Bubbly Bubbles

China Blowing Major Bubbles In 2017

In many ways the universe could be described as Bubbly Bubbles. Bubbles inside bubbles in any way imaginable and some emergent structures have a long lifetime. That’s such a positive perspective, This enclosing process has elements that are repeated in life : re-emergence of newly energetic dipoles, nesting, protection, capture, survival of the fittest, eat or be eaten, vigor, balance, momentum, collisions, decay, continued energy loss until joining spacetime aether. In some ways it is rather Machiavellian. The aggressive behavior emerges instantly when point charges at the highest possible energy, packed as tightly as possible, are exposed to any breachably low energy gap in the event horizon and a high velocity flow sustained into a powerful jet of point charge plasma. These jets emanate from the poles of spinning SMBH as powerful and lengthy polar jets undergoing tremendous scale inflation for some distance beyond the breach. Nature shows us similar core breach patterns in novae and jets from high energy events. It is as yet unknown if Planck point charge plasma or cores can be formed anywhere other than inside an SMBH.

Machiavelli - The Prince, Quotes & The Art of War - HISTORY
Niccolò Machiavelli h/t History.com

A healthy conversation on the PBS Space Time discord.

Uzer Z : How do you explain how point particles exist in the first place?

User X :Well that is your misconception User Z. If such particles actually explain all of the stuff that we observed then there is no need to explain further. Otherwise you end up with infinite regress. Why do you want there to be something beyond point particles? What value would it give? What extra predictions about reality?

User Z : if they explain all of the stuff, you still have to explain where the particles come from.

User X : Well no. You need to stop at some point. Some stuff must be THE BASIC stuff. Because otherwise you can just continue infnitely “but where that thing it came from comes from?” Basically goal of science is not finding out where stuff is coming from. The goal of science is to describe the world and knowing where stuff comes from is not required to describe the world.

User Z : Well, no. You do stop at some point, but just after the point particle point. Knowing where stuff comes up [sic : from?] is 100% needed to help describe the world.

User Y : You can certainly ask. If you think about it like the standard model, a particle is a vibration in a field, so you can ask what the field(s) is that describes these fundamental particles.

User Z : 100% that’s exactly what I mean

User X : Well quantum fields aren’t exactly not point particles. For example quantum field for electrons indeed corresponds to point particles. And what is primary is really just a question of convention.

User Y : Fair, but if you have a single field that gives rise to all other quantum fields, you have a unified field theory, so I think it’s still a valid question to ask

User X : Ah not in this instance.. as those particles described are supposed to be the unified field

User Y : Fair, but that’s an arbitrary constraint, you can always ask what’s deeper. The answer may be “nothing”, but we can’t know until we ask

User X : Well for now it is too early to ask that… only adds confusion while not solving already existing higher level problems

User Y : Totally fair points. I’m just trying to say that User Z’s question is a valid one to ask, even if the answer for now is “um… let’s wait until we get a better handle on the open questions here first.”

User Z : these particles don’t even have to be part of a unified field. They could be interlaid fields of varying densities that aren’t unified, for example.

User Y : Thinking about it, the question of if we’re looking at point particles or a field could be a very important one to ask. If you’re talking point particles, then we’re discretizing the continuous quantum fields. A quantum field can scale smoothly as you lorentz transform it – it’s continuous. So we could see stuff like different speeds of light at different wavelengths as the ’rounding errors’ in snapping to point particles compounds. If you have a field, however, that is already continuous so you can lorentz transform nicely. Of course, you can get around the different speeds of light by having (continuously) infinitely many point particles, but in that case you’ve basically just defined a field.

User X : Well for now it is too early to ask that… only adds confusion while not solving already existing higher level problems

User X : Yes; this is a key test of both loop gravity and quantum foam. The discretization threshold is not large enough to be seen (the upper bound is larger than Planck length when I last checked). quasars being the most generally useful test, but other tests have been attempted.

Me :If you model it with point particles orbiting in wave equations and superimposing and doing nutty things due to GR at tiny scales, like making partial or whole faraday cages, i.,e. shielding and then toss in the physical geometry of immutable point particles, everything that is correct in QM QFT etc will map directly. Things that are confusing will become clear. Extension hypothesis will become obvious as the patterns reveal themselves. Especially if you make good friends with the clear thinking parsimonious 4D Euclidean observer. The discretizing circuit is the tau dipole.

Me : With properly defined immutability and the formulas for permittivity or permeability we can model EVERYTHING from the Euclidean frame and it makes everything easy. It will cause breakthrough after breakthrough due to cascading pattern recognition by scientists. We’ll have the source code of the standard model in 3 months from physicists engagement.

Me : There is so much fascinating stuff going on in the source code that I am currently overwhelmed looking at all the patterns and figuring out how these point charge structures behave to cause what physicists observe. It is uncanny and the patterns show many new unexplored correlations that will lead to a full decoding of the SM as I mentioned. We now understand the machines parts, and can decipher patterns like fermion energy cores, corresponding to generations. It’s so much fun in this Tron like world. I am so excited to see what the professionals are going to discover, model, simulate and have ready to go into the technology development pipeline.

— end of pleasant PBS Space Time Discord conversation

The NPQG foundation model is in many ways the ultimate experiment. It claims to be the machine and source code. At this nascent state of NPQG, surely there are claims that can be falsified, but those will likely be easy to fix errors in ontology and their solutions will help mature the model. Every single time I have encountered a troubling or wrong aspect of the model I have let my semi- and sub-conscious go to work and they let me know when a directional solution is evident. Often if it has been a Eureka class perfect solution that also simplified or solved other issues. My engineering skills help me do thought experiment tests of alternative ways point charge emergence could lead to the observations of experimentalists. That is the ultimate connection point, especially if NPQG maps exactly and also answers open questions as it has done time and again.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California