Where’s the NPQG Math?

For NPQG basics see: Idealized Neoclassical Model and the NPQG Glossary.

Scientists, skeptics, and critics often ask me “where’s the math?” when I describe Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity (π—‘π—£π—€π—š). It turns out that is a complex and nuanced question to answer.

Objectively, we can state unequivocally that general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) are incorrect because they do not have the correct physical model. Neither GR nor QM theories account for superfluid nor the recycling universe in their physical models. However, we also know that the math of general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) works very well for a reasonably large set of conditions and that those theories make many predictions that match the real world. How can this be?

Let’s imagine that you discovered many X-rays and magnetic resonance images (MRI’s) of human hands in different positions, and you also a well fitting glove for each hand studied. With these, you could develop a model for how a human hand works, without ever actually seeing or touching a human hand. Your model might actually be quite sophisticated and accurate. Still the fact would remain, that you had never observed a human hand directly. This is like GR and QM. GR is like the glove and QM is like the x-rays and MRI’s. The hand is the π—‘π—£π—€π—š electrinos, positrinos, and superfluid and how they behave in reality.

Perhaps it is fortunate that I do NOT know GR and QM math inside-out and backwards because it might limit my imagination and creativity. What I do understand, however, are the shapes of the curves, fields, and manifolds described in the educational and outreach material. At this point, instead of math, I focus on the narratives and interpretations and the hierarchy of scaffolding built by the scientists. In doing so, I pick up on the “poker tell” when the theoretical or observational foundation or the narrative interpretation is weak, illogical, or contrary to my intuition about nature. Understanding these weaknesses has provided many clues on where to examine closely for insight into π—‘π—£π—€π—š. Those insights have led to hypotheses that, if proven, will create a firm foundation for ongoing science.

As much as we would like to have easy math, we need to remember that everything is not rainbows and rosemary. Nature makes all math possible (in myriad ways), but nature itself may be modeled at different levels of complex reality vs. accuracy vs. precision vs. cost vs. response time vs. other application specific metrics. Similarly, while π—‘π—£π—€π—š may be the basis for a theory of everything, we will always need a wide variety of application specific models. This raises the interesting question of which math to develop first.

Which math is a priority? Shall we start with the classical math of harmonic series? How does π—‘π—£π—€π—š math map to GR or QM? Is the thermodynamic version of general relativity relevant to NPQG? What is the math associated with a Planck core and the conditions under which it will emit as a jet or rupture? At the most detailed model of reality, we need to think about the geometrical struture of the superfluid. Does its geometrical structure change as a function of superfluid temperature (energy)? Is the superfluid a foam? Is it a lattice? Does it tend to arrange in a face centered cubic (FCC) structure over some or all temperatures? Are there multiple geometrical lattice superfluid arrangements under different conditions? How does each form of standard matter-energy move through the superfluid? What about faults, rips, tears, and holes in superfluid? What is the drag applied to each standard matter-energy particle traveling through the superfluid under all conditions? What about turbulence? What level of math is needed for the application? What math is required for simulation of various aspects of π—‘π—£π—€π—š. These are all great maths to pursue at the appropriate time and it will require a large effort by many people to sort all this out and get it done.

Related image
theconversation.com

Given all of these factors, focusing directly on π—‘π—£π—€π—š math has been a lesser priority compared to learning about the GR-QM era’s science and performing thought experiments that lead to physical insight about the model of nature. I have confidence that as the physical and logical model become more complete the NPQG math will reveal itself. Unfortunately, I realize that despite this essay, the questioners will never be satisfied because modern physics has become a math first exercise. As Samuel L. Jackson’s Pulp Fiction character would say, “Ask me about the math one more time!”

Image result for samuel l jackson pulp
Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction

J Mark Morris

June 12, 2019 San Diego v1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s