Tweaking Physics(ists)

Occasionally I get a wicked sense of humor and feel like posting a mild to bold affront to physicists that will elicit a reaction and the possibility of knowledge transfer. Hopefully, I have been more clever and punny than gauche.

To me this is hilarious because of too many reasons to enumerate although it would be a fun distraction to try to do so. Let’s just say it resonates. The number one reason is that it is true. This is it!

Nature is a trickster. In nature’s steady state, emergence from Planck energy point charges replenishes an emergent sea of pseudo-zoological structures. Beside the standard matter particle zoo, these include point charge structures that implement a curvy stretchy aether that we call Einstein’s spacetime right on top of a perfectly flat 3-dimensional Euclidean space and linear time as you would sort of expect, at least locally, from the earliest intelligent life on earth. Technically the aether may be tired neutrinos and photons, but we don’t have a theory for tired versions of those particles. Why not? Because we only have to worry about 13.8B years? Astrophysicists?

Oh, a fish on the line! I feel like I am real time blogging!

This is all in jousty good fun. It sure feels to me like NPQG is climbing the slope of enlightenment towards a lacrosse/hockey stick of exponential growth and productivity. Yet, there is risk that I could fail to transfer NPQG knowledge. If I am unable to keep the flame alive, I estimate the most likely duration to be 2040 – 2050 until the fields of physics and cosmology discover the reset button. Discoveries from the 2020-2035 telescopes will generate enormous tensions with LCDM. Many experiments are on the verge of busting through to the layer below the standard model, which is point charges if they can recognize the patterns. Unfortunately, physics and cosmology are seriously hampered by inertia, politics, and attitude. Hence, I will continue to turn up the volume and contrast with the aim of improving the odds of knowledge transfer. Let’s keep our chin up!

Image for post
Photo by Paul Bulai on Unsplash

Per my typical experience, online conversations are like some fizzled firework. At first you are excited and then, it’s a DUD. Here is the final frame of this tragi-comic.

Oh wait, here is something cryptic. I’ll have to think on this now. I am always open to reducing any layer to something simpler and more fundamental.

I really do my best to practice what I preach with regards to ideas that seem to be way out there at first. One way to be more receptive is to imagine that just like driving a vehicle, you may have a blind spot. Alternatively, there may be science you are convinced is rock solid that has a deeper explanation and nuance.

If we appoach this open-mindedly, what knowledge or insight is our collaborator @lepton939 attempting to convey? We must realize that the symbols we choose for our communications USUALLY have at least slightly different nuance for each party to the conversation. In the fields of physics, cosmology, and astronomy the symbol : meaning relationship is exponentially important. This means that communication is like navigating a mogul field if not a mine field. Too often the mine locations are related to holy grails and pillars that support “established” physics or some other political or personal ego based objective. I digress. Apparently I am rather torqued off at physicists and cosmologists at the moment. I hope we will be fast friends some day and laugh about this after THEY reform.

I took a wonderful online course in logic and argument and I really enjoyed how Dr. Sinnott and Dr. Neta diagrammed out the logic of prose. Let’s first filter out the noise.

There are only two species in the universe. One is quantum curves which store information as possibility and quantum lenses which reflect these curves as information. That’s the best I can do. Please don’t have a heart attack. (Your mind is a quantum lens)

Original : lepton939

Aight. Let’s try to understand @lepton939

There are only Two objects. species. in the universe. One is Quantum curves which store information as possibility. and Quantum lenses which reflect these quantum curves as information. That’s the best I can do. Please don’t have a heart attack. (Your mind is a quantum lens.

Two objects.
Quantum curves store information as possibility.
Quantum lenses reflect quantum curves as information.
Your mind is a quantum lens.

Third Normal Form : lepton939

Our interlocutor asserts they have been thinking deeply about this, knows the most fundamental description of nature, and recommends against investing such effort. Why would that be? I already know the future economic value of NPQG and if there is something even more fundamental that can be actualized physically that is even better. We are talking exponential growth with an enormous initial investment and a far better than expected return on investment. It sounds like carnival barker talk, but when you have the source code to the universe, it is actually a very shy and conservative statement. Why is @lepton399 discouraged? It makes no sense.

Let’s choose our most charitable attitude and imagine that @lepton399 is a first rate mathematical physicist. What do they mean by ‘curve‘ or ‘possibility‘ or ‘lens‘ or ‘reflecting quantum curves‘? I sure hope information can still be enumerated in binary otherwise I am sunk. My first impression is that it is a parsimonious assertion of fundamentals. It appears to be worthy of consideration to see if I can connect it to NPQG. Is a quantum curve the equivalent of one dipole orbit, a wave equation? Is a quantum lens something that causes a reaction? a state change to the dipole?

I am aware that there is a large body of research on information and it may soon get quite contentious in academia about exactly what is happening in an SMBH. I think this will be quite exciting. I’m currently laying out how the foundation and I hope I can understand what it all means fairly high up the knowlege hierarchy. It seems to me at the base level that jetting Planck energy point charge plasma must lose information. Yet, there is also possibility of some information leakage through the breaches in the event horizon. Can we really guarantee each point charge has been wiped clean at Planck energy for a cycle or two? Where else could the information go? There is no magic. The point charges being evacuated via jet are diminishing the point charges in the core and that means diminishing the state matrix. If information is conserved it seems logical that it must be expelled via the event horizon. Yet that contradicts other theories. I am a practical person. I don’t see any requirement at all for preservation of information. Everything going through the core is wiped clean. Zero residual.

I think this circles around to the second law of thermodynamics and why it must now be stated as an equality. I do not see nature expressing any preference in point charge and energy density from deep space to supermassive black hole cores. It’s all good. It’s a continuum with local hot spots. Towards the center the destiny is to join the Planck point charge core with zero entropy and frozen time. It is a lot to think about, but it seems to me that the NPQG model is enormously powerful.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate:

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s