Mapping 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 energy carrying point charges, the electrino and positrino. The 3D void provides 3 spatial dimensions. Einstein’s spacetime is implemented by point charge assemblies that make an æther. Those structures have properties that implement Einstein’s spacetime geometry. Frequency and radius of the dipoles in the assembly change to maintain the constancy of the speed of light as viewed from within the aether. 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 those point charges.

All four forces are accounted for in NPQG and they merge at extreme energy.


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 as perceived by an observer in the Euclidean background of absolute space and time. Varying speed of light in high energy æther is responsible for “gravitational lensing,” which is simply plain old refraction. 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 discovered the physical nature of point charges at their extreme state in a Planck point charge core of an SMBH.


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


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 new or unknown constants describing our point charge universe. The constants appear to be natural ones that arise from the physics of electrinos and positrinos. One goal of NPQG is to link of the physical implementation from first principles to the constants and basic formulas of physics.


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 assemblies made of electrinos and positrinos. Spacetime is an æther of point charge structures. 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 consider that the æther would be below their scales of detectability. They did not consider that the structures comprising spacetime can adjust their radius and frequency to maintain the constancy of the speed of light as perceived from within the aether.
  • Einstein interpreted spacetime as an abstract geometrical concept that can curve. This abstraction, and in particular the ideas of a singularity, wormholes, no escape (other than Hawking radiation) and these created a huge barrier and distraction that obfuscated truth. Although Einstein toyed with physical spacetime ideas, he discarded them. See the videos, books, and papers of Dr. Alexander 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 exchange of apparent energy and also a conservation mechanism.
  • Einstein interpreted the speed of light as a constant in spacetime. However, speed of light is variable, and depends on the energy and energy gradient 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 as an effective theory caused a very high barrier to new interpretations.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s