Is NPQG the Grand Unified Theory of Everything?

There are many previously unsolved problems in physics which are or will be solved using the Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity model. In this post I’ll discuss Grand Unification Theory and the Theory of Everything.


Is there a theory which explains why observed spacetime has 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension? Are there unobserved fundamental forces?


The NPQG model posits a background vessel for the universe, a non-interacting 3D Euclidean void that doesn’t curve, doesn’t store energy, doesn’t do anything but host electrino and positrino particles and energy. The 3D void provides 3 spatial dimensions. Einstein’s spacetime is implemented by low mass composite particles that make an æther and can curve, store energy, convect, and keep track of conservation in conjunction with photons, standard matter, and Planck plasma. Furthermore, the concept of time is related to particle energy for photons, standard matter, and nearby æther energy. More specifically, time is related to the orbital velocity of the constituent electrinos and positrinos in each wave function solution for the particles. All characteristics of the universe are emergent from ample and equal numbers of electrinos and positrinos plus ample energy which is carried and exchanged by particles.

All four forces are accounted for in NPQG and they merge at extreme energy, i.e., temperature.


Is there a theory which explains the values of all fundamental physical constants? Do “fundamental physical constants” vary over time?


Yes and Yes. The NPQG model posits that the permittivity and permeability of æther vary with energy. The speed of light is dependent on local permeability and permittivity, so c varies as well. Varying speed of light in high energy æther is responsible for “gravitational lensing,” which is simply plain old refraction. The fine structure constant also varies with æther energy. Further advancement in the model may reveal other “variable constants” or hidden insights. For example NPQG has revealed that the Planck constants are far more than a dimensional analysis. Planck unwittingly defined the physical nature of the Planck photon and Planck plasma.


At the present time, the values of the dimensionless physical constants cannot be calculated; they are determined only by physical measurement. What is the minimum number of dimensionless physical constants from which all other dimensionless physical constants can be derived? Are dimensional physical constants necessary at all?


A dimensionless physical constant is a pure number having no units attached and having a numerical value that is independent of whatever system of units may be used. Perhaps the best-known example is the fine-structure constant, α, which has an approximate value of ​1⁄137.036


This is a great question, and it is on the to do list. The only finding so far is that the fine structure constant varies with the energy of æther, like several other dimensionful “variable constants”. We’ll need to get the standards bodies to clean up the terminology eventually.

The standard model requires 25 dimensionless physical constants, many specifying mass or coupling strength. NPQG is on the path to a mass formula, so that could help reduce the number of these constants.

Fine-tuned Universe: The values of the fundamental physical constants are in a narrow range necessary to support carbon-based life. Is this because there exist other universes with different constants, or are our universe’s constants the result of chance, or some other factor or process? In particular, Tegmark’s mathematical multiverse hypothesis of abstract mathematical parallel universe formalized models, and the landscape multiverse hypothesis of spacetime regions having different formalized sets of laws and physical constants from that of the surrounding space — require formalization.


Given the NPQG model, it seems unlikely that there are any other physical constants describing a spacetime æther based cosmos. The constants appear to be natural ones that arise from the physics of electrinos and positrinos. Parallel universes and multiverses with different laws and constants are nonsense woo conjured up by frustrated physicists attempting and failing to penetrate nature.


Are any of the fundamental particles in the standard model of particle physics actually composite particles too tightly bound to observe as such at current experimental energies? Are there fundamental particles that have not yet been observed, and, if so, which ones are they and what are their properties?


All particles in the standard model are composite particles made of electrinos and positrinos. Spacetime is an æther of composite particles. I’ll list some of the major reasons that science did not break through to this level of nature, until now. However, this subject really deserves an extensive analysis by science historians.

  • Michelson and Morley incorrectly concluded that there was not an aether. They did not know consider that the æther would be below their scales of detectability.
  • Einstein interpreted spacetime as an abstract geometrical concept that can curve. This abstraction, and in particular the idea of a singularity, created a huge barrier and distraction (e.g., the no-escape law (other than Hawking radiation), wormholes, white holes). Although Einstein toyed with physical spacetime ideas, he discarded them. See the videos, books, and papers of Unzicker.
  • Spacetime æther is rather baffling to figure out when everything is bathed in it, yet it interacts in subtle ways at a very small scale. Spacetime æther implements mass, which is really an energy exchange and conservation mechanism.
  • Einstein interpreted the speed of light as a constant in spacetime. However, speed of light is variable, and depends on the energy density of æther. Spacetime æther energy is exchanged with neighboring particles which are also carrying incoming energy waves.
  • The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics at the 1927 Solvay conference introduced a very non-physical interpretation of nature. De Broglie advocated a more physical interpretation, but it seems political pressures had a lot to do with dismissing De Broglie and causing him to abandon his idea. The intervening 90 years of success of QM caused a very high barrier to alternate interpretations.


Is there a theory which explains why the gauge groups of the standard model are as they are.


The Lorentz mechanism of all composite electrino/positrino particles, includine æther particles, enables an enormous variation in scale, i.e., gauge. In particular the gauge scalability of æther particles as a function of energy, is a root cause of many properties in the standard model, in particular mass. The subject of gauge groups is fairly mathematical and there is room for more articulate mathematics to explain how it maps to NPQG. This is one of the many items on the to do list. Please collaborate!

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : June 15, 2019 : v1


Does a Black Hole Shrink While Jetting Planck Plasma?

The Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity model informs us that supermassive black holes intermittently jet in-core Planck particles from their poles. This explains a lot about the universe. However it raises many new questions about how this mechanism functions.

Let’s brainstorm!

What are the conditions that influence jet initiation? Spin? Merger? Charge? Magnetic field? Ingestion?

What causes the jet to stop? Depletion of Planck particles? Containment regained (why?).

Does a black hole and its event horizon shrink while jetting Planck particles? It seems logical. What are the alternatives?

How is the mass of the black hole influenced by in-core Planck particles formation and/or jetting? Since GR does not apply in the Planck core, does it still count towards mass of the black hole? I think Planck particles surrounded by other Planck particles can not transmit their mass nor be gravitationally influenced by other mass. Therefore as matter-energy joins a Planck core, it disappears gravitationally.

How do black hole mass changes impact galaxy dynamics? It seems logical that mass disappearance would have an effect on galaxy rotation curves.

Answering these questions via reverse engineering or science will require more research. This initial post is to plant a flag for further thought experiment, modeling, mathematics, and insight. Please contribute your ideas in the comments.


J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : June 15, 2019 : v1


Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Neoclassically

There are many previously unsolved problems in physics which are or will be solved using the Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity model. In this post I’ll discuss Quantum Mechanics.

Interpretation of quantum mechanics: How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wavefunction collapse or quantum decoherence, give rise to the reality we perceive?



The path forward on superposition is to understand that the Universe implements an incredible memory and transaction accounting machine. This universal accounting machine never loses track of anything that is conserved.


What constitutes a “measurement” which apparently causes the wave function to collapse into a definite state?


A measurement requires the exchange of energy quanta (harmonics of the wave function) with photons intermediating. When a particle exchanges energy, the prior wave function solution ends, a transition occurs, and a new wave function solution begins for the new energy level. At the moment of the wave function transition, we consider the wave function to be collapsed. This measurement reaction is conservative when considering the energy and other conserved dimensions of the departing photon.


Unlike classical physical processes, some quantum mechanical processes (such as quantum teleportation arising from quantum entanglement) cannot be simultaneously “local”, “causal”, and “real”, but it is not obvious which of these properties must be sacrificed, or if an attempt to describe quantum mechanical processes in these senses is a category error such that a proper understanding of quantum mechanics would render the question meaningless. Can a multiverse resolve it?


I can not yet articulate the specific mechanism that implements quantum entanglement. However, per Dr. Lee Smolin’s 2019 Perimiter Institute talk, which I highly recommend, entanglement is real and there must be an explanation. So for now, I will take the leap of faith, per Dr. Smolin.


  • When a particle exchanges energy, the prior wave function solution ends, a transition occurs, and a new wave function solution, determined by the energy level, begins .
  • At the moment of the wave function transition, we consider the wave function to be collapsed.
  • There must be a lowest energy photon that contains only the smallest possible harmonic of energy. How can that harmonic be determined?
  • The spacetime æther, photons, and all standard matter form an incredible memory and transaction accounting machine for all dimensions and quantities that are conserved.
  • Every particle is constantly exchanging energy waves with neighbors.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : June 15, 2019 : v1


Fresh Thinking on Entropy

There are many previously unsolved problems in physics which are or will be solved using the Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity model. In this post I’ll discuss Entropy.

Let’s start with some background information before we turn to the unsolved problem related to entropy.


In statistical mechanics, entropy is an extensive property of a thermodynamic system. It is closely related to the number Ω of microscopic configurations (known as microstates) that are consistent with the macroscopic quantities that characterize the system (such as its volume, pressure and temperature). Under the assumption that each microstate is equally probable, the entropy S is the natural logarithm of the number of microstates, multiplied by the Boltzmann constant.


Entropy, the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work.



The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes, the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.


We can express the second law from the perspective of the universe for any process with a change in entropy S, such that \mathbf{\Delta S{_{U}} \geq 0} .

“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington


With that background, here is an unsolved problem in physics:

Arrow of time (e.g. entropy’s arrow of time): Why does time have a direction? Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past, and time correlates with the universal (but not local) increase in entropy, from the past and to the future, according to the second law of thermodynamics?



The International System (SI) of units of entropy are joules per kelvin, which is energy divided by temperature. The kinetic energy of a particle is directly related to its temperature. We also know that Planck sphere particles and energy are both conserved. When we talk about a collection of particles, if said collection is not in equilibrium, then at least one subset of particles has higher energy than another subset, which has lower energy. We also know that if we concentrate a set of particles in a volume, then the spacetime æther energy will also rise in that volume.

It seems to me that we can tighten the second law of thermodynamics to say that the total entropy of any process or reaction remains constant when considering all particles. If entropy increases in a portion of the universe, then the remainder of the universe must experience a decrease in entropy. Specifically, any change in entropy in one group of particles is balanced by the equal and opposite change in another group of particles. All such particles involved in the conservation of entropy are a part of the reaction. Therefore, we can refine the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and change the equation to an equality. The reason we are able to tighten the 2nd law is that general relativity and quantum mechanics (GR-QM) era scientists understood neither the æther nor black hole dynamics.

Note: The æther is lightly interacting. We don’t feel the 2.7 K temperature of the æther in the Earth’s atmosphere. Presumably this is because there is far more energy in the molecules of the atmosphere that dominate. However, if we were exposed to æther in outer space that we would feel it and our bodies would quickly shed energy via radiation of photons.


Gravity reduces the entropy of matter-energy and increases the entropy of æther. It brings together matter-energy and concentrates it, compacts it, transduces it, removes degrees of freedom, and crushes it by many orders of magnitude all the way down to Planck particles. The more concentrated the matter, the more mass energy the matter must average outstanding in the æther.

In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein’s observation that the gravitational “force” as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.


Thermodynamic work must be done against the æther to accelerate a particle, and per the equivalence principle this applies to a particle being acted upon by gravity as well. Planck particles may occur in the core of a supermassive black hole (SMBH), and possibly in other high energy objects or as a result of high energy events (e.g., BH-BH mergers, BH, BH-NS mergers?, NS?). BH = black hole. NS = neutron star.

Thermodynamic work must be done against the æther to accelerate a particle, and per the equivalence principle this applies to a particle being acted upon by gravity as well

J Mark Morris
San Diego July 21, 2019

Planck particle phase has the lowest possible entropy, zero, and the highest possible energy density, the Planck energy density. Per the Britannica definition of entropy, Planck particles have zero energy unavailable for performing useful work. Or rather, 100% of the energy of Planck phase particles is available for useful work. There is a trick issue though – Planck spheres in a Planck core have zero kinetic energy and thus a temperature of zero. This is an artifact of the phase change to Planck core state. The moment they have freedom to move their temperature is the Planck temperature.

I imagine in-core Planck particles in a solid form, arranged in the densest packing possible. Perhaps face centered cubic (FCC) packing. Planck particles in a supermassive black hole (SMBH) core can be described by two states, a single binary bit of information, Planck core or not Planck core. If that is true, then a Planck core has zero entropy \mathbf{S=k_B\ln{(w=1)}} . Under certain conditions, the SMBH will jet the Planck core as plasma. Once the plasma has escaped, the entropy of the particles begins to increase.

rpclemson on


Bekenstein and Hawking related black hole entropy to the area of a black hole event horizon.

\mathbf{S_\text{BH} = \frac{k_BA}{4\ell_\text{P}^2}}

where \mathbf{A} is the area of the event horizon, \mathbf{k_B} is Boltzmann’s constant, and \mathbf{\ell_\text{P} = \sqrt{G\hbar / c^3}} is the Planck length.

The Boltzmann constant is a physical constant which relates the average relative kinetic energy of particles in a gas with the temperature of the gas and occurs in Planck’s law of black-body radiation and in Boltzmann’s entropy formula.


It is fascinating that Boltzmann’s constant, which has to do with a gas, appears in the entropy equation for a black hole event horizon. What does a gas have to do with the event horizon area? Ingested matter-energy is not expected to be in a gas state at the event horizon by GR-QM era science. So what is going on here? Oh, I see, the Planck length squared is in the denominator. The surface of the Planck phase core volume may be composed of electrino/positrino dipoles, fixed in position, storing the maximum energy possible. The surface of the Planck phase core manifold is the matching surface to the prior phase which must be a gas. That is likely why Boltzmann’s constant appears in the entropy formula.

What is that geometry of a Planck core? Parallel spherical or oblate shells that alternate electrino-positrino, fixed in position geometrically? The dipoles are not spinning in the Planck phase. It seems to me that time slowed and now stops for the Planck core, so I am thinking the electrinos and positrinos are fixed in position. And if they stopped spinning, that means the spin had to migrate somewhere else due to conservation of spin, so this must accelerate the spin of the black hole. As more layers join the core the geometry of the core will evolve.

The next step is to relate Boltzmann’s constant to a potentially evolving geometry of the Planck phase core manifold. Maybe it’s something simple, like an oblate spheroid. It’s going to be that isn’t it?

Jumpin’ Jack Flash
It’s a gas, gas, gas

The Rolling Stones

Remember, we always need to consider faults and misalignments, in the actual physical geometry position by position. Nature is not perfect! I’ve been thinking face centered cubic would play a role in NPQG, and the Planck core phase manifold makes sense.

For equal spheres in three dimensions the densest packing uses approximately 74% of the volume. A random packing of equal spheres generally has a density around 64%.

Two simple arrangements within the close-packed family correspond to regular lattices. One is called cubic close packing (or face centred cubic, “FCC”)—where the layers are alternated in the ABCABC… sequence. The other is called hexagonal close packing (“HCP”)—where the layers are alternated in the ABAB… sequence. See the FCC HCP diagram above. But many layer stacking sequences are possible (ABAC, ABCBA, ABCBAC, etc.), and still generate a close-packed structure. In all of these arrangements each sphere is surrounded by 12 other spheres, and the average density is 0.74048.

Carl Friedrich Gauss proved in 1831 that these packings have the highest density amongst all possible lattice packings.


The formula for packing density is \mathbf{\frac {\pi }{3{\sqrt {2}}}\simeq 0.74048}

This suggests that the packing arrangement involves a somewhat regular structure that can grow layers. True, core density might drop a little here or there near a fault, but overall, 74% packing upper bound makes sense. There are two ideal geometrical arrangements that can reach this upper bound: hexagonal close packing (HCP) or face centered cubic (FCC). Now, which arrangement makes more sense ABCABC (FCC) or ABAB (HCP)? If you said ABCABC (FCC) and your reasoning was “because space has three dimensions,” then you had the same intuition that I did.

We can use this density formula, perhaps adusted downwards a bit for faults, to estimate the energy density of a Planck core! Geometrical simulation may be able to provide an exact solution based on number of layers.

A regular solid with 12 vertices, equally spaced on an imaginary sphere, is a cuboctahedron, which is a uniform polyhedron. I think it scales by adding a layer of spheres at a time, in the sphere model. The details about how these layers are added geometrically may be a future research area. In any case, it seems likely that nature would tend to optimize and make this figure more and more spherical as layers were added. It probably doesn’t take many layers to reach an almost ideal sphere, even if carved out of a regular cuboctahedron lattice.

So far I’ve made a primitive case for layers of FCC cuboctahedron of Planck photons, spheres of six electrinos and six positrinos each, such that when alignment happens and the Planck phase is enjoined, we get alternating layers (electrino, positrino, electrino, positrino) proceeding spherically or spheroidally. I think this is somewhat appealing from a beauty and naturalness perspective, and in keeping with symmetry perhaps each dipole aligns radially to maximize the energy storage. Note: for the Planck core dipoles to align radially it must be that conserved spin has migrated to outer layers of the black hole, probably largely in a kinetic form.

It may well be that supermassive black holes self-regulate themselves. The larger the Planck core grows, the more spin is outsourced to the periphery, causing the black hole event horizon and the Planck core to to each become oblate spheroids.

Oblate Spherod – Wikipedia

If the mantle and core of the black hole were both oblate spheroids, the polar thickness of the mantle would be less than in a sphere of the same volume. Thus spin may play a regulation role. The Planck core spin is shed to the mantle, causing an oblate spheroid, which reduces the barrier toward escape for the Planck core. There may be a relationship between supermassive black hole spin rate and Planck emission initiation. Cessation would be related to spin rate, but also to remaining volume of Planck particle phase core.

None of the thinking on entropy in the GR-QM era has considered æther particles and their temperature, nor has it considered the correct thermodynamics of black holes.

What happens at the transition to the Planck particle phase? In this state, matter has achieved the ultimate concentration of energy. The neighborhood of the Planck core is composed of extremely high energy particles. As more energy pours into the SMBH the energy intensity of the core begins rising. General relativity still holds as long as there are no Planck particles. However, at some point, particles will occasionally hit Planck energy. Then as more energy gathers, the percentage of Planck particles will grow. Planck particles do not participate in general relativity, i.e., they do not transmit their mass, nor receive gravitational waves. This is because the electrinos and positrinos in a Planck particle are not moving. Time has stopped for the Planck particle.


What about reversibility? We need to broaden our thinking on reversibility beyond reversing individual reactions and consider that particles can lose and gain energy any number of times as long as they are between zero energy (0 Kelvin) and the Planck energy (Planck temperature). Black holes can reset the energy of particles to the highest level possible. In that sense the particle entropy has been reversed from any lower energy transtions it has previously experienced.

The relation to time is that energy tends towards thermal equilibrium. Most free particles, absent any other impinging particles or laboratory preparation, have more energy than an æther particle. Therefore the free particle is more likely to emit radiation, i.e., shed energy, than it is to absorb energy. We observe this process occurring over time, and since GR-QM era scientists did not understand the æther or black hole dynamics, they have tied the concept of entropy to time.

Clearly the average temperature of the æther is 2.7 K, but what exactly is the composition of the æther? Is it composed of low energy photons, neutrinos, and axion like particles? In what proportion?

When a black body radiates, a common reaction is that an electron sheds energy to a æther particle which becomes a photon. The electron then drops down an energy level. This is the reverse of the process that heated the material, where photons transferred energy to the particle, typically causing an electron to increase its energy level.

Matt on PBS Space Time says black holes hold most of the entropy in the universe. What insights can we derive from this knowledge?


  • The total entropy in the universe is constant and conserved. Some processes concentrate energy and some processes diffuse energy. We can clarify the second law from the perspective of the universe for any process as \mathbf{\Delta S{_{U}} = 0} .
  • In-core Planck particles can be described by a single bit of information, Planck core or not Planck core. Planck particles have a single microstate.
  • A Planck core has zero entropy. \mathbf{S=k_B\ln{(w=1)}} .
  • When in-core Planck particles are exposed to a cooler and lower pressure environment, such as when penetrating the axial pole of an SMBH, the vast majority of ejecta is Planck photons and neutrinos.
  • No information is “stored” on a black hole horizon.
  • Information is destroyed in Planck cores of black holes.


What is the absolute lowest possible energy state of the æther? Does it correspond to maximum entropy? I am presuming that the 2.7K cosmic microwave background is the black body temperature of the æther.

If the universe and æther is continuous and infinite, then perhaps 2.7K is its lowest average energy. However, some observations have suggested colder spots in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). If those are valid results, what could cause a colder region of æther?

If our æther is a bubble, rather than infinite, then the surface of the bubble may be the interface to a phase change. What lies beyond the bubble surface? Here are some possibilities to ponder as we reverse engineer nature. Keep in mind that it may be difficult or impossible to test these ideas.

  • A 3D void free of electrinos, positrinos, and energy. Logically this implies that nothing can escape our bubble.
  • A 3D void with other æther regions in many size scales from unpaired electrinos and positrinos all the way up to bubbles similar to ours or even larger in scale.
  • Bubbles may move through the 3D void and occasionally combine.
  • A frozen æther at near 0 Kelvin. All electrinos and positrinos have zero velocity relative to the whole. Is it a lattice of interspaced electrinos and positrinos that minimizes charge interaction?
  • Some or all of the above.

Also, note that scientists have cooled free matter-energy particles to incredibly close to absolute 0 Kelvin. However, those particles are in a bath of æther at 2.7 K, plus any delta in temperature due to Earth’s gravity. Considering these experiments may provide additional insight.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : June 15, 2019 : v1
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : July 21, 2019 : v2