired electron-positron.

5. It is generally accepted that contemporary physics of elementary particles points at the composite structure of objects studied by physicists, in this case, elementary particles collected by experimenters in great numbers. In particular, according to the latest ideas, a proton consists of three elements called quarks. As for an electron, contemporary physics does not imply the existence of its inner structure.

6. Every elementary particle was found to have an antiparticle - almost the same as from the point of view of physics, only the charge is opposite. For cases, when an elementary particle has no charge, theoretical physicists have found a way out - they postulated that an elementary particle itself is its own antiparticle.

7. The obvious as it was formed. Ancient Greeks, with Democritus and Aristotle among them, had delved into physics, introducing the concept of an atom and primary matter. Copernicus and Galileo had looked into the outer space, seeing and understanding the structure of the world at the level of the Universe. Kepler and Newton had connected mathematics to physics, thanks to which the universe fell into place. They did it from the height of knowledge of their predecessors, on whose shoulders one could lean.

8. The obvious as it became now. Having strayed a bit in the conclusions of the physicists of yesterday, who had confused physics and mathematics into a speculative construct and dug up heaps of features, the physicists of today, with great spirit deserving more virtuous use, have set to utilize the budgets on seeking what needs to be found, even if it is not there, but, nevertheless, should be there, so that they could account for the costs of searching for it, and get even more for their scientific research, not forgetting about themselves in the format of receiving regalia for achievements and open budgets attached to this for their explorations. The aim is nothing – the process is significant.

9. It is also obvious that for physicists of tomorrow, some of our current ideas about matter, energy, information and the universe will prove to be not quite true. In their hands and heads, they will have more advanced instruments and knowledge to comprehend the verity. And we must and can pave their way on the path to the knowledge of tomorrow. Erring in some ways, and even anticipating in others the things that even they will not be ready to comprehend at once.

Probable

1. Proceeding from par. 4 of the obvious, applying par. 6, and relying on par. 2, one can conclude that vacuum is neither an empty physical space, nor a mathematical abstraction, but a physical system consisting of specific physical elements, where specific physical processes occur.

In the light of our current knowledge about the structure of matter, it is logical to assume that vacuum is the result of the intersection of two spaces: the space of electrons and the space of positrons. Even not so, under a bit closer look, the space we observe, where we belong to, is the result of the intersection of the spaces of electrons and positrons. Each point of this space can be either in the “electron” state, where we fix an electron, or in the “positron” state, where we fix a positron, or else in the “electron-positron” superposition, where an electron and a positron are located at the same time, and we fix this spatial point, like “vacuum”. The spatial point, where an electron and a positron are located at the same time, does not show any properties for us; we see it as emptiness - a spatial point with indefinite properties. It means that ‘vacuum is a superposition of electron and positron’. So there’s that.

But, by and large, the motion of material bodies in our space can be represented (by analogy with electron-hole conductivity) as the decay and fusion of electron-positron pairs that make up vacuum: the decay of pairs is the emergence of matter at the point of decay, while the fusion of pairs is the return of matter to the state of vacuum. Besides, the interaction of electrons and positrons leads us to fix their combinations: two positrons and an electron - a proton, two positrons and two electrons - a neutron; more complex combinations appear before us in the form of atoms in the entire diversity of the table of chemical elements.

When applied to classical physics, the fusion and decay of electron-positron pairs, which we interpret as the motion of matter, manifests itself as Newton’s First Law coupled with the law of conservation of energy: in uniform rectilinear motion, the number of decaying electron-positron pairs forming a body is equal to the number of emerging electron-positron pairs, the total energy of decay-emergence is zero, which means that the force acting on the body is also equal to zero... Or rather, vice versa: if the number of decaying electron-positron pairs forming a body is equal to the number of emerging electron-positron pairs, we perceive the body as moving uniformly and rectilinearly.

Well, of course, it looks like an appeal to the theory of quintessence, which the luminaries of the early twentieth century abolished so strictly that now none of the theoretical physicists dares even to breathe a word about quintessence, or, to be more accurate, to submerge into the theory of physical space, without having sworn allegiance to the canons of quantum physics, but the thinkers of the past were not so ignorant as to brush off their theories straight from the shoulder. As a matter of fact, the whole contemporary science rests on their shoulders. Only its head seems turned in the wrong direction.

In particular, it followed the path of searching for elementary particles, not realizing that the particles themselves, as well as their interaction, are a manifestation of the properties of space; for instance, gravity is the same manifestation of the properties of space. The thinkers of the past had succeeded in feeling around for mechanics, but we, as victims of scientific and technological progress, obsessed now with fruits of the achievements of applied science, have lost the essence of fundamental science.

Once More About Space

Anyway, if I were God, two elements would be enough for me to create the universe: an electron and a positron. Using them, I would build a proton, where two positrons and one electron would be tightly bound, then I would add a neutron from softly bound two positrons and two electrons, also I would frolic for a while with combinations of these protoparticles in all their diversity, watching how a bystander perceives the stability of some combinations in the form of stable atoms, but cannot observe the entire variety of combinations in the vacuum format due to the limitations of his capabilities.

I would entertain myself for a while looking at the bystander’s attempts to make the system of the world perception more complex by introducing into his universe something that does not really exist, though he himself invents it, such as quarks.

I would give up everything in disgust, having seen that comprehension of the simple spills out beyond the common sense of the cognizer of the world, and switch to the information fields generated by cognizers in the process of their life activities, where emotions overshadow mind.

Right there, I would stop and enjoy the information flows generated by the process of understanding the world I created - simple like riding a bike, but unbelievably complicated in any attempts to understand it.

I will repeat myself: if I were the Creator of the universe, two elements would be enough for me to create the universe - an electron and a positron. And the big question is how theoretical physicists would work now and tell others about world creation, if an electron and a positron were discovered at the same time.

Back to Matter

In this context, the seditious idea of simulating the structure of the Universe only from positrons and electrons, considering them as the constituents of two spaces, whose intersection gives rise to the Universe we observe, from galaxies to atoms, is rather interesting.

In this case, one space consists only of positrons, the other - only of electrons, and both spaces have the only property - to create the elements that form them according to their individual programs.

All electrons, as well as positrons, are absolutely identical to each other, and therefore it is impossible to distinguish one from the other, it is impossible to single out any point in space, and, for a bystander, the entire space of electrons appears as one electron, while the entire space of positrons - as one positron, although they are constantly in the process of creating the elements that form them.

The process of creating electrons occurs according to one program, the process of creating positrons - according to another. The difference in creation programs manifests itself to a bystander as a difference in the properties of an electron and a positron, that is, he is able to distinguish between electrons and positrons. While the spaces do not interact (do not intersect), they appear to a bystander as an isolated electron and an isolated positron.

When the spaces begin to interact (intersect), many points are formed in the intersection zone, which are no longer identical to each other, since they represent either an electron, or a positron, which a bystander perceives differently due to differences in the programs for their creation, or their superposition, where the observer does not see anything, because he is not able to probe any material properties in the electron-positron superposition.

Also, the process of interaction of electrons and positrons in the observer’s space is determined by their primary nature: each is bounced off its own kind, because external space, if any is found, must be occupied by elements of its own kind. Everything that comes across along the way, even hitherto unknown, must be made to suit itself, which is perceived as the attraction of elements of interacting spaces, despite the fact that the spaces themselves tend to expand.

To make things easier to understand, I would say that since an electron, as part of the space of electrons, constantly creates (generates) electrons, and a positron constantly generates positrons, then a bystander will perceive this as the tendency of electrons and positrons to fill the entire observed space, and the elements of the same kind will be perceived as bouncing off each other, while the elements of the opposing kinds - as attracting each other.

Probable (continued)

Proceeding from par. 5 of the obvious, taking into account par. 1 together with par. 2, and having added par. 7 to this, considering also par. 6, there are reasons to assume that there is no need to go far looking for the devil, when the devil is right on your back. This is said about the asymmetry of space in terms of matter and antimatter and the darkness in the knowledge of the Universe structure, when dark matter with dark energy are sought where everything seems to be in plain sight.

It is hardly worth pushing elusive quarks into a proton and crushing the elementary charge, when it can be built from available things: from one electron and two positrons, where the electron is situated between two positrons. The force of their attraction to each other is determined by Coulomb's law and balanced by the centrifugal force (everything in this world rotates). Thus, it turns out to be a kind of a stable structure, if not to take into account that everything in our world is changing every moment (par. 2 – the Stability of the Observer is a sign of the Mastery of the Creator :). And if something began to pile up due to the denial of the obvious, well, we can assume that this comes from the evil one :). But this will already require tackling par. 8.

So, returning to our muttons... Probably, neither antimatter, nor dark matter, nor even dark energy are hiding from scientists anywhere. Perhaps, antimatter is in plain sight, you just need to take a closer look at protons. Most likely, nature does not need either dark matter or dark energy.

Therefore, is it worth looking for a black cat in a dark room? Why plunge into the search for dark matter, the hidden mass of the Universe, and rack your brains about breaking the symmetry of matter and antimatter, if nothing is hiding anywhere. Everything is fine with symmetry. And the cat is white, just curled up into a ball. And the room is bright, if you look a little from above and a little from the side.

Looking at the Space from Above and From the Side

A space of n-dimensional size can be considered as the result of the interaction (intersection) of two dimensional spaces (n+1). Then, each point of n-dimensional space will represent the superposition of two points of dimensional spaces (n+1).

Let us consider a specific case, where n=4.

Let us take a quad-dimensional space, and correlate its points with properties of an electron. We will call it an electronic space. Let us also take another quad-dimensional space, and correlate its points with properties of a positron. We will call it a positronic space. The intersection of these spaces will represent a tri-dimensional space.

For an observer, the result of the intersection of electronic and positronic spaces will be presented as three possible states of a point in a tri-dimensional space: electron, positron and electron + positron. That is, for an observer, a point in this tri-dimensional space will be a physical implementation of a qubit (the probability of detecting a spatial point in one of three physical states: the “electron” state, the “positron” state, and the “electron + positron” state). The physical properties of an electron and a positron are quite well studied and known. Let us consider the physical properties of a spatial point detected by an observer in the “electron + positron” state.

To an observer in a tri-dimensional world, who cognizes, explores, and probes his space (the surrounding world) through the manifestation of electromagnetic phenomena, the state of the “electron + positron” point will seem an emptiness, a vacuum - a space that does not manifest itself in any way and does not affect the readings of the observer’s research instruments. In the “electron + positron” point, there is no charge for the observer: his instruments, including the senses (vision, touch, smell, taste, hearing), whose mechanism is tied to electromagnetic interactions, do not record anything. The charge disappears, but the mass remains, numerically it is equal to the mass of two electrons. Thus, it appears to be a hidden mass – physically, it exists, but the observer using modern instruments does not detect pure mass without the manifestation of electromagnetism. This cannot be said about spatial points in the “electron”, or “positron” state. In this case, the observer has learned to measure mass — the mass of an electron is known. Knowing the mass of the electron, one can calculate the hidden mass of the vacuum (a spatial point in the “electron + positron” state). The mass of a spatial point in the “vacuum” state is equal to 2m, where m is the mass of the electron.

Having turned attention to par.2 of the obvious...

Now, a short digression with clarification. “Albeit it does move!”, – allegedly said Galileo Galilei compelled before the Inquisition to renounce his belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun, although people think that everything revolves around their location. He might not have said so, but he was convinced of it. Approximating this catchphrase to the vastness of the Universe, it is logical to assume that everything revolves, including our Universe: electrons with positrons around themselves, electrons in atoms around nuclei, planets around stars, planetary systems around the center of galaxies, the entire Universe as a whole around… what is a separate question. And yet, the Universe rotates as a single whole, and it seems that we perceive this rotation of the Universe as its expansion.

Regarding par. 2 of the obvious, the interpretation, though not obvious, of the formula E=mc² suggests itself as the space leaving energy value of a material body with a mass of ‘2m’, moving in this space at the speed of ‘c’. This is an application of the formula of E=mv²/2 for calculating the kinetic energy to a spatial point consisting of an electron and a positron (mass - 2m) and moving in space at the speed of light (c - speed). ‘2m’, because all material bodies consist of electrons and positrons superimposed on each other. And ‘c’, because, considering all rotation speeds, the resulting speed of material bodies’ movement in the space of our Universe is equal to the speed of light.

In other words, taking into account the postulate generally accepted by contemporary physics about the invariability of the speed of light for us, having applied it to the formula of E=mc², having added to that our current knowledge about the “infinity of the Universe”, we can come to the conclusion that every point of our Universe moves in it with the speed of light (if you add up all the speeds recorded by the observer: the generalized speed (c); the actual speed (v) - the speed recorded by the observer, and used for scientific and technical calculations in his coordinate system). Therefore, E=mc², because each point of our Universe consists of an electron and a positron, and the energy of motion (kinetic energy) is equal to E=mv²/2; substituting here the mass of a point in space 2m, we see that the total energy of a point in our Universe - the energy required for the ‘capture’ of elements of ‘another' space by our space and for the exit of elements from ‘our’ space into ‘another’ space – is equal to E=mc².

Unobvious, but Improbable

What model of the structure of electrons and positrons can be proposed for a mathematical description of their interaction? Purely mathematically, these are points in space - they have no internal structure. From the standpoint of physics, these spatial points are endowed with very specific properties. The presence of properties implies an internal structure that manifests itself as properties of a physical object. If a physical object is a material point, it is impossible to look inside it, but it is permissible to imagine what is there and how.

As a mathematical model of an electron and a positron, it is possible to consider a torus rotating in the toroidal direction, while its points rotate in the poloidal direction. Then the difference in the properties of electrons and positrons will be caused by the difference in the directions of their toroidal rotation. The difference in the direction of poloidal rotation will manifest itself as different spins of both electrons and positrons.

The peculiarity of such a model is that a limiting case must be considered: the convergence of a rotating torus to a point. Generation of electrons and positrons can be represented in the form of pushing of own kind out of the torus, and the appearance (birth) of such particles is not continuous, but discrete in its nature. Particles emerge in space not gradually, but instantaneously, suddenly, in a time-cycling mode: one cycle - one act of birth. The generation mechanism is the torus rotation. The energy connection between rotation and generation should be sought in the properties of space, whose integral property is its transformation, perceived by us as movement - the movement of elements of space relative to the observer (par.2 of the obvious).

Perhaps the reason for the discrete emergence of particles should be sought proceeding from par. 4 and par. 1 of the obvious, meaning that it is a consequence of the rotation of the observer’s tri-dimensional space in the quad-dimensional space, when the observer operates with a tri-dimensional projection of 4D-objects. The approach to finding an answer to the question: ‘Why is it so?’ is possible, if it is noted that n-dimensional space is the result of the intersection of two n+1-dimensional spaces.

A mathematician with well-developed mathematical thinking, like Grigory Perelman, can take a closer look at this clearing and figure out what is happening there and how. But, in the meantime, it turns out like in a film named ‘Demob’: “Can you see the ground-squirrel?» - “No”. – “Neither can I, but it is there”.

Our world is somewhat more complex, than the proposed model. To understand its structure, the physicists should, at least, find the courage to admit… some fallacies in the maze of mathematics. Of course, it is the Queen of the Sciences. However, formulas do not solve all – they only provide a tool for your hands.

But now, in their hands, theorists have got such a grindstone for perfecting the truth, as the computer modelling, and the AI, which are not capable to teach us reason yet, because they are themselves products of the human mind, although now the AI is already able to tell us, where to dig. You must only to assign this task to it. Particularly, in physics, let it look for patterns that have escaped us in the heap of theories of the universe that have flooded us over the last century. Maybe, we dig in the wrong place?

Unobvious and Improbable

Regarding the application of AI to physics, a certain idea suggests itself... When looking at data from advanced space telescopes, and watching the images provided by such current means of studying the microworld as electronic microscopes... there is a thought sneaking in that whenever we look into the outer space, we see the world from inside, and whenever we see the microworld, we observe the outer space. It would be interesting to see what parallels the AI would draw if its program were loaded with data from telescopes and microscopes. What would the algorithm see there?

Perhaps, observing the outer space, we see glimpses of the microworld, and penetrating into the microworld, we enter the outer space.

It can be assumed that somewhere, in the infinity of space, there is an entry point into the space of the next dimension hidden. Perhaps, while moving across the outer space towards infinity, and having passed through many spaces, you may get (if the reference point is not lost in the process) to the same point in the same space, where this movement started from. Infinity is finite in the sense that it closes in on the entry point if you reach the end. It resembles Magellan’s round-the-world cruise, only farther and longer. :)

Summary of the Above

Every point in the Universe is a superposition. Possible states of each point in the Universe: electron, positron, electron+positron.

The electron+positron state is observed as a vacuum.

The entire variety of elementary particles is a combination of electrons and positrons.

Physical interaction is a manifestation of the properties of space, each point of which is a superposition with three possible states: electron, positron, electron+positron.

Information for researchers: at any limited set of points in the Universe, the number of electrons is equal to the number of positrons.

Conclusion

‘The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine’ / Haldane’s Law.

It may be so indeed, but you should not give up trying. This brings us closer to the true knowledge of the world in which we pass our time. Sometimes, making mistakes. Sometimes, stunning ourselves with the mysteries of the Universe revealed to us. Sometimes, running ahead of the creators.

In this world of randomness, we look for patterns and, oddly enough, sometimes we find them. This search is called science. You can make mistakes in science, but you can’t give up searching.

Afterword

Nature has spent millions of years making each of us an individuality, but we waste our whole lives trying to fit this individuality into the patterns that society imposes on us. Man is endowed with an extraordinary, amazing ability to think. Through thinking, man is able to interact not only with his current environment, but also to reach far beyond the boundaries of the so-called real world. Human thought is free, and if by genius we mean freedom of thinking, then each of us is a genius from birth.

The trouble is that from the first seconds of coming into this world, communication with one’s own kind, without whom man cannot become human, limits the freedom of thinking by established social stereotypes, and only few individuals find enough strength to think and create beyond the framework imposed by the society. And only some of these few find it possible to return to the generally accepted framework only to convey to others, in a clear and understandable language, the mystery that has been revealed to them. And only very few from some of those few have luck to be heeded, and accepted by mankind. And then, mankind realizes that the world has been visited by a Genius.

In contemporary physics, there is an immeasurable scope meant in terms of gaining recognition and finding fame, which descendants can mark with the stamp of a genius. After all, when you are young, it is easier to be bright and bold. Years will pass, solidity and sedateness with thoughtful statements, and monumental judgments will appear, and today’s genius will no longer dare to excite the scientific community with the ease and beauty of an unconventional approach to fundamental physical concepts. And while you’re young, you can dare. Before theses are written. Before schools are formed. Before the burden of responsibility for the sacrosanctity of the foundations of physics weighs, and physical constants begin to seem eternal.