Kirsten Hacker : The Walrus and the Carpenter

I recently watched Kirsten Hacker’s excellent video The Walrus and the Carpenter on YouTube. I recommend first watching Kirsten’s video and then coming back to read this blog post.

Here is my response to Kirsten:

Your thoughts and musings are sage wisdom, yet wiser than you even know.

Once people engage with the evolving open source Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity it becomes obvious how physics and cosmology have gone astray. You are 100% correct with your assessment, which I confirm based upon what I think is the fundamental reality of nature:

  • two equal and opposite immutable Planck scale particles,
  • the electrino and positrino,
  • which are the sole bearers of energy,
  • that populate a 3D Euclidean volume,
  • that obey Maxwell’s equations.

From this fundamental reality, emerges :

  • all composite particles of the standard model including,
  • protons,
  • neutrons,
  • electrons,
  • neutrinos,
  • photons,
  • as well as the particles that permeate the universe and implement spacetime æther which is well described at higher order scales with Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
  • and everything else, i.e., all composite particles of the periodic table

Once one realizes that NPQG makes sense, it is much more fun to move NPQG forward and let the historians study the GR-QM era through 2020. We can trust the historians to study the bad influences on science during the GR-QM era e.g., :

  • foibles,
  • nonsense,
  • politics,
  • spinning,
  • lying,
  • mysogyny,
  • racism,
  • obfuscating,
  • favoritism,
  • etc.

Hopefully the NPQG era will be on a firm fundamental foundation and the structures evolving from NPQG will require real protections against the fails of prior eras as well as guards against failure modes that would impede overall advancement of intelligent individuals.

Understandbly there will be push back on NPQG, but ask yourself this:

Can anyone prove that the Universe could not be based on the following ingredients?

  • two equal and opposite immutable Planck scale particles,
  • the electrino and positrino,
  • which are the sole bearers of energy,
  • that populate a 3D Euclidean volume,
  • that obey Maxwell’s equations.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : January 19, 2020 : 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:

2 replies on “Kirsten Hacker : The Walrus and the Carpenter”

Dear Mark,
I’ve probably asked this before, but why choose a spacetime gas filled with electrino positrino pairs instead of an aether filled with magnetic monopoles (older terminology)? An electrino positrino pair is a dipole and a moving magnetic monopole is a dipole. A sea of magnetic monopoles is always in motion, thus the two languages are describing the same thing. Why not choose the older language and reconnect to older sources?

Liked by 1 person

Dear Kirsten,
You have mentioned magnetic monopoles several times to me. I do not fully understand how magnetic monopoles could be physical. However, I do have it on my list to study them more and also try to understand the idea that a electrino/positrino dipole could otherwise be represented as a magnetic monopole. Also, I am thinking of spacetime particles as an empty shell with 12 electrinos and 12 positrinos, a photon as an empty shell with 6 electrinos and 6 positrinos, and an electron neutrino as an empty shell with 3 electrinos and 3 positrinos. So in language of magnetic monopoles that would be 12 monopoles in a spacetime particle, 6 in a photon, and 3 in a neutrino. One problem I see is that when I start making electrons and protons, the payloads don’t contain equal numbers of electrinos and positrinos. The electron has six electrinos in the payload. The proton has a positron as the payload which is 6 positrinos. This doesn’t map to magnetic monopoles. Still I will study it more. I do agree with your general principle that if a previous term is a better fit then it is better to stick with that term than invent new ones.


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