I am brainstorming ideas during NPQG Breakthrough Days. Enjoy.
I realized a mistake overnight. I have been saying that a tau dipole can transfer one h-bar J⋅sof energy in GM’s spin times a revolution (a cycle, 1 unit of Hz). It turns out that it is Planck’s constant h J⋅s units of energy. The uncertainty of quantum mechanics is at one-half Planck’s constant h J⋅s! The tau dipole is what implements h-bar = h/(2π). Scientists did not understand the physical layer, but were happy to add the 2π when it made for fewer symbols and more convenience in their equations. Did they bother to wonder why? Witness this lawyerly, but technically correct, paragraph from the Wikipedia entry on the Planck constant, which is unfortunately devoid of any reference to the Tau dipole which nature uses to implement the quantum of electromagnetic action Planck’s constant h.
Confusion can arise when dealing with frequency or the Planck constant because the units of angular measure (cycle or radian) are omitted in SI. In the language of quantity calculus, the expression for the value of the Planck constant, or a frequency, is the product of a numerical value and a unit of measurement. The symbol f, when used for the value of a frequency, implies cycles per second or hertz as the unit. When the symbol ω is used for the frequency’s value it implies radians per second as the unit. The numerical values of these two ways of expressing the frequency have a ratio of 2π. Omitting the units of angular measure “cycle” and “radian” can lead to an error of 2π. A similar state of affairs occurs for the Planck constant. The symbol h is used to express the value of the Planck constant in J⋅s/cycle, and the symbol ħ (“h-bar”) is used to express its value in J⋅s/radian. Both represent the value of the Planck constant, but, as discussed below, their numerical values have a ratio of 2π. In this Wikipedia article the word “value” as used in the tables means “numerical value”, and the equations involving the Planck constant and/or frequency actually involve their numerical values using the appropriate implied units.Wikipedia
Increments of Planck’s constant h J⋅s have a significance physically. Units of h-bar only represent 1/2π fraction of a revolution or cycle. I don’t see any good reason to use h-bar going forward. It is not physical. Fortunately, this will be an easy fix to older posts. (Done)
I just remembered that 2π is also known as ‘tau’ in mathematics. I am guessing that is a serendipitous coincidence, and it’s perfect to mate up with our Tau dipole which is the Tau neutrino when uncontained! Here is Professor Dr. Phil Moriarty explaining the number tau.
There is even a Tau Day on June 28 each year because (2π = 6.28319…)! We now have something new to celebrate on future Tau days. Here is a great article on the number Tau : 2 Pi or Not 2 Pi? by Giorgia Fortuna.
The Tau dipole and its deep physical connection to emergent nature supports Bob Palais and Michael Hartl‘s cause to use Tau = 2π in physics related STEM fields.
We’ll need to be careful with so many uses of Tau, yet they are all related and the usage will usually be clear from context.
- Tau dipole : most abundant and most reused construct in the universe. Responsible for physically implementing Einstein’s spacetime and at large scales leading to Einstein’s mathematics of general relativity.
- Tau neutrino : uncontained tau dipole, component of muon and electron neutrinos.
- Tau : 2π, with physical significance as a full cycle of the tau dipole.
- Taurus, “the Bull” in Latin, is a constellation called Tau for short.
This smackdown between Sτeve and Maπ is very amusing. We’ll need to have another match between τ and π with this new relation to the Tau dipole and Planck’s constant h J⋅s. Tau definitely wins for physics now. Shall we call for all new physics textbooks that incorporate NPQG to use Tau instead of pi, exclusively? That would probably be a good way to hint that the texts and formulas have been updated for the new NPQG era. I’ll give it a try here and see how it goes with NPQG.
Dear Dr. Palais,Excerpt from an email I sent to Dr. Bob Palais
In the process of my work that has unified general relativity and quantum mechanics and transformed lambda cold dark matter cosmology, I have found that physicists do not understand the physical significance of tau with respect to Planck’s constant, the fundamental unit of electromagnetic action.
This will lend strong support for the use of tau and Planck’s constant h J⋅s rather than pi and h-bar in the field of physics. It turns out that the most abundant construct in the universe is the Tau dipole and it is leveraged in everything from being the basis of the spacetime aether to being the foundation for standard matter particle containment.
Best,J Mark Morris
p.s. I’m shut out from the field of physics and cosmology, and they have not engaged after 2.5 years of my informing them that I was making progress on the NPQG theory of everything and that I have now had the breakthrough that is leading to all kinds of low hanging fruit picking. Yet, they tap their feet and think I’m a nut. Imagine that.
I received a response to my comment on Stacy McGaugh’s blog from one of the other followers. For context, the comment is in yesterday’s blog entry : NPQG : December 26, 2020.
How about predicting from your model the value of g-2 for the electron, the muon and the tau and explaining why g-2 is different for the three identically charged leptons. If you cannot make predictions that can be tested against experiment, no-one will take you seriously. Richard Feynman explains the essence of the scientific method here:
There are many other places you can find this, it’s from his lectures “The Character of Physical Law” given at Cornell in 1964. You can find all of them on YouTube.Scientist on Dr. Stacy McGauh’s Triton Station blog
Well, understanding how the quantum numbers emerge from the structure is on my list and I am making progress on decoding the point charge geometry for the standard model particles. See the two tables in this blog post, NPQG : December 26, 2020. The second table is new and I’m really pleased with how the structure is revealing itself. It is looking like shell after containment shell. And that’s actually what Koide’s formula is describing, the field interactions of three orthogonal rotating dipoles. So maybe a month or three by myself to make progess on the quantum numbers. I already deduced quantum mechanic’s spin. Spin tells you how much of a dipole revolution is required to transfer Planck’s constant h J⋅s of energy. So with two point charges in the dipole it takes 1/2 revolution to boost frequency by 0.5. Each particle gets one-half Planck’s constant h J⋅s and the dipole locks that in by dropping radius. Then I will be able to look at g-2. Now, most of you here could probably go far faster than I if you would choose to engage with the NPQG model. By the way the model is indicating that these nested dipole shells can act like a Faraday cage and shield the energy of the next layer which is more energetic. The model is predicting that an electron contains a muon, and a muon contains a Tau. That is not known to science yet.
I liked Feynman’s description of the scientific method, especially starting with the educated guess or intuition. Now we could have a discussion on Popper and Kuhn, but the problem is that I anticipate that the people here hold the scientific method in high regard. Well, there is going to need to be a lot of root cause analysis of all the wrong turns of the last 133 years because the scientific method and scientists are going to take a huge hit to credibility based on the NPQG point charge architecture of the universe. I made a video this week that goes through the top ten errors.
The article you linked says “The scientific method refers to a process of thought based on integrating previous knowledge, observing, measuring, and logical reasoning.” For me, integrating priors means figuring out where the scientists got the narrative wrong, and sadly it is a colossal set of mistakes, with no disrespect to the scientists. Where the scientific method goes wrong is that it assumes that a set of priors is correct. Even with many tensions in GR/QM/LCDM that did not cause the fields to go back and find these major incorrect conclusions. So there is a lot of danger in taking narrative conclusions too far. Who told LeMaitre to work backwards to a single event to explain expansion? The theories don’t specify a single event. However, I do see how it was easy to miss after Einstein erred and said spacetime was a geometry. That makes folks think some abstract geometry is expanding. Now, perhaps if Michelson-Morley had not conclude there was no aether then Einstein might have gone with an aether. Then when we saw evidence of expansion scientists would have said, “where is all that new aether coming from“? Then, “hmm we’re looking for something huge and powerful that goes bang“. Then by the time Natarajan and Rees came along and started realizing that nearly every galaxy has an SMBH they wouldn’t have carelessly said, oh sure, that fits with LCDM. If they had made the proper conclusion then galaxy local inflation and expansion just fall out as obvious. Oh my, what a mess y’all are going to have on your hands to clean up. Yet it will be fun because everything will make so much more sense.
I want to be clear that I am not a scientist. I am a creative problem solver. I am not bound by the scientific method, nor peer reviewed publications. That’s good because had I gone into these fields there is no way I would have found the solution to nature if I had to conform to the current set of incorrect priors.
Did you think about the most basic point charge dipole and how it implements so much of what we are missing?
For 2.5 years I have been ignored or bullied by scientists who think I am a nut. Well, I am certain that 20,000 physicists and cosmologists are nuts for believing the nutty priors. I give astronomers a pass because they are a lot kinder and I think it is really going to upset them when they figure out how badly the physicists and cosmologists failed.
I would much rather have pleasant, constructive, creative conversations with physicists but many I have encountered are very rude and bullying (N.B. university and institution HR departments). I’ve stated before that I am far more concerned for the kind and gentle people in the field who must deal with offensive behaviour from colleague’s every day for a career. How awful and sad. As for me, I am running out of patience and I no longer consider physicists to be an audience I am trying to reach. I mean seriously, they are drowning, and I am very weary of tossing them life preservers and them turning their nasty little attitudes on me.
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : December 27, 2020