NEOCLASSICAL PHYSICS AND QUANTUM GRAVITY
Imagine that nature emerges from a Euclidean 3D void space populated with immutable oppositely charged Planck spheres, which we call the electrino and the positrino. These are the only carriers of energy, in electromagnetic and kinetic form. They observe classical mechanics and Maxwell’s equations. Nature overlays Euclidean space (Map 1) with a lightly interacting Riemannian spacetime æther (Map 2). 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 is compatible with GR, QM, and ΛCDM observations, while providing a superior narrative that explains nature and the universe.
For 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 basics see: Idealized Neoclassical Model and the NPQG Glosssary.
Hello Dr. W,
I have been modeling nature from a speculative starting point of equal and opposite immutable charged Planck spheres. It is turning out really well. No woo. Lots of insight. Would you be interested in having a conversation about my research? I can provide reasonable compensation for your time. The reluctance of scientists to engage is very difficult to overcome and I am worried that I may never get through. My work is at http://jmarkmorris.com and it is called Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity.
J Mark Morris
Hi, I think I understand the discouragement from lack of engagement – if I had more time I would be interested in at least an initial discussion. But, I don’t. My consultation fees are through the roof because of the time factor, even if you agreed to pay them I wouldn’t let you. Unless you have Musk levels of money, it won’t be worth your time. All I can say as advice – because I admire people who think deeply and construct such theoretical frameworks – is to do your best to map your own work and especially your own vocabulary to that of working physicists and cosmologists. Go through the arXiv papers if you can (http://arxiv.org) in your field – try to figure out if there is a better way to state “equal and opposite immutable charged Planck spheres.” Because I am sure that when physicists see this they will think you are a retired engineer who is sending them a crackpot theory. Define for yourself what you mean by immutable, by Planck, by these oppositely charged spheres. Then go through the tedious process of matching your ideas to the lingo in the cosmology/GR arXiv section – try the astro-ph section there as well. The thing you are up against is twofold – first, the lingo – people will assume you have not studied general relativity and electrodynamics if you get too many words wrong, even if your ideas are deep and brilliant. Which brings me to the second point – there are so many people who send their theories to physicists but people who have all the correct passion but who have not taken the time to order textbooks and study the basics of physics. The Feynman Lectures – undergraduate physics – even very respected professors can get basic points completely wrong. But they are professors and thus have demonstrated their ability to study physics, to learn physics, to pass their PhD exams, etc. It is irritating to deal with them to be honest, because they are reluctant to admit their mistakes, but at least they have studied physics for at least 8 years. For people without such degrees – even people who may be much more brilliant than those of us with degrees – the tolerance level for someone who might not understand, for example, Gauss’s law for electrostatics – the tolerance level is extremely low. I’m going to point you to a good physicist’s website, this guy has dealt with too many people who haven’t studied physics, so take this with a grain of salt: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
And simply avoid the pitfalls that he outlines whenever possible. I’m writing to you because I think – I said this before – but I think that people who think deeply about Nature and the laws of physics and the weaknesses in the laws of physics and how to reconcile those weaknesses with experiment should be lauded – absolutely lauded. So, I want you to get your feedback, feedback is crucial, for me, for you, for all of us. Best of luck to you, please keep going with your work.
Hi – a quick note! I’ve just looked at Warren’s site that I linked you to – I didn’t realize he had that “jokey” definition at the top of his page, ignore it please! – I think his advice is correct, but you have to get through his tendency to be snide – he is brilliant (check out his QFT textbook on his website) and this is wrong in my opinion, he shouldn’t insult people. But he very accurately states the kinds of thinking that physicists, including some of my best friends who are really world famous physicists, have when it comes to the new theories that are sent to them by people who haven’t studied undergraduate physics. This, you can avoid simply by studying the Feynman Lectures on physics – they are undergraduate level but they are deep and at least two of my current collaborators would do well to study those books again. And so would I actually. Ok, I will go. All the best of luck to you, keep going.
Dear Dr. W, Thank you so much for responding. I read through Warren’s page about nonsense, and I am guilty as charged for about half the points. I also score very high on the Baez crackpot index. However, has anyone ever considered that someone who does have truly new and ground breaking ideas will be entirely indistinguishable from a ‘crackpot’? It’s ironic that Warren links to a page about cyberbullying as if he thinks physicists are cyberbullied by those with new ideas. I am sure it does seem that way, and I have no idea how many unsolicited ideas physicists receive. I gather it is a lot and that it is quite annoying. Thank you again for replying to me. That is very kind of you.
I agree with most of your points about path forward. For example terminology – I have steadily worked to align my terminology with that of physicists and cosmologists where possible. I also understand and agree 100% with matching existing experimental observations. However, existing interpretations and narratives not so much. I’ve actually looked back at history and have done an analysis of the major branching decision points where physicists and cosmologists made incorrect narrative deductions and how these have compounded to arrive where we are today. It is really fascinating to get to the point where I can see how things went off the rails. Take for example uncertainty. Quantum mechanics can be 100% right about uncertainty, but have the interpretation of the root cause incorrect, and then because of the incorrect interpretation we have Bell tests, and spooky action at a distance and so forth. I am aligning myself with EPR on this issue.
Ha ha – no I don’t have as much money as Elon Musk. But I have something far more valuable which is deep insight into how nature and the universe work. If I could only break through, which I will, I must. (It would be a tragedy if I were to croak of COVID-19 and then it’s another 100 years before physicists figure out nature!). It is valuable in so many ways for things both you and I care about (based on looking at a few dozen of your recent tweets). Improving well-being and reducing suffering of intelligent life, the environment, progress in science and technology. Even if I read in between the lines of your tweets we both would like to see a different world where patriarchy has been smashed and power structures are replaced with something that offers far more justice when it comes to the individual and eliminates injustice based on their diversity. I’ve already learned that men are the most bullying when it comes to new ideas in physics and cosmology. I’ve taken huge ego bruising beatings on reddit and various Discord servers — but that’s nothing compared to what people in the field experience where the patriarchy or established power structure make just being in the field like running a gauntlet. So, I’ve mostly confined my outreach to women, LGBTQ+, and minority scientists – because I think they might be able to separate themselves from the close-mindedness and realize that a new breakthrough theory would be in their best interests because it would do a lot to shatter the patriarchy and power structures.
Ok, so maybe there is another option. Would you like a new friend? Did anyone say that creatives like you and I can not be friends? I am, as surmised, an old engineer. I think I am also a kind and good person. I don’t know exactly what such a friendship would look like, but I will admit in advance that I would probably want to share new insights about our shared love of physics and cosmology.
Lastly, I saw your tweet about the Hubble tension. I actually have an explanation for that. My immutable charged Planck spheres mean there is no such thing as a singularity (which you know), and furthermore the logic leads to a galaxy local cosmology where AGN SMBH are the physical implementation of the inflationary big bang and expansion. Uncoordinated, independent, intermittent, galaxy local mini-bangs of Planck plasma via the jets of SMBH followed by inflation as new spacetime æther forms and then galaxy local expansion. So imagine that for a moment. If expansion is galaxy local then a lot of tensions go away, including the Hubble tension. We would expect expansion to vary along the path of a photon because it passes through galaxies in different stages of recycling. We would get an explanation for expansion that totally makes sense – galaxies expand INTO one another – and the existing measurements are preserved. You’ve seen those images of the huge Fermi bubbles above and below the Milky Way AGN. Roger Penrose talks a lot about a serial process of big crunches and big bangs. Loop quantum gravity talks about a big crunch that leads to ‘white holes’. Eternal inflation says inflation is happening constantly. All of these ideas are consistent with parallel, intermittent, independent, galaxy local processes driven by the AGN SMBH. You also get isotropy throughout the universe because it is the same physics.
Thank you again for responding to me Dr. W. I appreciate it very much!
Hi Mark, the quickest note: “However, existing interpretations and narratives not so much. ” I am sure you are correct here – there is too much we don’t understand and cannot explain. I do not have time even for a new creative friend such as yourself – I cannot explain why but this is the case. But I agree with what you say – and I hadn’t seen the cyberbullying link, I’m sorry about that too, he’s too harsh. He must have been treated badly by people he was harsh with but this is not an excuse to treat people unkindly. As you say, new ideas and new paths forward can come from people who will appear as crackpots. Ok – my final pieces of advice, because I want to encourage you on your path – if you are not going to get your PhD in physics – which of course I encourage you to do because then you’ll have an advisor (choose that person well because the wrong one will crush your ideas, this is exactly what you don’t want – and if there is even the seed of the way forward there, it should be protected – so I’m extra sorry to send you to Siegel’s page) – if you won’t go back to school for the PhD, because the community will listen better from one of their own – then do a cosmology course with your local university – online courses at any university actually – because then you will have a professor who will be well positioned to give you initial feedback. You need feedback, all of us do. Anyway, that’s all from me, I will go back to work – the best of luck to you, you will do well, you don’t give up and this is very good. I really agree with you on the interpretations of physics – we are missing a lot! Stay the course 🌟
Thank you so much Dr. W for the time you have invested in me. I will take my leave now and go off to continue my progress. Feel free to contact me if you wake up in the middle of the night with a flash of insight and say — “I think I get what Mark was saying!!!”. Here is my parting gift to you. It is the heart of the misunderstanding in physics and cosmology and the future of the next era in physics.
The key is our understanding of space, time, and spacetime. In current era physics the concept of Newtonian 3D space, which is Euclidean, was replaced by Einstein’s spacetime, which is Riemannian. Here we encounter a key difference with reality. In reality, Newtonian space, or absolute space and time, is the fundamental vessel for the universe, and we describe it with absolute Euclidean coordinates and absolute linear time and call that Map 1. It is required that Einstein’s spacetime be understood as applicable as well, and we describe spacetime with Riemannian coordinates and refer to that as Map 2. One key to nature and the universe is that we must deeply understand that BOTH Newtonian space and time as well as Einstein’s spacetime are simultaneously applicable to physics, i.e., Map 1 and Map 2. We must describe each concept with equations in both of these coordinate systems to fully understand how nature works. While this may at first seem abstract or confusing, our understanding is aided by the realization that Einstein’s spacetime (Map 2) is implemented with an emergent structure, an æther that permeates Newtonian space (Map 1).
So, all you need then is a certain density of immutable, equal and opposite, charged Planck radius spheres (which is a precise definition) with a certain energy density (so that makes two free parameters total) and voila, everything will emerge, including the spacetime æther.
Best to you!
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : July 25, 2020 : v1