Categories

## Is Fundamental Knowledge of Nature Risky?

I am concerned that perturbing nature in certain ways that are currently unknown could be highly destructive. It is important to avoid unwittingly or deliberately causing a catastrophe when manipulating nature at high energies.

At one level this concern extends to laboratories with resources that are pushing the frontiers of concentrated energy-matter. At another level this concern is in regards to those who will deliberately attempt to leverage nature to cause destruction.

I sent this letter to LLNL / NIF on October 24, 2019. I have sent previous letters to LLNL / NIF yet received no response to date.

I sent this letter to the Secretary of Energy on October 24, 2019. I have sent previous letters to DOE yet received no response to date.

I asked the following question on reddit in February 2020:

Are there areas of academic Particle Physics research that are classified?

If you can say, using the Wikipedia definition of classified, what areas of particle physics research are classified? What information can you provide about what is classified in academia and what is not? Are academic researchers required to do some sort of classification review for new discoveries? What about the same set of questions for government research?

I am very interested in the legal consequences and moral/ethical views on what knowledge can be shared. Is it generally true that there is a race condition between those who would apply new technology in positive ways to survival of intelligent life versus those who would use such new technology destructively?

The responses were interesting. I’ll summarize them. The bottom line is that the reddit r/ParticlePhysics respondents were not concerned about risks from particle physics research as it is done in 2020. This doesn’t assuage my concerns that NPQG might open the door to new technologies that could be far easier for an evil scientist or nefarious group to exploit.

• Classified
• There is basically no “classified” material in true particle physics i.e. no new discoveries would ever be classified because the work is so abstract, you can’t go from E=mc2 to nuclear weapon without decades of research and billions of dollars.
• Not sure about research, but the government absolutely commissions classified white papers on topics related to particle physics.
• Non-proliferation
• There is work on non-proliferation that has heightened scrutiny, I don’t know if is classified.
• Any sort of nuclear non-proliferation stuff starts to become very secretive very fast.
• A country might specifically create a detector looking for nuclear facilities in other countries. That is a political act, funded by a government, and the results are probably kept by that government for their own use. So if a physicist has a moral problem with that experiment they simply wouldn’t join.
• The Japan-based neutrino experiment has produced analysis related to proliferation events. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of it ended up classified.
• Non-proliferation considerations arise in nuclear physics, not particle physics, per se. In some experiments, this is a blurred line, e.g. Watchman. So it is kind of nuclear physics and particle physics at the same time.
• Export control
• The US is very secretive with their research, and tend not to share anything they deem ‘too’ important or irrelevant.
• Embargoed information (not classified)
• There are numerous collaborations which will have a lot of internal reviews and discussions before anything becomes public knowledge, usually through a press announcement.
• Risk
• Particle physicists don’t deal with anything that powerful or immediately destructive.
• The accelerators are safe, the software is benign, and the theories are pretty useless, and too specific, to be used for weapons research.
• So we live in a nice area where we don’t have to worry about the morality of releasing knowledge. It won’t affect anyone. There isn’t a big cabinet of censored results.
• Openness
• There is certainly no prescreening for research within the particle physics community.
• In fact in many places research is required by law to be open sourced.
• CERN and most other large experiments are funded by taxpayers in multiple countries. To respect that (and sometimes by law), the experiments are pretty committed to open data, open source technology, and open science so that results are always available in journals that provide/allow a free to view version to be hosted.
• The distinction between academic research and government research is basically nothing by the way.
• I know of a couple of projects with….. dual purposes….

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : October 24, 2019 : v1
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : February 15, 2020 : v2

Categories

## How Nature Implements Gravity!

Science does not yet understand gravity. Let’s fix that.

To understand nature and gravity, we must reimagine spacetime as an æther with a mix of various gases, just like the air we breathe is made of multiple gases. What are those gases? We know that air is made of gases at the molecular level such as hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and others. Let’s imagine that spacetime æther is dominated by very cold, very lightly-interacting particles, at a scale below that of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, and neutrons. Imagine these particles are all made from a combination of two fundamental particles, the electrino and the positrino, each 1/Nth charge (I have been modeling with 1/6th charge).

### What Gases are in Air?

“By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.” – Wikipedia

### What Gases are in Spacetime?

Spacetime æther (aka quantum vacuum) includes spacetime particles as well as all photons and neutrinos passing through, dominated by those that have traveled so far in the (possibly infinite) universe that their temperature has dropped to near absolute zero Kelvin as they yielded energy during their journey. The reduction in temperature of these photons and neutrinos has been lost in reactions, primarily due to galaxy local spacetime æther expansion. The æther may also include any composite particle products of multiple photons and/or multiple neutrinos that react at some temperature and/or particles forged in some other reaction. These may include axions or gravitons.

The spacetime æther has a black body spectrum of 2.7 Kelvin. The general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) era science has mistakenly attributed this radiation to a cosmic microvave background from the incorrectly conceived Big Bang.

### Squaring Spacetime Æther with GR and QM

How do we square these ideas with quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR)? Surely we must find a way to finesse right in between them, because both theories are so successful. Absolutely! It’s all a matter of the scale of precision. GR and QM do well at their scale and where they apply.

The first stipulation is that quantum mechanics must adapt such that each field is strictly limited to one that could be created by a collection of classical particles observing a set of wave equations, the classical particles being the electrino and the positrino, each 1/Nth charge.

The second stipulation is that general relativity must adapt to understand gravity not as pure mathematical equations, but as a chemistry, a mix of particles and interacting wave equations that serve to heat or cool nearby particles. The local energy of the spacetime æther and its gradient (rate of change) are the drivers of an electromagnetic convection that we call gravity. There is no pure math at the actual level of nature – it is a chaos of discrete particles, continuous fields, and discrete energy transfers. At the foundation, spacetime æther is a gas, gas, gas. It is a collection of varied particles, each with a particular composition, energy, reaction profile, position, velocity, and so on.

“I was born in a cross-fire hurricane
And I howled at the morning driving rain
But it’s all right now, in fact, it’s a gas
But it’s all right. I’m Jumpin’ Jack Flash
It’s a gas, gas, gas”

The Rolling Stones

### Implementing Gravity

Every* particle no matter the type, including spacetime æther particles are participating in gravity. Why? Because the wave equation of every particle interacts continuously and losslessly with the wave equation of every other particle based on an inverse squared distance law. Even if a particle’s electrinos and positrinos in its shell have slowed incredibly, or to zero, the particle continues to participates in gravity.

*Note: There is one exception and that is Planck particles on the interior of a Planck core do not participate in gravity.

Participating in gravity simply means that the wave equation of your particle is engaging electromagnetically with the wave equation of nearby particles. The degree of engagement falls off as radius squared.

Let’s apply our new knowledge!

A photon is both a wave and a particle. Therefore every photon is participating in gravity. Every photon has a mass, although incredibly small and close to zero, especially a cold photon near absolutel zero Kelvin. Imagine two isolated stars orbiting their binary center of mass in a large bubble of 2.7 K spacetime æther. The path from star to star that carries gravitational waves, photons, and neutrinos is slightly warmer than the surrounding spacetime æther and is also aligned with the force of gravity. There are two reasons. First, the energy flow from each star’s particles wave equation makes a temperature ridge between the stars. Second, the photon and neutrino energy emitted by each star also makes a temperature ridge between the stars. Expressed mathematically, for every circle of radius R from either star, the peak temperature of the spacetime æther will be on a path between the stars. This path is not a straight line path because the stars are orbiting their center of mass of the binary system and the speed of light causes the waves and particles to take some time to reach the other star.

Is it a coincidence that there is a warm and curvy temperature bridge of spacetime æther between the stars? No! Gravitational attraction (convection) occurs because it takes less energy for the matter-energy of a star to interact with the warmer spacetime in the bridge. Matter-energy generally seeks the warmest path through spacetime (convection). Therefore the spacetime æther temperature and its gradient implements gravity, and this is a clue that will help resolve open problems in physics and cosmology.

Here is a simpler way to think about gravity. All particles have a “mass” and are participating in gravity to some extent. Even the very cold particles of the spacetime æther are interacting with their neighbors and transmitting a lossless energy wave. Every photon and neutrino interacts with nearby spacetime particles momentarily. Matter-energy particles by definition exchange energy with all other matter-energy particles. Modeling gravity as centralized point masses misses this incredibly rich dynamic that causes the temperature of spacetime particles to vary according to all impinging waves. Has this been taken into account in the search for dark matter and dark energy? No, because current GR-QM era physics and cosmology do not understand nature.

We’ve covered the more typical case we observe, which is gravitation of warm matter-energy through relatively cool spacetime. Things get even more interesting when we start thinking about situations when spacetime is really hot and getting hotter. What happens near a dense object where spacetime is hot? How does matter-energy at a variety of temperatures and compositions interact with hot spacetime or a black hole? Can you imagine?

p.s. One of the discarded ideas in science is that of Superfluid Vacuum Theory (SVT). I haven’t yet studied SVT, but I found the abstract of this 1975 paper fascinating and aligned with NPQG.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : October 23, 2019 : v1

Categories

## Avoid Narcissists at All Costs

Judging by my YouTube trending feed, I am concerned about how many of the population-hours are spent by people viewing intelligence reducing YouTube content. Sure, we all like a mindless show or activity here and there. Tuning out is good to refresh the body, mind, and soul. However, most of the population is not paying attention, at all, to big issues or doesn’t care, or both.

On the other hand, paying attention to what is going on lately is extremely stressful! I keep coming back to the idea that there has already been a U.S. coup and we just don’t recognize it yet. If Trump has the Supreme Court on his side, he can win all the ultimate rulings and who knows, call off the elections while the court cases take years to resolve? Maybe I am getting too wound around the axle, but isn’t this exactly the fight Liddle’ Litigating Donnie Trump has prepared for all of his life as a burgeouning malignant narcissist?

How are malignant patholological narcissists created? They are an almost unstoppable virus. We need to understand how they come to be. Is it nature or nurture? To what extent does toxic family life cause children to become narcissists? Could it be that as a child these budding narcissists are put into family crisis positions frequently and learn to litigate their way out of the situation between Mommy and Daddy? Every single technique in the narcissists handbook (see image) could be useful in a full on battle with Mommy and Daddy. And if at the end, Mommy and Daddy tell them they are right, and they are wonderful, it reinforces the charade. Objectively, that is some seriously screwed up co-dependency and child abuse.

Nevertheless, when we encounter a pathologically malignant narcissist in a leadership position we need to recognize the situation and seek solutions. It catches you before you even know it. You are immediately compromised in the vicinity of a narcissist. It’s confusing. It is illogical. What the heck is going on? Is it me? It is so damaging to all people in the orbit of a narcissist. The individuals who are closest are compromised the most and mind-f**ked every moment.

Eventually you realize that it all comes down to your principles and how much you trade on them. The worst people compromise their principles, if they ever had them. The heroes recognize the situation, and despite the personal cost, they hang in there as long as possible, attempting to minimize impact to important values, the customers, and employees. Unfortunately it is often a losing battle for those caught in the situation. For this reason, it is best for many to seek the exits in the vicinity of a malignant narcissist.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : October 23, 2019 : v1

Categories

## Nature and Math

Nature is both discrete and continuous. GR-QM era physics understands and models nature and “particles” as fields. Everything is a field. There are no fundamental classical particles in GR-QM era physics. In contrast, the NPQG model is based upon two fundamental particles, the electrino and positrino and the fields they emit. In NPQG, particles are discrete, and local fields are continuous. If the natural world is physical with real particles, then the pure math used in GR-QM physics is employed at a scale larger than reality, where that pure math works. However, at smaller and smaller scales the discrete nature of the fundamental electrino and positrino particles plays an important role that is not accounted for in GR-QM mathematics.

At the scales of concern in the GR-QM era, the contemporary mathematics works well because the discrete aspect of nature is at scales well below consideration. It is as if the discrete nature of particles is like the epsilon-delta that leads to calculus. The granularity is so fine, that continuous math works.

One notable exception is the case where infinities arise in GR-QM theories. In the natural world, there may be a limit where nature does not continue to infinity in some dimension. A great example is the so called singularity in a supermassive black hole. Thankfully, a singularity can not occur, because the Planck scale is the limit of size and energy of a particle. Discrete nature means that divide by zero or integrals with infinite bounds may not match reality. If nature is truly quantized then as we approach the limit of nature, nature’s math may behave differently than theoretical math. The scale and precision of the math required depends on the question.

Aren’t different scales already assumed in physics — quantum vs. classical worlds? Yes, but at a different level. Classical physics at the macroscopic level and quantum physics at the microscopic level represent the progression of science in the GR-QM era. For many applications, classical models are still quite good.

If the NPQG model is correct and there are only two fundamental particles types (electrino, positrino) that occupy Euclidean 3D space, then these fundamental particles have real absolute (3D) positions in 3D Euclidean space at all absolute times. No uncertain quantum positions, no curvy spacetime, but real and continuous positions in absolute 3D space and absolute time. Then we can add layers of emergent behaviour as groups of particles form structures of composite standard-matter particles, or as they become particles of spacetime æther, or as they are subjected to the intense energy of a supermassive black hole, or as groups of them become atoms, or molecules.

“In mathematics, a dynamical system is a system in which a function describes the time dependence of a point in a geometrical space.”

Wikipedia

Would the NPQG system of nature qualify as dynamical? Perhaps. We can definitely place nature in a 3D Euclidean space. No twisting or compression or curving of 3D space. We can place each fundamental particle in a real location in that volume. Those same particles make everything, including Einstein’s spacetime. Spacetime coordinates becomes a transformation based on the density and energy of the low energy composite particles that make the spacetime æther.

We can also think of absolute mathematical time within our 3D Euclidean space. Next we need to define relative time, but it may be a bit trickier to undertand. Time is related to the energy or temperature of particles. It is as if time is a measure of the how much particle energy remains before depletion. At high energy, time moves slow, because depletion is so many orders of magnitude below. At low energy time moves faster.

It remains to be seen what applications will emerge that require the lowest level granular understanding of nature. It will be interesting, because certainly there is some level of chaos in the discrete arrangements of all the particles and composite particles.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : October 20, 2019 : v1

Categories

## Kirsten Hacker : Thought Experiments

Since early October 2019, I have found myself inspired by the writings of Kirsten Hacker. Kirsten writes books and social media posts about a variety of topics, including physics and justice, which are two of my favorite subjects. It is truly wonderful and promising to meet someone, especially an individual as bright and creative as Kirsten, thinking and writing along similar lines in physics and cosmology. When Kirsten writes about physics, I am energized to look for relationships with my NPQG model. This is very helpful as I look to advance and articulate understanding of nature via NPQG.

This post is a response to Kirsten‘s article “Thought Experiments.” Kirsten is an extremely talented individual who happens to be quite knowledgeable about the fields of physics and cosmology, due to her earning a Ph.D. and spending twenty years in the field. She also has an insider’s perspective. Please read Kirsten’s article first and then come back for my response. Also, be sure to check out Kirsten’s books on Amazon.

Dear Kirsten,

Would you expand on the Gell-mann quarks example in this quote from your article: “They draw inferences which go far beyond what the experimental data suggests. Gell-Mann’s nuclear model with quarks is a good example of this.

The reason I ask is that in my model with electrino-positrino shells for standard model particles, one interpretation is that quarks are only a by-product of blowing up a neutron or proton (or meson…) with a particle accelerator. As I understand it, modern particle physics stipulates that quarks only exist inside hadrons, such as the proton and neutron. There is also speculation of quark stars. It may be possible that quarks are simply common fragments that result from a particle collision in a high energy collider and that may occur in nature at equivalent temperatures.

Wouldn’t it be fascinating if the accelerator physicists had missed a layer of composite particles and somehow moved on to studying their typical shrapnel in their experiment?

It kind of makes sense that experiments might fail to detect electrino/positrino shells for standard matter and spacetime æther particles because they are difficult to observe directly. Of course, we know that they are difficult to observe directly, since Michelson-Morley (and follow-ons) failed to detect them.

This makes further sense if you consider that Gen I fermions might have a full shell of say three electrino/positrino dipoles to provide containment in three dimensions x-y-z. Then Gen II fermions at higher energy, have decomposed somewhat and are far less stable because they have only two dipoles in their shell. Continuing, Gen I fermions at even higher energy might have a very fragile partial shell containment of one electrino/positrino dipole. This all makes perfect sense. Gen I is stable as we know, because it has three dipoles and space is three dimensional. Gen II and III are progressively less stable with two and one dipoles respectively.

You can imagine the energy levels in a neutron star, black hole, or supermassive black hole. Or the energy levels in certain collisions. If the particles are spherically layered and therefore mostly surrounded by other particles at the same energy level (temperature), then there will be continuous deconstruction into various composites that can exist at that temperature and pressure until only the most fundamental particles are remaining.

It makes sense to me intuitively, that the ultimate arrangement must be electrinos and positrinos (which have 1/6th charge) in the most awesome battery in the universe. A battery that Elon Musk would envy. It must arrange electrinos and positrinos, possibly in a lattice (with faults), that holds the most possible energy, the Planck energy for each particle. This is something that can probably be solved by thought experiment and theory and verified by simulation.

One might imagine a lattice, perhaps a face centered cubic (FCC) lattice. I envision a core of interleaved particles packed so tightly at the Planck scale that they cannot move, that the local speed of light is zero, that all of the energy is stored in the electric field via attraction and repulsion (There is no magnetic field if all electrinos and positrinos have velocity of 0). The core has only one microstate. Entropy of the core is zero. However, due to conservation of entropy, energy, and momentum (linear and angular) when particles join the Planck core, the next hottest particles do the heavy lifting for conservation of entropy and momentum.

As you know some black holes spin very fast. When spinning, the black hole and presumably also any Planck core, become oblate spheroids. In an oblate spheroid the layers outside the Planck core are the thinnest at the poles. There is also a strong magnetic field aligned on the polar axis. If the Planck core breached the event horizon as Planck plasma it would most likely happen at the poles, except in collision situations that could cause a chaotic and potentially catastrophic breach. I’ve written several posts about black holes and what happens next, and you can find those in the NPQG Table of Contents.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : October 14, 2019 : v1

Categories

## Kirsten Hacker : Disentanglement

This post is a response to Kirsten Hacker‘s article “Disentanglement.” Kirsten is an extremely talented individual who happens to be quite knowledgeable about the fields of physics and cosmology, due to her earning a Ph.D. and twenty years in the field. She also has an insider’s perspective. Please read Kirsten’s article first and then come back for my response. Also, be sure to check out Kirsten’s intriguing books on Amazon.

Dear Kirsten,

I’m interpreting the title of your article, “Disentanglement,” as a double entendre and it’s spot on if that is the case. There is so much nonsense these days coming out of the physics and cosmology communities. The astronomers are mostly cool, so I’ll give them a pass, plus I have some pre-sympathy for astronomers because they are going to be enormously pissed off when they find out all the stuff the physicists and cosmologists got wrong and how much reframing that will require in astronomy.

There was a mention of infinite matrices and determinants in this post. I can only vaguely remember linear algebra from 1980, but I thought it was way cool. The word ‘infinite’ reminded me to make the following point: To the extent physicists are using integrals with zero and/or infinity as bounds for modeling energy in particle reactions they are wrong. There is a minimum energy a particle can have before its shell disintegrates and there is a maximum energy, the Planck energy, that only certain particles can have (others decompose at lower energy). This is why I don’t understand why there is all the nonsense talk about singularities and wormholes. There is a big CLANK when a particle gets to Planck scale in the core of an SMBH. There is nothing beyond that. No singularity. That seems so obvious to me, that it blows my mind that most physicists don’t see that and continue to say that Planck scale is just a result of dimensional analysis.

I also wanted to mention pilot waves, which I think my model of nature generates. I model spacetime as a dense æther of particles that permeate nearly everything. Every particle has neighbors. In my model, all of the standard model particles have a shell. Imagine, say, three dipoles spinning orthogonally along some orientation of x,y,z axes. The wave equation of each shell is determined by the harmonics of energy stored in the shell. So think about what happens when the electrinos and positrinos in one shell come in proximity of the electrinos and positrinos of another shell. There will be a slight influence. Energy will flow and will then ebb back. This is continuous, not a discrete transfer of a harmonic. The usual case is no net transfer of energy, but there is a root mean square energy outstanding on average. I think this is the transmission method for the concept of mass. The more matter-energy a particle has, the higher energy it exchanges in the ebb and flow with its neighbor particles. And then since they are excited, they do the same thing with their neighbors. This happens at the local speed of light. The spacetime æther has local energy and it is higher around dense matter-energy and increases as radial distance to the dense matter-energy decreases. This is the mechanism for gravity. Gravity is convection through the æther. The reason gravity is so weak, is that we are talking about the influence of neighbor wave equations on one another as electrinos and positrinos come into proximity. This is a tiny effect compared to the other three forces. Also the energy is dispersing in an expanding sphere, so its intensity decreases by 1/r^2, which falls off very fast.

Now consider that nearly every particle has this ebb/flow of energy, a yin/yang, a heartbeat – that is an incredible amount of information being continuously spread throughout the universe at the local speed of light. So the fact that distant particles may know something about each other is not surprising to me. I am still unsure about the spooky action at a distance, because it is not clear to me if the initial entanglement determined the ultimate outcome or some other mechanism.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : October 14, 2019 : v1

Categories

## Kirsten Hacker : Blue Skies

This post is based on Kirsten Hacker‘s fascinating article “Blue Skies” and a brief exchange we had in the comments section following her article. Please read Kirsten’s article first and then come back for our comment dialogue. I’ve edited my comments for clarity and expanded on them to a degree. Also, be sure to check out Kirsten’s intriguing books on Amazon.

Dear Kirsten,

I model spacetime as an æther of low energy particles, such as low energy photons, neutrinos, and axion like particles. My model is classical, with real particles, of which there are just two fundamentally: the electrino and the positrino, modeled at 1/6th the charge of the electron and positron, respectively.

Spacetime is an æther with a black body temperature distribution of 2.7 Kelvin. Thus the spacetime æther is responsible for the energy that scientists have called the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and erroneously attributed to remnants of the mythical Big Bang.

To tie in to your post Kirsten, refraction is the root cause of gravitational lensing. You see, in my model, the temperature of a particle of spacetime æther is the net energy impinging on that particle which has traveled from all other radiating matter-energy sources in the universe. This is a Machian view, with a twist that not all matter-energy is capable of radiating – in particular the interior of Planck cores of SMBH is not capable of transmitting mass because all neighbor particles are maxed out at the Planck energy.

So how does spacetime æther cause refraction? We know refraction is due to variation in the speed of light. We know that the speed of light can be calculated from the permittivity and permeability of a medium. Therefore, following this logic, the permittivity and permeability of the spacetime æther must vary based upon the local energy of the æther. So, we have a continuously varying speed of light around massive objects, where c is dominated by function of radius from nearby matter-energy and the radiated mass energy from the object.

local speed of light $\mathbf{= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon\mu}}}$.

Best,
Mark

p.s. As a fun exercise, consider a large star being absorbed by a galaxy center SMBH and eventually joining a Planck core, which is not capable of radiating mass. From the perspective of all other objects in the galaxy, a large mass at the galaxy center has effectively disappeared. What are the implications? Do the orbits of all objects in the galaxy increase in radius somewhat due to the mass disappearance? What are the implications for galaxy rotation curves and the search for dark matter?

Thank you for your comments. It is nice to be understood. I see what you mean about the story arcs and the importance of introducing each character (idea) in a measured way that can be easily understood by the sort of person who might read a novel. In the books I’m writing, I’m trying to do this by creating narrative tension between Galilean and Lorentzian frameworks. Entropy is a wily character that plays different roles in each framework. My challenge is to avoid getting lost in the details so that the story (big picture) shines through. That is the biggest flaw of physics instruction, myopic detail without a clear (dramatic) narrative connecting it together. If drama is invoked, it is through false mysteries and jargon like dark matter. I think we can do better than that.

Kirsten Hacker October 14, 2019

You are welcome Kirsten. I’m having a blast reading your writings and engaging on ideas. I’m looking forward to your books and how you will weave your story arcs of Galilean and Lorentzian frameworks. And Entropy as a character! What a cool idea!

Your response to my comment led to a rush of thoughts that I want to share.

There are sixty orders of magnitude from Planck length to the size of the observable universe. To tell the story of nature requires the imagination and freedom of mind to quickly, nimbly, and comfortably scale up and down 60 orders of magnitude with ease. This requires relaxing the mind so that it does not recoil at the thought of incredibly small particles and field amplitudes or enormous structures in the universe.

Furthermore, we must avoid our natural anthropocentric thinking from the perspective of human scale. I imagine that physicists and cosmologists develop the ability to think logarithmically, i.e., no matter where you are on the scale, it is a multiply to go up the scale and a divide to go down the scale. These ideas of scale invariance and the resulting symmetries are somewhat difficult to comprehend and at extreme scales can cause a mental meltdown for the uninitiated.

I believe entropy is conserved in the universe once we take into account the spacetime æther. The second law of thermodynamics can be tightened up to say that total entropy is a constant considering all particles in a reaction. I also think that the Planck particle phase of matter-energy, which can develop in the core of a supermassive black hole, has zero entropy. A Planck core has one microstate. I wrote an article on entropy here: Fresh Thinking on Entropy.

It is very exciting that your books will explore Galilean and Lorentzian frameworks. I imagine the composite particles of the standard model as electrino/positrino shells surrounding a payload, like electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom in a wave function. Particles with empty shells, i.e, no payload, are Majorana – like the neutrinos and the photon. I have an intuition that the velocity of the particles in each shell is somehow related via a Lorentzian function to the local speed of light. The shell becomes an energy storage mechanism, somewhat like a flywheel, and the faster the shell’s particles spin relative to the local speed of light, the more energy the shell stores.

Also the shell radius may experience a Lorentzian related scale expansion as a particle cools (i.e., sheds energy harmonics conservatively) from Planck scale to what we see in our world at the low end of the temperature scale The inverse is also true, as a particle absorbs energy harmonics, the particle shell shrinks exponentially. The hockey stick part of these curves occurs at extreme temperatures where matter-energy is at extreme density and pressure.

Euclid, Galileo, and Newton were on to nature with their flat geometric thinking about space. I believe Einstein did a great disservice to science by choosing the abstract curvy spacetime approach. It is so much easier to understand nature from the perspective of a 3D Euclidean background space and as you say Galilean framework. Thinking about general relativity as implemented by a universe permeating æther (except in Planck core phase) is far less stressful on the mind.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : October 14, 2019 : v1

p.s. Here is another idea to ponder. In NPQG the shells around standard model particle payloads spin at a rate relative to the local speed of light and the energy harmonics stored. Earlier I used the analogy of the shell to a flywheel. I think this energy storage forms the basis of the concept of time on a particle by particle basis. If the shell has high energy near the Planck energy, time moves slow relative to abstract absolute time. If the shell is approaching zero Kelvin, time moves fast relative to abstract absolute time.

Categories

## Kirsten Hacker : Signs of the Times

This post is in response to Kirsten Hacker’s article “Signs of the Times.” Kirsten is an immensely talented individual. Please read Kirsten’s article first and then come back for my thoughts. Also, check out her fascinating books on Amazon.com.

I agree 100% that physics and cosmology have made huge errors of judgement in promoting their narrative interpretations as factual. The reality of nature is completely different than the current stories that these scientists tell. I have no idea how the fields will walk back all of their nonsense. It is going to be a huge embarassment for the field. I am hoping that there will be accountability. By accountability, I would like to see all current leadership in the field removed from their positions. I would call for a complete reorganization of University research hierarchies after which the leadership positions could be staffed. Most of the books, videos, and courses will be obsoleted. It’s not that the experiments and math are wrong, but they are mixed up and completely out of order in the current nonsense science narrative. I would also like to see the funding, publishing, tenure, and incentive reward systems totally redesigned. Today those systems are terrible and everyone knows it. They encourage awful behaviour, incredible stress, frustration, and they stymie innovation.

Here are a few examples of improved narratives of nature:

1. There was no Big Bang. Instead the dominant and ongoing process is galaxy local. Matter-energy gathers and eventually makes its way to the central supermassive black hole. As more material enters the SMBH, the core gets denser and denser until it reaches Planck scale, beyond which the core can change no more other than by growing radially. There is no singularity. Why don’t physicists apply the Planck scale to the problem? For some unknown reason they insist that the Planck scale is only a dimensional analysis and does not correspond to reality.
2. When Planck cores form, the interior particles can not transmit their mass. Inside the core there is no way for them to interact with neighbor particles since the Planck particles are maxed out in energy storage. So you can easily see why this would impact galaxy rotation curves. Mass falls in and eventually it disappears from the gravitational accounting system. All of the objects in the galaxy experience an increase in orbital radius as mass disappears at the center. But the matter-energy are still there. There is no singularity or wormhole.
3. Whoever calculated that nothing can escape the event horizon of a black hole is guilty of one sided thinking from the outside. Hawking amended this with the idea of Hawking radiation, but in general I think Hawking and his contemporaries cast black hole science in stone far too early and prevented future scientists from exploring alternative ideas. Did anyone ever think about what is happening on the inside of a black hole? Did anyone ever think that under certain conditions that a Planck core can breach the event horizon? Of course it can. The jets! The jets! Anyone who believes those jets are entirely from equatorial accretion disks being sucked up to the poles – well, I am simply nonplussed.

I could go on and on. So many stories from physics and cosmology are pure nonsense. That all said, there will be a day of reckoning. The good news is that the opportunity is enormous once physicists and cosmologists wake up. Imagine being able to draw unlimited energy directly from spacetime æther. Imagine being able to 3D print manufacture with energy and raw materials taken directly from spacetime æther. Technologies like this might take a while to develop, but it is pretty much straight line of sight once nature is understood. In the meantime, the technological progress will be incredible. The demand and funding for applied science will skyrocket. No more hungry and frustrated post-docs.

That all said, there is also the risk that a complete understanding of nature’s reality could lead to very powerful weapons of mass destruction. What if it is relatively straightforward to create an ice-nine (as Frank Wilczek once speculated) or black hole or gamma ray blaster? What if destructive individuals could do this with modest funding? We absolutely know that there are people who will wreak as much havoc as possible and would be happy to destroy the Earth. Therefore, once the reality of nature is discovered, the race is urgent and important to seed the universe with the diaspora of intelligent life from Earth.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : October 13, 2019 : v1