The modern physics evolves from the Newtonian physics to Relativity theories, to Quantum physics, to the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. This is a great triumph journey.
However, the recent results from LHC might sink the foundation of Standard Model if the SM Higgs particle is ruled out. Then, there must be a new physics. In fact, there must be a new physics even if SM Higgs were found, as the Standard Model can still not work by itself all the way to the Planck mass scale.
Physics is trying to “discover” the secrets of Nature with the interplay of theories and experiments. Thus, the scope of a theory is tightly bundled with its predictions which must be experimentally verified. This methodology is inductive in essence although the constructing of a theory is often employing some deductive reasoning. This methodology has proved its worth time and over. But, it is very costly. If LHC cannot discover that hidden new physics, a bigger machine must be built.
While we are waiting for the birth announcement of a new physics from the above process, I would like to introduce a new way of thinking, a new methodology of doing physics, the Fictitious Universe methodology.
We can construct a Fictitious Universe by arbitrary choosing a set of definitions and axioms. From this set of arbitrary chosen definitions and axioms, we “derive” (not discover) a set of laws and theorems which govern all phenomena in this Fictitious Universe. Then, we can compare this Fictitious Universe to the Nature Universe, item by item (that is, phenomenon by phenomenon and law by law). If the match is bad, then our selection of the initial set of definitions and axioms was bad. Well, this is no problem. We can simply make some new choices. If the match is perfect, then our choices of the initial set of definitions and axioms must comparable to Nature’s choices, perhaps, identical to its. This methodology is deductive in essence although the comparison can be done in an inductive manner. Thus, this new methodology is not constructing one theory or many theories. Any derived theory or laws in this way need not be experimentally tested but must be compared to the known corresponding theory or laws.
With the complete freedom of selecting the initial set of definitions and axioms, we should compare this Fictitious Universe to the entire Nature Universe, not just physics universe. Thus, I will list out some areas of importance in this comparison.
A. Making contact with all known physics, that is, it must “derive” the following physics,
1. Newtonian physics
3. Quantum physics
4. All known particles (the quark world)
B. Making contact with all known mathematics, it must “derive” the “number theory”, at least.
C. Making contact with all known phenomena, the rise of “life” and “intelligence”, at least.
D. Making contact with all intellectual world, the philosophy, and theology, etc..
Of course, this is not an exhaustive list but is a good starting point.
Yet, this new methodology is not a result of a wild dream just now. I have worked on this many years. Thus, there are many “results” available for comparison already. So, instead of discussing of the initial set of selection, I will show some comparisons first and then trace back to their starting points.
The first result of this new methodology is the “Prequark Chromodynamics" (available at http://www.prequark.org/ ). Prequark Chromodynamics is a direct consequence of a Fictitious Universe and has nothing to do with the Nature universe. The key point here is a beauty-contest, which one can describe the quark and lepton world better. Obviously, the Prequark Chromodynamics can reproduce the entire quark and lepton world and is a good language for describing the quark and lepton world. Can Prequark Chromodynamics be tested experimentally? An experimental test is not required in this new methodology.