Occasionally I visit Eric Weinstein’s Discord server and try to engage the members on NPQG physics and cosmology. In general it’s a fairly skeptical audience. I’ve edited the dialogue for content and clarity.
All active galaxies have the same physics due to the mini-bangs.
you have to explain why they have the same physics, which you did not
SMBH can develop a Planck sphere core – this is where GR gets crazy with pure math and singularities. But it’s just the density limit of immutable Planck spheres. You can think of them as impenetrable fields if that makes you feel more comfortable. Under some set of conditions those Planck cores can breach the poles and a mini-bang occurs via the jets. Same physics everywhere. Planck cores have zero entropy and zero information.
The c^2 in E=mc^2 represents the local electromagnetic energy density in the form of permittivity and permeability. Besides all the standard particles produced in the big bang, these galaxy local mini-bangs also produce more spacetime aether, which inflates and expands as it cools.
Physics has developed very complicated math in the quest to understand the fundamentals. It‘s very hard to make progress in physics the way the field is doing it. It is much easier with NPQG. The GR-QM era approach locks physicists into complicated mathematics, yet they don’t see the errors that have been made that make their efforts so much more complicated than they are in nature.
Physicists should keep their observations. Those are fine. even if the instruments were not optimally designed for what they are searching for.
The c^2 in E=mc^2 represents the local electromagnetic energy density in the form of permittivity and permeability.Mark
Energy density has units of [M]/[L][T]^2, while c^2 has units of [L]^2/[T]^2, so this does not make sense. In SI base units, those are kg m^–1 s^–2 and m^2 s^–2 respectively. Sometimes units don’t match up in advanced physics, but that is because they have set a few fundamental constants to 1, usually c, ħ, k_B, ε_0, or G
I said ‘represents’. I did not give the formula for how spacetime electromagnetic field density determines permittivity and permeability. I haven’t completely worked that out yet. By the way, I will be showing how mass is emergent at some point. It is not fundamental.
Or, if the “CMB” photons are simply the black body spectrum of decaying spacetime aether, how would you know the differenceMark
Particles that decay do not emit black body radiation. If the “space time aether” aka dipoles would be decaying/collapsing they would emit a very specific frequency.
@marijn : I’m sure you are familiar with black body spectrum. When spacetime aether decays into photons, it’s not always the same frequency. This is not a specific reaction like 21cm. Maybe I should be more careful when using ‘black body’ for spacetime aether decay because it is distributed and therefore the photons we detect may have traveled arbitrary distances and redshifted.
If there are “mini-bangs” should they still not be occurring? And if they are still taking please would we not detect them. If they are not taking place anymore, why not?
Jumping in to play (constructive) devils advocate against galaxy-local inflationary mini-bangs. Is there evidence these inflationary constructs are happening or have happened beyond conjecture from data we have but don’t understand or can’t utilize yet?
@marijn : Yes the mini-bangs occur today. We see them in AGNs that have jetting SMBH. That hot plasma they jet then follows the normal big bang funnel diagram timeline.
@TheWizardOfGwendolyn, my hypothesis is that for a number of reasons scientists did not recognize that galaxy center jetting supermassive black holes ARE the physical implementation of their theoretical big bang. It appears to me to be a series of cognitive errors. I wrote about it here.
A cascade of mis-interpretations has derailed physics and cosmology onto extremely difficult lines of attack where complexity and confusion reign and progress is slowed.
@Mark (jmarkmorris.com) Thank you for the link, I don’t know that I’ll have the time to read it given other constraints. Generally speaking, I am a huge fan of the idea in general and I’ve spent a lot of time considering the implications just for fun. While I would love for these types of phenomenon to be true evidence of active inflation from external sources, I stopped considering the notion at some point because there are just too many other possibilities which are far more probable to be true, there might not be any way of verifying claims one way or the other (“how exactly does one define, let alone identify, a particle truly from an “outside” source” lets say), and lastly, we may know we aren’t anywhere near the level of technology required to meaningfully know the truth one way or the other. I suspect the experience you feel of being dismissed (perhaps), which truly is an existentially terrible sensation, might stem from those perceptions / objections. It’s kind of sad really. You may very well be onto something truly profound, but if it is as you say it is, then you are likely going to be alone in your research while you do everything you can to make your level of communication so effective as hopefully turn heads with pure demonstrable and falsifiable assertions. Either way, it is a fascinating set of questions. Btw, I’m actively attempting to not express dismissiveness in those statements, it’s just that I can’t continue down that particular rabbit hole with you even though it is tempting.
From Peebles’ new book, Cosmology’s Century. Can you spot the logic flaws if the big bangs are galaxy-local?
@eqc : I am working on the formulas for local permittivity and permeability of spacetime æther. I know it is related to the energy carried by the Planck spheres that compose the spacetime particles. The relationship you are familiar with for speed of light is incorrect in that it assumes permittivity and permeability of spacetime aether is a constant. Nothing could be further from the truth. And yes, I care about the truth. That is why I am here trying to explain it to you all.
I am somewhat skeptical of such confident claims about “truth”. How can you possibly be so certain? It is clearly more healthy to take a skeptical attitude, especially towards one’s own inventions/ideas
@Giliodor — I wholeheartedly agree that people should remain skeptical, but how skeptical? With how much skepticism do you hold the Big Bang for example? Of course everyone knows scientists do not mean a single point in time event — everyone knows that right?
“the name, “big bang,” is inappropriate, because a bang connotes an event in spacetime. Unlike a familiar bang, this cosmology has nothing to do with a special position or time.Peebles, P. J. E.. Cosmology’s Century: An Inside History of Our Modern Understanding of the Universe (p. 7). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
So this is a Nobel Prize winner saying the Big Bang has nothing to do with a position or time or event. Think about that. No constraint on position. No constraint on time. No constraint on a single event. Look around. Do you imagine we haven’t seen it in all observations with photons that we age back to 13.8 B years?
@Giliodor : Skepticism is fine, but there comes a point where you realize that your theory is a far better descriptor of nature than what we have now, especially since the aim of my theory is to start at Planck scale and work my way to larger scales and reproduce the math and observations of modern science. So far so good. I haven’t found anything that contradicts facts. I have found a LOT that contradicts narratives and leads to more logical narratives. And that is a good thing. A world where I am confident and you are skeptical makes perfect sense and both can be good and proper behaviours.
Let’s go back to our hunt for the “epoch of light element formation, when the temperature of the universe was some nine orders of magnitude larger“. We now know that it is is not constrained on position, time, or event per the highly respected Peebles. Yet the goal statement is still over constrained? Should we be saying “epoch” and talking about “the universe when” if the thing we are searching for is time independent? Of course not!
What are the highest energy events we’ve observed? That should be a good place to start looking. The energy ingested by galaxy center supermassive black holes is huge, and we’ve also observed enormously powerful jets from a number of SMBH. Those are the largest energy sinks and sources in the universe.
Let’s ensure we are on the same page with regards to NPQG. The immutable Planck spheres, electrino and positrino, are charged and therefore emitting fields at local c. So when electrinos and positrinos are moving, they are emitting fields that are changing because as a result of the movement (or relative movement). And that the field will propagate outward spherically at local c from each continuous point in 3D Euclidean space. Those fields and waves are what you are familiar with from 10^-20. When electrinos and positrinos form composite particles of standard matter or spacetime aether, those field and wave patterns can get very complicated.
Peebles is writing about tidal fields now. Wow, so is that another one of the magical QM fields that just happen with no root cause? Or do other fields cause the tidal field? Serious question. I don’t know QM math. But take a look at the tidal tensor below. I can tell you that if it works, it is because it is approximate. The real world description is a finite element analysis of a huge number of moving electrinos and positrinos, each with their own wave equation, in a variety of composite structures and local energy and of course transduction happening via spacetime aether.
Do you consider a charged point particle to require energy? Oh my gosh, just found another huge error. A Planck sphere is impenetrable beyond a Planck length. Therefore this logic in the wikipedia entry about infinite energy and infinite mass of a point charge is totally wrong.
‘Pure Mathematics and Physics are becoming even more closely connected, though their methods remain different. One may describe the situation by saying that the mathematician plays a game in which He himself invents the rules whilst the physicist plays a game in which the rules are provided by Nature, but as time goes on, it becomes increasingly evident that the rules in which the mathematicians finds the rules interesting are the same as those which Nature has Chosen. It is difficult to predict what the results of all this will be. Possibly, the two subject will unify, every branch of mathematics will have its physical application, its importance in physics proportional to its interest in mathematics.’Paul Dirac
@Dirac’sghost That is a tremendous quote. Thank you! So, if NPQG is nature, then I will be diplomatic and say it is a new type of mathematics and a new type of physics that describe nature. It’s not pure smooth mathematics except at the Planck sphere scale with Maxwell’s equations and classical mechanics. Anywhere above that, trying to model structured composite particles and spacetime aether gets very complicated. It’s truly optimized for simulation of Planck spheres but how far can that scale? Beyond that, structure can be defined mathematically in the approximate. New constrained formulas can apply for various situations. This is a huge area of opportunity for lucrative practical science and applications.
Yes Mark, it is possible that we need a new kind of mathematics. Witten also said so. When Witten speaks, I always listen.
@eqc Is there a proper term for finite element analysis (FEA)/ finite element modeling (FEM) when the objects being modeled are actual physical objects as opposed to a 3D chunk? There should be a name for a finite element analysis where the element is a natural object. There probably is.
FEM is often used to model differential equations, which is a basis for understanding how physical objects behave.
FEM on a harmonic oscillator…doesn’t get more natural than that.
@KRP (who is a battery engineer) a Planck sphere core is the ultimate battery. Planck radius spheres, oppositely charged in equal numbers, packed as tight as possible. The ultimate battery. I think it is probably a FCC or HCP lattice with some degree of faults or irregularity. Each Planck sphere has the Planck energy. Calculate that out. It’s insane, but it’s natural, and it’s just science and math. Also it’s a number that comes out of QED that they don’t know what to do with. 10^113. See my article here:
How do active galactic nuclei with black hole jets produce the CMB power spectrum? Each of them have completely different initial conditions, mind you. How would they even be able to produce isotropy?
@Vampyricon : The Planck core state is what makes it all equal. All of the active SMBH are reaching this state or close enough. When it jets, it starts the same process shown in the Big Bang funnel diagram.
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : June 27, 2020 : v1