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 GUT/TOE.

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

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate:

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 )

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