Categories
Physics

Kirsten Hacker : Weary Light

Two creative intuitive thinkers close in on the fundamentals of nature and the universe. A breakthrough paradigm shift away from the narratives of modern physics and cosmology.

I draw much enjoyment and inspiration from 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, who thinks and writes along similar lines in physics and cosmology. Her works express hardcore physics in an innovative and descriptive style that I find very insightful. 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 and video “Weary Light.” Kirsten is an extremely talented individual who happens to be quite knowledgeable about the fields of physics and cosmology, having twenty years of experience and a Ph.D. to her name. Please check out Kirsten’s article and/or video first before coming back for my thoughts. Also, be sure to check out Kirsten’s books on Amazon.

The subject of Kirsten’s blog/vlog is whether photons lose energy, and if speed of light is a constant or variable in free space, e.g., a vacuum or quantum vacuum. In Einstein’s theory of relativity, the speed of light is defined as a constant in space and spacetime is defined as a geometry that curves. Einstein’s spacetime can expand and cause photon redshift. In tired light theories, light can lose energy as it travels, and space can be considered to be the far more intuitive 3-D Euclidean space.

In NPQG, spacetime is implemented with a dense sea of particles, which possibly include photons, neutrinos, gravitons, and axions. Spacetime is an æther that permeates nearly everything in the universe, except at the very highest temperatures in some black holes where even spacetime particles melt or decay. NPQG espouses that understanding spacetime æther is the key missing element that helps explain nature with a straightforward narrative that is compatible with general relativity and quantum mechanics mathematics and experiments, yet discards the nonsense narratives of physics and cosmology at the end of the GR-QM era circa 2020 (e.g., one-time inflationary big bang, expanding universe, 13.8 billion year universe age, curvy spacetime, singularities, wormholes, many worlds, etc.).

Spacetime æther particles are neutral shells made of electrinos and positrinos, the fundamental particles, and carry energy in electromagnetic and kinetic forms. The local speed of light depends on the temperature (i.e., energy) of the spacetime æther, and this relationship is mediated by the permittivity (\mathbf{ \epsilon } ) and permeability (\mathbf{ \mu } ) of spacetime æther. GR-QM era science mistakenly uses constants for the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum of free space. Yet if we realize that these factors change with the energy of spacetime æther, then the speed of light also changes according to the following formula:

\mathbf{c^{2}= \frac {1}{ \sqrt{ \epsilon \mu }}}

As any particle gains energy, its shell shrinks. Think of it this way – as the particle gains energy the shell has to be stronger to maintain stability – the velocity of the electrinos and positrinos in the shell increases, and the radius decreases. This variability in spacetime particle size is how spacetime æther implements Einstein’s curvy geometry.

This combination of effects from the speed of the particles in the shell, the variation in shell radius, and the permittivity and permeability in the gas work together to implement the theory of Einstein intuitively and naturally. Lensing of light around a massive object is simple refraction, as the photons slow in the vicinity and then gain speed again. Time dilation is caused by increased particle speed in the shell. Length contraction is caused by the reduction in shell size.

[7:00] At this point in the video, Kirsten has demonstrated that Einstein’s assumption and language created confusion that very few people outside the field can truly understand. She’s building the case that a transformation to a tired-light cosmology is more intuitive and understandable.

[8:30] Kirsten discusses the objection that scientists have to the idea of light losing energy while traveling through the vacuum of space. Physicists will say light can only lose energy in a reaction, and this reaction would cause light photons to scatter. Kirsten is open to other ways light could lose energy without scattering. In NPQG, photons lose tiny quanta of energy as they travel through the spacetime æther—and although the mechanism is not yet understood it is thought to be related to galaxy local expansion of spacetime æther. Judging by how far light travels, my bet is that it is a non-scattering reaction that is rare, but amazingly consistent on a statistical basis (i.e., the wavelength of light will increase by a tiny amount for every light year).

[10:45] Kirsten says “The map is not the territory!” which is a wonderful quote. I looked it up and here is an excellent explanation:

The map–territory relation describes the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it. Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that “the map is not the territory” and that “the word is not the thing”, encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Korzybski held that many people do confuse maps with territories, that is, confuse models of reality with reality itself.

Wikipedia

Physicists and cosmologists often think that their math is the same as reality. It is strikingly obvious how this pattern of thinking leads them astray. Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder wrote an excellent book, “Lost in Math,” that describes this problem in the field of physics. Yet we all know that even beautiful math can at some level represent an approximation of a much more complicated system. The math may match experiments to amazing levels of accuracy and precision, yet still only represent a higher-level model, completely bypassing important foundational levels in favor of tackling complex and abstract goals. Leading-edge physics experiments circa 2020 are probing length scales of \mathbf{~10^{-19}} yet NPQG teaches that the fundamental particles of nature, the electrino and positrino, are Planck-scale particles with a radius on the order of \mathbf{~10^{-35}.} That is a sixteen order of magnitude difference! It is entirely possible that general relativity and quantum mechanics are extremely successful, yet also do not describe nature from a fundamental implementation. In fact we know that neither GR nor QM does, and physicists will acknowledge that.

[11:00] Kirsten discusses the role of religion in science. How does the desire for an origin story play into the formulation of and adherence to the Big Bang theory? Isn’t it comforting to know there was a beginning 13.8 billion years ago? A religious person could reconcile their religious text’s origin story to the Big Bang if they are an abstract thinker. Likewise, as I wrote in Religion Meet NPQG, storytellers will find plenty of opportunity to cast mythologies around NPQG, especially with regards to SMBH recycling.

[15:00] Kirsten explains the differences between a ΛCDM cosmology with an expanding universe in curvy spacetime which originated from an inflationary Big Bang, versus a steady-state universe in flat 3-D space with tiring light. She analyzes the options and discards ΛCDM in favor of the latter theory.

NPQG also postulates that there was no one-time inflationary Big Bang—instead, matter-energy is recycled in supermassive black holes which periodically erupt new molten matter-energy plasma from their poles as jets that extend for scores of light years. This SMBH recycling process occurs throughout the universe, thus eliminating any need to rely on a Big Bang. If you are following along, that means we have no idea how old the universe is, and for all we know it may be infinitely old.

In NPQG, there is no need for an expansionary universe. It is possible that spacetime æther may have various flow rates throughout the universe. Speculatively, an ultra-massive black hole may be gulping down spacetime æther while feeding, causing gas flow inwards in a galaxy. Then, when the black hole erupts in polar jets, it may result in an enormous inflation of plasma and spacetime æther that flows away from the galaxy.

Furthermore, in NPQG, it is possible for light to lose small amounts of energy, i.e., redshift, while traveling through spacetime æther without scattering. And last but not least, the speed of light is local and depends on the energy of spacetime æther, which increases around concentrations of matter-energy. In NPQG tired light always travels at the local speed of light; it is only the energy of the photon that very, very, slowly peters away. Kirsten and I agree that a photon will lose energy as it travels through spacetime, but differs on this point—she says tired light will decrease in speed as it travels. That said, I do think that at some point in the energy loss curve, a photon may drop in speed or react with another tired photon to form a graviton.

[23:00] Kirsten explains why dark energy is not needed in a tired light cosmology, and I agree with her logic. I didn’t fully understand Kirsten’s explanation about dark matter, however. In NPQG, there are several other potential solutions for the problem which has been labeled ‘dark matter’, including that some matter-energy ingested into the SMBH may not participate in gravity as well as potential effects from the enormous matter-energy in the occasional polar jets.

[32:35] This is a fascinating portion of Kirsten’s vlog/blog. It is about how Inflationary Big Bang physicists claim that there was an epoch during inflation where particles traveled faster than the speed of light, but only then and never since. Kirsten points out how much this sounds like sand castles in the air. It turns out NPQG can explain this parsimoniously. If we transform the one-time inflationary big bang into a parallel intermittent eruption of Planck plasma jets from supermassive black holes throughout the universe, then it is very plausible that those jets are superluminal. In NPQG it is spacetime æther itself that determines the speed of light (based on spacetime æther temperature, permittivity and permeability). However, those Planck plasma jets are more fundamental than spacetime particles—they can pierce right through spacetime æther and clear it out of the way for scores of light years. Once they do that, there is nothing to limit the speed of the jet. Therefore, we have the situation that the physics of the inflationary Big Bang can be partially preserved and recast if we abandon the one-time Big Bang narrative and switch the narrative to Planck plasma jets from myriad SMBH.

[37:00] Kirsten mentions that one of the many difficulties in reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics is that GR utilizes a curved coordinate system, while QM uses a flat coordinate system. A tired light cosmology in a flat universe helps resolve that tension. I agree and I see this as good news for NPQG.

[42:00] Kirsten discusses the work of Halton Arp, a very good scientist who was shunned by the physics community because his ideas did not conform. Like Kirsten, I think Halton Arp was on to something. Unfortunately, the data available at the time was so limited and noisy that he was shot down and isolated. Eric Weinstein calls this the Distributed Idea Suppression Complex (D.I.S.C.) in discussions on his podcast, “The Portal,” and Eric sees this as a major failing of science and other institutions today. I wrote about Halton Arp in this blog post: A New Model for BL-LACs With Help from Planck and Arp.

[44:00] Kirsten talks about the observation of faster-than-light quasar jets and the improbable explanation from physicists that the jets happen to be aimed towards us at narrow angle, and thus are not truly superluminal. This relates to the paragraph above from timestamp [32:35]. The bottom line is that there are several more causes of redshift than modern physicists realize. The implication is that much of modern astronomy will need to be reframed and recast. It would be good to recast astronomy now before the new-fangled space telescopes like the James Webb come online and verify these new predictions.

Kirsten wraps up her vlog/blog post with a series of questions and responses that provide an excellent recap, including an explanation of the cosmic microwave background that is 100% aligned with NPQG.

I find it very encouraging that Kirsten and I are so aligned in our thinking. While there are a few differences, my intuition says that the fundamental basis for nature and the universe is close at hand.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : February 15, 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: https://www.paypal.me/johnmarkmorris

https://johnmarkmorris.com
https://twitter.com/J_Mark_Morris
https://www.reddit.com/r/NPQG/
https://www.facebook.com/NPQG/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmarkmorris/

4 replies on “Kirsten Hacker : Weary Light”

addendum: I think that the difference in our language choice is in terms of the contents of the ‘spacetime gas’ or aether. You describe a sea of photons, gravitons, axion, and neutrinos and I look back further to the older terminology of magnetic monopoles or a Dirac sea of negative energy particles or aether. I chose a materials science language and you chose a standard model language. I’ve come to distrust the reverse engineering of standard model physics because I think it encourages bad experimental design and heuristics and that is why I prefer the language of materials science and bubbles.

Liked by 1 person

Dear Kirsten,
I thought about using ‘aether’ but don’t use it much because of Michelson-Morley’s incorrect interpretation that clouds the thinking of present era physicists. I’m in the process of writing a post about reframing Dirac’s sea and showing why I think it was conceptually incorrect, but I can reframe it in the language and model of NPQG and make it sensible (i.e., not use concepts like negative energy). I completely agree about distrust of GR-QM era narratives, including the standard model. In fact, I have this suspicion that quarks may possibly be common fragmentary detritus from the collisions, and not particularly interesting particles. I actually started with ‘bubbles’ in my first writeup in 2018, but then got slammed for that on reddit. I then went to ‘spacetime superfluid’ where I wanted to make it clear that spacetime was material and I used superfluid because I had heard about Bose-Einstein condensates and also because I then saw Hossenfelder and separately Khoury were researching superfluids. More recently to make it easier to understand I usually say ‘spacetime gas’ because people are generally familiar with the idea of a gas, and especially ones that are transparent and lightly interacting (like the gasses in air). I agree with you that terminology is important and I do keep trying to find the best way to describe NPQG. It is a challenge because so many terms have freighted meanings and if reused it confuses the physicists. I tried using graviton for a while but reddit put me on blast for that, so I stopped using it. Now I actually think the spacetime particle may in fact be a graviton again, because in my conception it sort of corresponds to a spin 2 particle. I definitely deserve some criticism for switching terminology in my quest to describe NPQG, but at least I think my motivations for doing so are good, except in the case when I caved to reddit intimidation. Also, we agree on using older technology when it is the best fit.
Best,
Mark

Like

Dear Mark,
Thanks for the close reading and commentary. It is really nice to get feedback on this sort of content. I really appreciate it. We may have the same mental picture after all. You noted that you describe light losing energy as it propagates and I describe light slowing down, but I think that in a second look, you would note that I also described light losing energy. I think I used that terminology to avoid the sticky business of mass or velocity changing, but as with all cosmologies, these questions depend on the conventions or axioms chosen.
Best,
Kirsten

Liked by 1 person

Dear Kirsten,

Yes, you did. I updated my sentence as follows “Kirsten and I agree that a photon will lose energy as it travels through spacetime, but differ on this point—she says tired light will decrease in speed as it travels.”

I’m not projecting a decrease in speed as the photon loses energy on its travels through spacetime*.
*(except maybe before it decays at super low energy?).

I am predicting a decrease in photon speed as it travels through high temperature (energy) spacetime gas near a massive object and then speeding back up again to the c of cold free space after it passes by.

Let me know if I am misunderstanding your post.
Best,
Mark

Like

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