Mapping the Big Bang

All active galaxies have the same physics due to the mini-bangs.

Supermassive black holes (SMBH), typically found in the center of galaxies, can develop a point charge core in contrast to general relativity (GR) which destablizes with a singularity in a black hole. A point charge core is both the population and energy density limit of point charges. Under some set of conditions those Planck point charge cores can breach the poles and a mini-bang occurs via the jets. It is the same physics through the universe isotropically in time and space. Ideal Planck point charge cores have zero entropy and zero information.

Galaxy local mini-bangs are expected to produce the same standard matter assemblies as are theorized to be produced in the big bang. Mini-bangs also produce spacetime aether, which inflates and expands as it dissipates energy.

Physics has developed very complicated math in the quest to understand the fundamentals of nature. 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 the technical and narrative false priors that make their efforts so much more complicated than they are in nature.

Physicists observations are fine. even if the instruments were not optimally designed for that which they are searching. That said, those observations will need to be reinterpreted for the point charge era, and that includes new data science on existing observations.

Mini-bangs occur today. We see them in AGNs that have a jetting SMBH. That point charge plasma they jet then follows the normal big bang funnel diagram timeline.

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.

Missed Opportunities to Discover Nature

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.

From Peebles’ new book, Cosmology’s Century. Can you spot the logic flaws if the big bangs are in fact galaxy-local?

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.

Dr. Peebles is a Nobel Prize winner and he is stating that 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? Is it reasonable to associate the cosmic microwave background with remnants from a Big Bang?

Skepticism is fine, but there comes a point where you realize that NPQG is a far better descriptor of nature than LCDM, especially since the aim of NPQG is to start with parsimonious ingredients and derive nature from first principles and map between it and existing theory and observations. So far so good. I haven’t found anything that contradicts facts. I have found a LOT that contradicts narratives and leads to revised and far 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 point charges, electrino and positrino, are continuously emitting a potential field which expands spherically at the universal constant potential speed of @. When electrinos and positrinos are moving, they are emitting fields that propagate outward spherically at @ from each continuous point along their path. When electrinos and positrinos form assemblies of standard matter or spacetime aether, the patterns in the potential can appear to be very complex.

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. 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 path and wave equation, in a variety of composite structures and local energy and of course transmutation happening via reactions that often include spacetime aether Higgs assemblies.

Oh my gosh, just found another huge error. Point charge dipoles have a maximum orbital curvature. 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

That is a tremendous quote. So, if NPQG is nature, then a new type of mathematics and a new type of physics describe nature. It’s continuous mathematics for point charges with neoclassical electrodynamics. Modeling standard model and spacetime aether assemblies requires a dynamical geometry.

A Planck point charge core is the ultimate battery. Equal and opposite point charges, in equal proportions, 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 point charge in a Planck core has the Planck energy. Calculate that out. It’s a huge amount of energy, 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 understand. 10113.

The photons we measure as cosmic microwave background (CMB), that are thought to have been traveling for ~13.8B years, map to a steady state universe with an isotropic distribution in time and space of galaxies emitting mini-bang radiation. The photons that survive the trip would constantly reach our observational equipment.

From my perspective it is very odd to be asked to decipher the story science has created about a fictitious big bang and a narrative of a power spectrum in the big bang model, when I am fairly certain that had any of the many missed opportunities to discover nature been found, that science would have adapted its narrative to fit just fine. I am NOT saying to disbelieve your observations. I AM saying science needs a new narrative, i.e., paradigm.

I believe the idea of a “one-time” big bang to be both a mistake and a fiction, hence narrative. Think about how many galaxies, think about the distances, think about the time. I think there is plenty of time and space for a pretty thorough energy dissipation of spacetime aether at 1/r2 plus dual jets to spread it out to start with.

Here is the key question: When GUTH and colleagues were imagining a bang and inflation why did the theory settle out into a single event at a single time? Physicists are kind of fast and loose in the outreach material about a single place but they let it be known that it is really distributed.

So, if we could go back in time and be in the room, could we have immediately insisted to Guth and others that they generalize into an ongoing parallel process consisting of bang events distributed isotropically through time and space? Why did they choose one time inflation? By choosing the “ongoing independent parallel events” we have many more science questions to ask aimed at solving for our observations :

  • How often in time and space must a bang/inflation event to match our observations?
  • What kind of spatial distribution of these bang/inflation events would we need in the universe?
  • What would a bang/inflation event look like?
  • Where might we find these bang/inflation events?

I’ll go out on a limb here and say had we been in the room and influenced the questions, the answer would have been obvious within a decade as SMBH were discovered.

Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, calling his theory that of the “primeval atom”.


I’m not sure when the Big Bang idea was formulated, but Hoyle who was a steady-state universe supporter coined the name “Big Bang” in the pejorative. The CMB was discovered in 1964, Guth inflation was formulated in 1981, SMBH Natarajan/Rees 1993?, LCDM 1998-2003 per Peebles. It is actually amazing how these things lined up to just miss solving nature. There are fatal basic conceptual errors in each theory. But you can see how the error propagated from theory to theory. It’s really quite amazing and the historians are going to have a ‘field’ day.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California