Oh, you're good, no problem. I just needed some breakfast. :) I agree with everything you've said. There is definitely an element of frustration at not being able to formulate a decent refutation to the content in the paper without it costing me the next year of my life. But yes, this type of legwork is necessary to unlock the next tier of secrets of the universe. It's just likely that only one direction will prove fruitful, when we've already embarked on so many different paths. That need not diminish from the endeavor though. The closest thing I've encountered to this is group renormalization theory. It takes a semi-classical approach, and it's still a nightmare that I never want to revisit. Tying in relativity? Aw, hell no! Still can't believe you're only 17, dude.Here is my problem: if adding more and more particles that will produce a higher number of degrees of freedom should make it more and more localized, how would that work for something like contained electron gas, plasma etc. Where does 'boundary' of one particle set/macroscopic object ends and a new one starts, for the purpose of judging what constitutes as this localized system?
Namaste, or however you are supposed to tell people to have a good meal ;). Thanks! Especially for group renormalization theory link, I had no idea about it. But after reading up on the topic, it does present more questions regarding the article, aside of showing me how much I'll enjoy both "Complex Analysis and Special Functions I" and "Differential Geometry I" next semester :D. Main question that bothers me now is "what was a trade-off for authors model reasoning if emergence of macroscopic objects in both space, time and space-time is the result of increasing the number of degrees of freedom?". It seems like a fairly expected thing to mention when talking about renormalization.