This thread was formed from posts split from "Quantum Fluctuation : Causal" with an off-topic discussion of karenmansker's dissatisfaction with specific moderation action and that user wants it clear that the thread title is not orignal to that user.
Yes, you blinkered pseudoscientist. We have little choice when the evidence does not contradict the most precise prevailing theories. Physics is not about ego or the greatness of one's ideas — it's about describing the behavior of phenomena which actually are observed to happen.
If I have a manufactured ball bearing, you may observe that it is spherical. The expectation that it is spherical is in the name. The detailed engineering tolerances would prefer it to be exactly spherical but recognize it has to be spherical "enough" for the purpose it is advertised for. So the person claiming it is not spherical needs to make a specific claim: Is it a pedantic claim that nothing made of more than one atom may be spherical or is it a material claim that the ball bearing is not as spherical as advertised and was the proximate cause of machine failure when that advertising was relied upon.
If you have evidence that nature respects a symmetry, then your first-order model is that symmetry is important to nature and is respected by natural laws so your physical theory had better also respect that symmetry. Having described the symmetry with math, to go beyond the first order model one must have evidence of symmetry violation or else you have no experimental data to test against a hypothesis of symmetry breaking. It's not enough to hypothesize "what if this wasn't a perfectly kept symmetry" but must relate the details of a specific amount of symmetry breaking to a specific measurable outcome of an observation.
The symmetry common to all quantum physics phenomenon is called unitarity, the property that changes to physical systems preserve the sum of the probability of all outcomes. The symmetry common to special relativity is called Poincaré invariance and it states that nature is indifferent to position, direction or choice of an inertial motion as the standard for "motionless". The combining of these two principles from circa 1905 special relativity and early quantum mechanics circa 1900-1928 led to the prediction of massive and massless particles of fixed intrinsic angular momentum.
I, KSM received this 'alert' 4/4/2017 from Mod (who?) . . . . re: KSM reporting rpenner (post above) for insulting a fellow Sciforum member . . . . :
"Unfortunately, your recent report has been rejected: Post in thread 'Quantum Fluctuation : Causal' - Post doesn't meet the threshold for moderator action. rpenner can post the opinion that you are a pseudoscientist. It is up to you to show that you are not."
KSM inquiries: Who is the Moderator who sent this alert to KSM? What would 'meet the threshold for moderator action'? Comment: Perhaps Sciforums Admin should require certified credentials for all members to determine who is a scientist and who is a pseudoscientist. (BTW: I have such credentials; do you?) (Mods: You may move this post elsewhere or delete, if you like).