In the foundations of physics, we need to resolve any arbitrary choices made about how the system behaves. To accept these options, without specifying the conditions for choosing between them, or without sufficient justification, leaves a model exposed to the possibility that it is wrong.
The 'landscape problem' of String Theory is a good example, where the theory cannot be disproved, because when one set of configuration parameters is falsified, another can be chosen that has not yet been falsified.
Likewise, our work contains some decisions, or there are some unresolved decisions that demonstrate arbitrariness. It is our goal to eliminate these.
Our choice of −b as a condition for wave collapse is not itself arbitrary. It originates from the designation of the −b state in a larger geometric algebra, which had a meaning of 'conserved' or 'fermionic', that we have since discarded for this line of work.
However, we have not disproved the possibility that wave collapse cannot occur at some other arbitrary value of b, e.g. what prevents us defining the quantization condition as being “any two overlapping waves having the same phase value”, rather than what we have now, “any two overlapping waves having phase value −b”.
Our positive justifications thus far have only relied upon uniqueness to define a bosonic or fermionic existence at any given instant. It is not strong enough to eliminate the “any phase” scenario, but it does require identical phases for the components.
When we have reproduced some good results in our forthcoming simulation work, we may then be able to run the alternative scenario to see how the implied physical systems behave, and compare this with the expectations of standard models.
Although the principle, of an intrinsic property enabling the determinstic and conditional collapse of overlapping waves that are slightly out-of-phase, the unwanted arbitrary decision is that the modulation width (the mass-energy) is determined by the difference in phase angle in the modulator, rather than the value of the wave in the algebraic b axis.
Again, simulation should clear this up, and until then, the difference is small at the tiny modulations (valued at around 10−30 for example) we expect from typical physical interactions, because cos(angle) approximates phase-difference(angle) for small angles.
We are hopeful that this mechanism might avoid the need for some of the free parameters of standard physics.
However, we do not yet have a good reason for choosing one mass value over another, or their spectrum of possible values in different applications.
If this were to remain the case, then it would be difficult for this mechanism to add value beyond standard methods. Perhaps an analytical approach could generate fine-tuned values, where simulations are sensitive to tipping points, and reproduce observations.