Let’s imagine a photon on a direct course for the Planck point charge core of an SMBH. Flying in from the edge of the observable universe the photon has redshifted to lower energy. Then it passes through its final galaxies and enters its last. The final parsec. The final light year. It approaches the SMBH. It is one of many photons that have never experienced a scattering collision and it passes the event horizon with a one way ticket. As it continues inward, even though it has gained energy, it loses stability in the higher energy environment and separates into two neutrinos. Each is an electron neutrino composed of three dipoles of increasing energy. The six point charge orbit bubbles have formed at six different radii due to energy differences of the point charges. The electrino and positrino point charge layers alternate. The neutrino with an inner positrino orbit and an outer electrino orbit is called normal matter. The neutrino with an electrino inner orbital alternating to an outer positrino orbit is designated an antineutrino. Well actually that’s the deciphered story. To understand how NPQG integrates with QM on this subject, we need to go back in history and work forwards in time to witness the evolution of this physics narrative.
Physicists concept of and terminology for ‘anti-matter‘ has a good correspondence to nested structures with positive outer shells. The correspondence is not a perfect mapping because of the history of the concept of anti-matter and the associated narratives which were incorrect. The concept and terminology around anti-matter will need to be re-examined. It may not make sense any more. The narrative of matter meets antimatter being ‘destructive’ is not correct — ‘reactive’ is a better term. We already work with this pattern at larger scales with ionized elements and molecules, which science knows well and has leveraged in countless processes.
Opposites attract and are therefore more reactive if all other reaction conditions are met. Particles with like outer shells repel so they are not as reactive under the same conditions. Perhaps we can find a better and more descriptive term than antimatter. Electrino outer shell or positrino outer shell, minus/plus, -/+. How hard was that? We can reframe and realize that a ! preceding or a bar over means the particle has a positive outer orbital shell of the power core that interfaces to the personality shell orbitals if there is one. The corresponding ‘matter’ particle is equal and opposite, meaning it has a negatively charged outer shell from a single orbiting electrino.
The alternating single point charge shell starts with an orbiting dipole at the inner orbit. Barring some sort of asymmetry in Planck plasma, at this stage of emergence electrinos and positrinos are equal in energy distributions. Therefore the odds are that the first dipoles will be split 50-50 in which point charge has the inner orbit and which is the outer. Note that via emergence, nature has established a selection branch (is it the first?). Outer dipole shells will form at the same charge orientation as the seed dipole. You get -+-+ or +-+-. It seems that even if energies were compatible, that adjacent layers of like charge would not be favored. The attractive and repulsive forces between charged particles are asymmetric by nature.
If a second dipole captures the first, it typically settles at a radius far larger in scale and with a commensurate drop to lesser energy and faster orbital frequency. Likewise a third dipole is commonly found at another scale jump in radius and drop in energy, and faster orbital frequency.
Note that we have been talking about particles that are net neutral overall, and composed of net neutral dipoles, but are made from charged particles alternating in orbital radius. This is absolutely fascinating and it appears that this new understanding can lead to resolution of questions and confusion in quantum mechanics.
It may be possible for orbital shell bubbles to form with more than one point charge. This means the particles in that orbit started with nearly the same energy, were able to couple, equalized into a stable wave equation, and are executing in different phases of the wave equation circuit(s). So let’s keep an open mind as we decipher the geometries of standard matter structures. We can have alternating single point charge layers. We can have opposite charges in an orbital layer. We could possibly have like charges in an orbital layer. And we don’t know how many point charges are allowed in each layer. We can also look for other clues in patterns. For example I have an intuition that these geometries will lead to the understanding of the magic number sequences in the periodic table of elements and why Iron 56 has its special properties. Clues like that may be difficult to trace to root cause at this point. Still we have a whole standard model of clues and the PDG reaction equations, and quantum numbers and basic things like the Hamiltonian and the true meaning of potential energy for point charges and structure. We have an embarassment of riches for model development to be sure.
Why did the series of reactions that lead to large stable structures like protons, neutrons, and electrons favor matter over antimatter? Did they? Was it a misunderstanding of the concept? A proton has a positive outer shell of one to six positrinos. It’s a personality shell, but still, it is positively charged, possibly at 6x the charge of the outer positive shell of a nested dipole power core. It’s not a huge stretch of the QM antimatter concept to consider a proton to be kin to antimatter. We already consider electrons to be matter. Neutrons are considered as matter, but I think this is because they have a neutral outer shell and are compatible with matter. Neutrons are also compatible with anti-matter. How does QM handle this nuance?
Furthermore, it seems that the charge orientation of the uni-dipole, duo-dipole, and tri-dipole power cores can be + or –. The exotic unstable patterns should be straightforward to map to the particle products from physicists collider studies. These are documented in the PDG. After exploring this mapping for a month or less, I suspect physicists will have a nearly complete deciphering of the structure architecture for standard matter. NPQG is revealing many areas of QM where sorting out and cleaning up will be required. And that is perfectly ok. It’s how science progresses. It is perfectly normal for a more parsimonious theory to provide insights that lead to new discoveries and a more complete understanding.
I digress. Our original photon is now inside the black hole and has decayed into a pair of equal and opposite electron neutrinos, each a 3/3 particle with six shells, alternating point charge. As the neutrinos continue inward the ingestate is becoming more and more energetic. At some point, the outer dipoles two shells decay and the muon neutrinos emerge from the nest with all their previously shielded energy. Continuing on, the conditions get too energetic for the muon neutrino to survive and the second dipole’s two orbits decay and reveal the interior tau dipole and its high energy. Ultimately this tau dipole may reach the final energy plateau at the Planck energy per point charge and join the Planck core.
The organizational model of academia has evolved to be quite dysfunctional. Universities have put up little resistance to and frequently support forceful efforts to close the Overton window of acceptable speech and discussion. The remaining opening is so narrow on many topics, that fears of getting swept up in a career ending, social media outrage driven, political correctness campaign, have resulted in lack of open and robust debate, and departure from fact-based science-backed decision making.
The STEM fields have sexism, racism, discrimination, inclusion, and attrition problems resulting from the mistreatment of many individuals and, statistically, too often from protected groups.
Drilling down to the physics academia hierarchy we see highly imbalanced power relationships, a tragic surplus of competition for the dwindling number of tenured or senior positions, intense intellectual bullying and intimidation, and generally intolerable work conditions for many individuals entering the field.
Progress on the many issues in the physics community has been slow at best. The intellectual and administrative hierarchies are each bureacracies more intent on serving their own self interest than serving the individual contributors who do the bulk of the science. There is zero accountability as long as you keep your head low and enjoy your priviledge. The entire situation reeks of one requiring bold leadership from university Chancellors and Presidents to design the research and development organizations for the future and establish a strategic plan to make it happen. I believe that the paradigm shift to the NPQG era presents a tremendous opportunity to realize a new vision for science organizations, one designed for healthy power relationships and behaviours. Frankly, I would start over with a big brand new sheet of blank paper.
Let’s dive down a level into the hierarchical structures and organizational behaviour of academia. In particular, let’s brainstorm ideas for employment of skilled scientists and engineers. I think the gig economy is a trend that will continue to flourish. Imagine a professional gig economy emerging from a blend of the blue collar gig economy and the professional independent contractor type of employment. Many aspects of the gig economy were also present in the corporate nest direct employment, but with a different implementation, economics, and power structure. The de-nesting of individuals from corporations is a trend that started long ago with fewer and fewer benefits and shifting compensation structures such that pay becomes the main economic connection. Somehow in all those debit-credit transactions the dealer ended up winning for the house.
Ultimately it seems that many professional jobs will be independent contractor to corporation relationships. Business to business. I think with corporate responsibility and government support for workers, a favorable set of rights could be crafted. Even without such support, the balance of power will quickly shift towards the scientists and engineers that take advantage of the opportunities enabled by NPQG.
Personally, I prefer an independent contractor relationship with a corporation, and I think the case for it is good and getting better. I want to have a negotiated employment contract agreement that protects both parties and defines all aspects of the relationship considered important by them. I would want to have non-disclosures each way. I would want pre-negotiated financial settlement indexed by early termination of the contract period. Basically I would use these contracts to implement the protections from the mistreatment that has occurred to so many employees in the ‘nest’ as direct employees. Even though this idea departs from the U.S. ideal, we must ask ourselves if that ideal has failed to materialize for many and I think the answer is quite evident. Adopting this new idea would afford contractual protections beyond that covered by employment law. Why don’t the organizations just treat people well in the first place? How did we get here? I hope historians cover this in their analysis of the GR/QM/LCDM era of physics.
When professional employment is structured on an independent contractor to corporate employer basis, it would open the door to new options and flexibility to negotiate the best deal for each party to the contract. I am sure there are many areas of flexibility possible that could establish a fair power balance and reduce tension in the relationship. Here are a few :
- Contract term and ‘shape’. This could be very important for many,
- Those who prefer a longer period of stability in a world where tenure is disfavored by the employer.
- Those who prefer to be more agile with a shorter commitment.
- Those who require flexibility during life events for themselges or their partner, i.e., parental pregnancy and birth leave, medical situations, elder care, sabbatical, etc.
- Publication requirements,
- Fundraising requirements,
- Intellectual property ownership,
- Media ownership and independence, including monetization, etc.
- Agreement on specifics for early termination of contract, such as exceptions to standards of behaviour or speech, media statements, independent arbitration and mediation, and negotiated outcome and settlement. The idea is to thwart a mob based rush to judgement and ensure that a fair review be conducted.
I spent a decade of my four decade corporate R&D career in management roles, and I have given a lot of thought to executive, hierarchical, and management dysfunction of all ilks. As a person who is practical, down to earth (when I’m in the here and now and not imagining), and inclined to drive for rapid progress, I have experienced the poor quality of management in publicly traded companies where I worked and in those I worked with. The more I have seen and learned, the more my disappointment has grown with U.S. corporate management of publicly traded companies. Years ago, I was awed with Harvard Business Review but now, not so much. Frankly, HBR should be held accountable for the poor state of U.S. management after decades of their influence.
I don’t have the answers for excellent management paradigms, but here are a few things I would want to incorporate and test in some form or another.
- Radical transparency, as championed by Ray Dalio. This is very hard to do and many people are ill-prepared to thrive in such ego-bare environment. Part of the beauty of it is that through radical transparency it does offer psychological safety. A matrix of characteristics of each individual and scorecard helps weight inputs to decision making All meetings are video-recorded and available to anyone in the organization. There is much more to Ray’s system and he describes it well in his outreach videos and books and has even released some of the supporting apps.
- I think the hierarchy has outlived its usefulness. There are too many points of failure in the branching hiearchy. Whether it is grift, power, discrimination, bullying, favoritism, incompetence, you name it. There are so many opportunities for failure in the classic branching hierarchy that I believe it needs to go.
- I have worked with the agile structure for several years and I really like the model. Despite the objections of traditional software developers this more reactive, informal, flexible style works well and can be adapted for many forms of professional work. There is plenty of supporting technology for workflows and automation. There are more opportunities for team participation in forming consensus and reaching decisions. Of course all of this assumes highly skilled and capable professionals, scientists, engineers, scrum masters and agile coaches.
- I also spent quite a bit of time thinking about scaling agile organizations where groups of skilled senior members of various departments acted as highly involved team management reviewing recommendations, making level appropriate decisions, delegating responsibility, and providing guidance for the agile teams. The patterns established by the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFE) council were quite impressive in my opinion although I did not enjoy the chance to implement them.
- So the pattern I am envisioning is as follows :
- The executive team in one orbital structure.
- Then parallel management team orbital structures focused on excellent operation of a scaled agile framework.
- Then parallel agile teams each with its orbital structure.
- Who is orbiting who? It doesn’t really matter in this structure. You can look at it bottom up, top down, side to side, and crossways. Teams report to teams. People belong to teams.
- There are no direct managers except from the CEO to the executive team.
- Human resources provides workflow tools for employment contract review.
- An emphasis in this structure is empowering and scaling excellent decision making over many parallel teams while also running a highly efficient organization.
Would it blend? Would such a structure design be a strong foundation for healthy organizations that improve the well-being of the stakeholders? By stakeholders I mean customers, independent contracted employees (in my ideal), investors, benefactors, and the community. By community I am including corporate social responsibility and environmental improvement. The good and bad aspects of organizations derive from individuals and the emergent structures they form and populate. Can we architect new organizational structures that minimize and design out failure modes that were inherent in the legacy management hierarchies? My view is that if we can crack the code for nature and the universe, we ought to be able to form organizational structures of teams of individuals that serve to improve well being and reduce suffering of all individual stakeholders. NPQG enables the age of abundance. With abundance building our ships and powering our sails, intelligent life will have the opportunity to take the next major steps forward in evolution.
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : January 8, 2021