Bohmian Mechanics and NPQG II

NEOCLASSICAL PHYSICS AND QUANTUM GRAVITY
Imagine that nature emerges from a Euclidean 3D void space populated with immutable oppositely charged Planck spheres, which we call the electrino and the positrino. These are the only carriers of energy, in electromagnetic and kinetic form. They observe classical mechanics and Maxwell’s equations. Nature overlays Euclidean space (Map 1) with a lightly interacting Riemannian spacetime æther (Map 2). 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 is compatible with GR, QM, and ΛCDM observations, while providing a superior narrative that explains nature and the universe.
For 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 basics see: Idealized Neoclassical Model and the NPQG Glosssary.

This is the second blog post in a series about de Broglie-Bohm theory. See Bohmian Mechanics and NPQG I for the first post in the series.


Intelligent Life is Close to Understanding Nature

NPQG models nature as two Planck scale particle types, the electrino and positrino, energy carried by those particles, and flat 3D Euclidean space. From that simple gameboard and ample resource pool, add Maxwell’s equations and everything emerges. NPQG Inc. is focused upon building the narrative around this proposed implementation of nature.

From the point of view of personified electrinos and positrinos looking outward through scales of structure at science, they would say that in some experimental areas science is getting close to nature’s bedrock, for example the standard model of quantum mechanics is based on simple composite shells and payloads made from electrinos and positrinos. There are many other experimental results and theories which can be tested against NPQG.

Quantum computing may accidentally discover nature’s structure (e.g., NPQG) due to Moore’s law or equivalent in technology advancement. Quantum computing is currently leveraging the predictable patterns of gravity (energy) waves between particle pairs. I’ve inquired about the technology scale for quantum computing. Until I learn more, I will guesstimate that quantum computing technology may be at the forest level rather than the trees, leaves, and twigs at this point. Still, there is hope that those involved in quantum computing will have insight based on the increasing patterns that become evident.


What is the Best Model of Nature?

Bohmian mechanics inherits and makes explicit the nonlocality implicit in the notion, common to just about all formulations and interpretations of quantum theory, of a wave function on the configuration space of a many-particle system. It accounts for all of the phenomena governed by nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, from spectral lines and scattering theory to superconductivity, the quantum Hall effect and quantum computing. In particular, the usual measurement postulates of quantum theory, including collapse of the wave function and probabilities given by the absolute square of probability amplitudes, emerge from an analysis of the two equations of motion: Schrödinger’s equation and the guiding equation. No invocation of a special, and somewhat obscure, status for observation is required.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

Bohmian mechanics is closer to the truth of nature than quantum mechanics, yet both are lacking a full understanding of nature. It strikes me that what quantum mechanics era physicists call a quanta, can equally be viewed as a shadow, artifact, or field effect of classical particles. If nature, including spacetime, is classical, then of course there would be symmetric quantized field effects emerging from the fundamental particles.

NPQG models nature as two Planck scale particle types, the electrino and positrino, energy carried by those particles, and flat 3D space. From that simple gameboard and ample resource pool, add Maxwell’s equations and everything emerges.

J MARK MORRIS
i mean everything

A big difference between Quantum and Bohmian mechanics is how spacetime is implemented. Quantum mechanics does not recognize Einstein’s spacetime. Bohmian mechanics is closer to the truth as it recognizes more characteristics of spacetime with patterned field waves. NPQG then closes the gap with a physical implementation based upon electrinos and positrinos, energy carried by those particles, and flat 3D Euclidean space.

NPQG implements Einstein’s curvy spacetime physically with a cold sea of interacting composite particle shells, many of which are empty and form an æther that permeates the universe. The spacetime æther is the conduit for gravitational energy waves as a lossless medium of exchange between kinetic and electromagnetic energy. Every particle is involved in an exchange of kinetic and electromagnetic energy as a function of all other particles waves that arrive at that moment. These waves are spherical and spread losslessly.

The Sea of Shells is the fundamental media of the Universe. It is the computational substrate. It is the accounting mechanism and medium of exchange for many transactions, as well as being a participant in many reactions. Keep in mind that what we call mass is a proxy for the energy stored in the shell of a particle. My best guess is that as the electrinos and positrinos in the shell follow their wave equation, they interact with all other shells with (1/r^2) neighbourliness. At true scale, 1/(r^2) is an approximation, of course. It boils down to an enormous system that trades between kinetic and electromagnetic energy.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : January 5, 2020 : v1

p.s. In case anyone gets worried about cellular automata, determinism, and free will : consider that the substrate in NPQG is dominated by energy waves riding through a sea of particle shells. These waves are sweeping by all the time and without a doubt there are some reaction outcomes that will vary depending on random input waves that were out of causal contact. These tipping point reactions are opportunities that may be leveraged by higher level computational and decisioning technology. Potential technologies include random number generation and random choice decision makers.

p.p.s. [EXTRA CREDIT] In NPQG, we map the 2.7K cosmic microwave background to the black body radiation density in the spacetime æther, including any æther decay or reaction emissions as well. Does this tell us anything about the general universal recycling rate through supermassive black holes? Surely it is at least a point of calibration for any recycling universe model.

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