To: Dr. S.
Cc: Dr. K.
I participted in your “Talk to a Scientist” program a year ago, with Dr. K. I follow you on social media and comment on your Tweets and YouTube videos and songs.
Here is an update on my progress and barriers:
- My narrative of the universe has become far more parsimonious.
- I have found no way to get attention from physicists or cosmologists.
- All attempts at publication have been rejected immediately.
- I rarely attempt to contact physicists any more.
- I’m writing a book.
- My table of contents is shown here: jmarkmorris.com
- I’m considering starting a YouTube vlog and podcast.
My question for you, if you would be so kind as to engage, is how do you think I, as an outsider, should approach this situation where I am confident I have made a breakthrough (of course I would be, but is it impossible?) yet I am completely shut out by the field and the publishers?
My lament is that if I have figured nature out (even by sheer luck and circumstance), that it would be hugely important for the future of intelligent life and the environment. Not being able to engage those in the field is a huge delayed or possibly lost opportunity for intelligent life.
From my blog perhaps you can see that I am serious and perhaps not a purveyor of nonsense. All of these are relatively short posts. If you look at them, and I know that is a big if, you may need to suspend disbelief for a while, but in the end, hopefully you will see the possibility that the universe has a very simple set of ingredients and that the narrative I tell about differently formulated point charges could very well be, at a minimum, directionally correct.
From Dr. K.
I’ll jump in here.
I realize you think that starting with a theory of everything, or at least a theory that addresses a lot of things together, is the path for you, but it may not be the best way to achieve your goals.
Many great ideas start with simple goals, and can be explained in simple terms.
I suggest you start with ideas that you can test somehow; either test them in a computational simulation against some other popular model, or go do a physical experiment.
A lot of what you dive into is beyond your immediately ability to test, so you have no real results to share, and this is probably the major reason why you are having trouble getting the attention of the scientific community. Remember our conversations. Words don’t mean much unless you have real hard evidence to make your argument. This is what differentiates the scientific method from other more philosophical approaches. In that regard, maybe your natural tendencies to verbalize ideas without scientific evidence are demonstrating that you would have more success as a philosopher. Maybe you are picking the wrong audience for your goals? Have you considered that?
Write out your goals. If you want to have another session, I can review your goals with you and suggest different approaches to achieving your goals, and help you think more about your target audience.
To: Dr. S.
Cc: Dr. K.
I think my strength is creative problem solving. In that sense I am somewhat like an intuitive theorist who is attempting to explain nature from a more fundamental level while remaining true to existing experimental results and accepted mathematics (which may be accurate at its scales of applicability, but not truly describe nature).
I am starting at the Planck level, 10-35. The leading edge of physics experimentation is somewhere around 10-19. That is sixteen orders of magnitude difference. So there is a scale problem with some aspects of testability.
Still, I feel that the work I have done so far leads to far more satisfactory narratives of what is really happening in nature and experiment as compared to GR-QM era physics and cosmology. It also explains and illuminates the solution for most of the major open problems and paradoxes in physics and cosmology. Furthermore it discards a lot of confusing or problematic narratives in both fields and replaces it with a more sensible narrative. So at a minimum, on the narrative level, which is not constrained by the scientific method, I think my ideas are a winner.
Of course I do respect the scientific method, and I am constantly working towards that end. I am one person. I can already see that my ideas are far more promising than what the fields profess today. So shall I just plod away on my own while some thousands of scientists continue work that is largely a waste of time? While the lost opportunity cost for the future of intelligent life and the environment increases? I still think it is worth the occasional appeal to scientists to take a look and seriously give some consideration to my ideas. Unfortunately they have been trained to ignore or attack ideas from outside, without the slightest consideration.
There is another barrier when it comes to paradigm shifts, even one as parsimonious as mine. It is simply too hard for those within the field, who are actually practicing nonsense and quackery unknowingly, to have the open mindedness to consider a more sensible alternative. Frankly, science makes the barrier far too high for new ideas, especially paradigm shifting ideas.
Perhaps one way I can hope to reduce the barrier is to talk about transformations. Physicists are very familiar with transformations and the many different ways to consider a problem mathematically. My ideas are a transformation. I fully expect that they will reproduce GR and QM some 16 orders of magnitude above the two fundamental classical particles at Planck scale. It’s not that much of a challenge with 16 orders of magnitude to work with.
Lastly, to be clear, because I haven’t gone into the ideas here, they are straightforward classical from the Planck scale and obey Maxwell. A schoolchild could understand the concepts. The universe is quite simple after all. I don’t know if I would call it beautiful, but it is amazingly emergent in terms of diversity and higher scale complexity. I suppose there is some appeal in that sense of emergence. And most certainly it would illustrate the case that physicists have been “Lost in Math” at the wrong scale points.