and QUANTUM GRAVITY
Given energetic immutable point charges permeating a flat Euclidean space and time, emergence creates our universe.
NPQG unifies GR and QM and transforms ΛCDM.
My thought experiments and the emerging physical geometry of the standard model particles is causing me to think that the strong force is a mainly magnetic 🧲 coupling. It may be caused by the generation III dipole in the energy core of a fermion. Quark colors appear to be determined by which dipole in the fermion personality couples with the generation III dipole in the energy core. So this must then play a big role in the neutron and proton which have three energy cores and therefore three generation III dipoles that each generate a spinning magnetic field. It must also include how the gluons form and can transport color between the energy cores of the quark’s. We also need to understand specifically what it means in NPQG to transport color. Which specific electrinos and positrinos are changing position in the architecture and how much energy are they transporting and transferring at every step of this journey.
It occurs to me that protons, neutrons, and electrons are implemented with point charges that may be non-relativistic for matter at rest. If they are non-relativistic, the electromagnetic fields move far faster then the point charges do, so it should be possible to calculate the static forces on all the point charges as long as we can determine the geometry of those particles.
Sometimes a productivity issue is caused by mental overload from too many ideas! I find it rather mentally overwhelming to realize something that slices right through accepted physics and cosmology canon. You have to hold in your mind the accepted way of thinking about physics while trying to piece together how reality actually behaves with point charge structures. Concepts like potential energy can now be understood at the physical implementation level. These insights suggest there may be a better way to explain physics with the new knowledge of nature’s fundamentals.
How are force and energy transfer related? There are so many concepts to unpack and untangle in this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on force.
What actually happens when work is performed via the application of a force? Let’s take the case of a 70 kg person on the metro. When the vehicle is stopped, let’s say that is velocity 0. As the vehicle accelerates it applies force to the person (via the seat, floor, pole, or wall, etc.). A force applied for a duration of time equates to work, which is a transfer of energy to the person. Where does that energy get physically stored? We can calculate how much energy the person received based on the cruising velocity. Where did it go? It turns out that some of it is stored in the fermion cores of the persons neutrons, protons, and electrons. At non-relativistic velocities, the dipoles in the persons fermion cores rotate faster with more energy. How many fermion cores are there in our 70 kg person? Neutrons and protons each have 3 fermion cores, while electrons have one. Doing a simple calculation we estimate that the person has about 1.5 x 1029 fermion cores. Ultimately this should make sense since quantum mechanics tells us that energy is transferred in quantum of Planck’s constant h joule-secs which is an extremely small number. The whole is the sum of the parts, and therefore the transferred energy must be distributed to all particles in the person’s body.
Gravitational potential energy is a bit more complex to explain, but it’s simple too. You must consider the energy stored in the fermion cores of all the particles. A generation I fermion core is a set of three electrino/positrino dipoles. Neutrons and protons have three fermion energy cores, while an electron has only one. Each standard matter particle must pay its mass ante to the spacetime aether. The spacetime aether is composed of old tired fermion engines — thirsty for excitement and a drop of energy. The proximity to dense standard matter excites the old tired engines in the aether. Of course the Earth itself is primarily responsible for the energy of spacetime aether at the surface as well as at elevation above the surface, including orbit.
If we want to take a SpaceX rocket from the launchpad to orbit, that’s a lot of moving parts, but let’s skip the exciting part in the middle for a moment and think about the actual space module when it is at the surface of Earth vs. when it is orbiting.
Loved this episode on Hoyle’s “The Black Cloud.” Now I am researching Bikini Atoll, (/ˈbɪkɪˌniː/ or /bɪˈkiːni/; Marshallese: ‘Pikinni’, [pʲiɡinnʲi], meaning “coconut place”), and the history of US testing there. Fascinating. I see what Kirsten is saying. Maybe it scared everyone. Or maybe Tsar Bomba did (the biggest test ever).
I don’t really know what that means going forward. Science already has general relativity and quantum mechanics and Q** and those are fairly accurate to incredible scales. Why would scientists establish a don’t ask, don’t tell policy beyond the standard model? I mean just below the standard model is the whole geometry of point charges and how they have energy cores and personalities, and protons and neutrons have three energy cores like one of Elon’s big rockets. So what is so taboo about all of that? I really can not believe they actually know the point charge level. Someone would have slipped. Yet there is a surprising paucity of internet search results on point charges and rotating point charges. I dunno. I think if there is a conspiracy it is far more likely one that controls very precisely the rate at which we learn more about nature.
Of course in doing all this the physicists totally threw the cosmologists and astronomers under the bus. What a huge mess to untangle.
Do physicists realize the generation I fermion contains the shielded energy of generation II and generation III? Is that what they learned in the Bikini Atoll testing? That was hydrogen by then so a most primitive atom. A proton is made from 36 point charges as follows:
- three energy cores.
- each energy core being a high energy electron neutrino with three electrino-positrino dipoles at vastly different energies (hence the fermion generations)
- so that leaves six electrinos and twelve positrinos to perform the gluon/color function.
Huh. I think I finally get it. They saw the generation II and maybe generation III energy and that scared the bejeezus out of them and they basically said shut up and calculate and the high priests (any priestesses?) will decide from here on out what is science and what will be obfuscated.
Ha ha. It’s really not much of a surprise if they think about the maelstrom of point charge plasma at Planck energy. So energy gets locked into point charge dipoles. Great. Then when they are captured by lower energy dipoles that nevertheless rotate much faster their energy is shielded by a Faraday cage effect.
Perhaps we should tune the term in the Drake equation that has to do with intelligent life discovering the fundamentals of nature and destroying itself before spreading sustainably beyond the home habitat.
This explains all the focus on nuclear non-proliferation.
I guess the bottom line is that while many things on earth appear to be nice and benign there is incredible energy locked up inside the protons, neutrons, and electrons. But didn’t we already know that? I don’t see what the big deal is. Is it an extra order of magnitude or more – is that it? Is it the ease of tapping into that energy?
Let me describe a relevant portion of the immutable point charge universe where a 3D Euclidean volume is the vessel for absolute space and absolute time, which are abstract concepts only tethered to the behavior of a density-1 of equal and opposite point charges, the electrino -e/6, and the positrino e/6. The second and only known other free parameter is the density-2 of energy the point charges carry as the sum of electromagnetic potential and kinetic energy. All else is emergent. Particle composition is written as electrinos/positrinos such as 9/3 for an electron or 18/18 for a neutron. An electron neutrino is 3/3 or more geometrically (-/+) (-/ +) (-/+) as three nested dipoles at different energy scales. This 3/3 gyroscopic structure is Noether’s theorem in action. And the GR-QM bridge. Suffice it to say all generation I fermions have a 3/3 energy core that transacts energy in h per spin quantum number. Or if you prefer to think in flywheels then use h-bars. Long story short Einstein’s spacetime is an aether of point charge structures and the best I can figure the free space aether contains a lot of low energy neutrinos (3/3), photons (6/6 or (3/3)(3/3)), or other point charge detritus with similar behaviour. Since this aether is the transducer for gravity and does all the curvy-stretchy GR behaviour you really should develop a dualistic cosmology that maps to absolute flat space and absolute time. That would be a good bridge. In this new way of looking at things you would be looking at modeling the scalar of spacetime aether energy and the vector gradient. If you can do this precisely it will tell you a lot about the photons we observe. In other words you need to know the provenance of the photons. Which galaxies did they pass through and when did that galaxy’s SMBH last jet? Since your forensic archaeological map of spacetime energy and gradient are essentially the implementation of gravity, now you can tie everything together and replace Newtonian, GR, and MOND with models of the real physical structures in terms of the actual point charge basis of nature. Of course the models will still need to be carefully built and reliably abstracted into more efficient simulation. Ok, I’ve gone on too long and yet there are so many more fun and amazing features of the point charge universe.
Frankly, it is long past time for particle and astro physicists to look into the insights I have gifted them. I’m just a hobbyist with 50+ US patents, BSEE RPI, MS CMU, who happened along and didn’t believe the incorrect narratives that have been proffered at the smallest and largest scales and found the bridge between them by sifting through the bone pile of physics and cosmology. Let me turn the problem around on you. Whom in physics history was assigned the task of checking out immutable point charges with characteristics of the Planck scale at low and high energy limits? Physicists have fields, strings, loops, and all kinds of other exotic ideas but NO ONE vetted immutable point charges? Why not? Point charges work great except for that singularity issue which is easily dispensed with by giving the point charge an immutable surrounding volume. Anyway, I am well inside astrophysicist and particle physicists territory now and it is really time for the fields to start doing the research rather than some lucky hobbyist. But of course, as long as I am alive I’ll continue to progress ahead and hope someone out there still has some creativity and imagination to understand such simple concepts. You all realize, I hope, that Wilczek and others are talking more and more about spacetime being particulate. Anyway, I’ll try to continue to gift these ideas to the community as I see more incorrect science. I know physicists are all doing their best and it is unfortunate that science got inside-out on the smallest and largest scales, but they have time left in their careers and can usher in this incredible new era. Actually I want you all to get going on it because I want to know all the answers to how nature and the universe work! Here’s quantitative: besides all the major existing tensions and unknowns in physics and cosmology the JWST will blow LCDM up because we will see many more things that are far too old for a big bang cosmology. So those will be astronomers numbers, tests, and conclusions. I’m offering a fairly solid narrative that keeps all the existing math and observations but tosses the interpretations below fields and the standard model. I’d be happy to show anyone the point charge formulas for standard matter particles and the math that goes with it.
A response from a physicist :
“Physicists have fields, strings, loops, and all kinds of other exotic ideas but NO ONE vetted immutable point charges? Why not?”
This is a nonsensical and inaccurate quasi-statement on so many levels:
In the real world, there is the long observed phenomenon of electron-positron pair creation, as well pair annihilation; so why do you say the point particle is “immutable”? Perhaps you are vaguely claiming the ‘point charged particle model’ itself is immutable? Although I don’t no how you would go about proving that without being able to foresee the future.
Why is “NO ONE” stressed (shouted)? One of the prime motivations for the development of string theory, over more than 40 years, is the unsatisfactory nature of the point charged particle model for leptons, like for example electrons and positrons.
In making the above quasi-statement, pretending to be a question, you also do a great disservice to independent thinkers who have researched other possibilities to the point charged particle quite extensively and even in some cases managed to get their ideas published; an example is Stephen N. Lyle with the book “Self-Force and Inertia. Old Light on New Ideas”. Stephen Lyle doesn’t claim a solution, does not make liberal use of unclear terminology or undefined concepts, and does not fill his book with over-hyped unsubstantiated claims devoid of any wider context. In particular he reflects clearly on differing view-points and interpretations to his own.
The problem you are in fact referring to in your post (that only you have studied in recent years apparently) is one of the major unsolved problems of Modern Physics (the problem of the infinite self-energy of the point particle model and how it is finessed via the renormalization process within the standard model of particle physics). That you claim to have solved the problem (and many otherwise unsolved physical problems to boot) typically with just a few choice words, very often lacking in clarity or definition or plausibility or historical context; and all this together with absolutely no evidence of mathematically consistent approach which actually yields the claimed results. This is all laughable and extremely insulting to those who have genuinely thought about such problems, and its wider contextual meanings, for a lot longer than you have.
Physics is an exceptionally hard subject If you ever come to realise that the vast majority of your initial and currently favoured over hyped claims are false or otherwise mutually inconsistent, then you will have at last made it to the thinking for yourself physics community. Otherwise I fear you will remain forever stuck in a mental cage securely constructed by your own unquestioned delusions.
Once you can honestly question and evaluate why your own new physical ideas repeatedly fail or miss the point entirely, and identify new things you must learn or research to understand these mistakes more clearly, you might then have a better chance of evaluating why and how other peoples ideas might fail, perhaps sometimes in an analogous manner to your own.
String Theorists can’t really be criticised for their motivation, effort or mathematical abilities. However they can be criticised, I think, for continually over hyping their actual end-product (decade after decade Pied Piper style), enticing a disproportionate number of young theorists to the study of the field as a result, with many other avenues of theoretical study essentially left for dead.
One can think of a few other academic fields where such gross distortions have happened in recent times (one being the subject of this blog). A particular egregious one is that of economics, a subject with many over-hyped models, that could not even in principle have predicted the great recession of 2007-8, or more to the point, even sensibly accounted for the recession after the fact; leading to students of economics at many prestigious universities vigorously campaigning for major changes to what they are taught. I can’t imagine students of physics rising up in quite the same way.
Thank you for responding and I’ll just breeze through and ignore the insults because I know that is how some physicists respond and I presume that is from being pestered constantly since the fields are in a preposterous state of crisis and to make matters worse, history has yielded wrong interpretations which blocked insight into nature, making physics and cosmology so incredibly difficult. So I’ll grant the benefit of the doubt that had those historical errors not happened none of us would be hurling insults or accusing a person bearing gifts as being disrespectful. So I am giving you all a pass or out due to the fact you are building on priors that are incorrect. Again I don’t take any pleasure in this and nothing would please me more than for you all to be on the right track and me enjoying outreach videos and posts in my retirement. I’ll respond with more technical info to your points, but please don’t hold me to your standard of science. I am a catalyst, a creative problem solver who is here to help physics and cosmology back on track after 134 years.
Let’s talk technical about electron-positron pair creation as well as pair annihilation in the point charge universe. First, there are two types of point charge, the electrino -e/6, and positrino at e/6. Everything else including Einstein’s spacetime is emergent structure made from electrinos and positrinos. The notation is electrinos/positrinos. An electron is 9/3. It could also be written more geometrically as (6/0) (3/3), i.e., an electron personality of six electrinos at -e/6, resulting in -e charge as expected, which are surrounding a generation I fermion energy core (3/3). The anti-electron or positron is 3/9 or (0/6) (3/3). Again the fermion core appears. It is also present in the up quark (1/5)(3/3) and down quark (4/2)(3/3). You can trace the total count of electrinos and positrinos for typical reactions like neutron (18/18) decay. So if the spacetime aether is chock full of tired photons 6/6 = (3/3)(3/3) or electron neutrinos (3/3) and other detritus or low energy structures like who knows low energy 9/9 Z bosons or perhaps 12/12 (axions? gravitons?) all averaging 2.7K black body. Electron (9/3) + positron (3/9) will react, not annihilate. The 12 electrinos and 12 positrinos will form one or more particles, typically two photons, each 6/6. Now about those 6/6 photons, each is a mated fermion core with an anti-fermion core. Thus in the (3/3)(3/3) geometry the outer dipoles of each core COUNTER-rotate in a plane orthogonal to the photon’s direction. (CAPS = emphasis). This counter-rotation of point charge dipoles is the explanation for Malus’s Law and polarization. Can you see how counter rotating point charge dipoles would cancel each others electric field except in the plane defined by the closest passing points at our measurement scale? Now let’s talk about pair production. If spacetime is composed of old tired fermion engine based structures (i.e., a lot of 3/3, 6/6, 9/9, etc) then they are poised to join reactions as vessels for energy, some of which split or launch as matter/anti-matter. Occasionally random higher than average energy detritus in the spacetime aether happens to collide and produce a particle/anti-particle pair.
p.s. the current state of my research is linking up the point charge geometry of standard model structures to Noam Why’s model at noamwhy.com. In January 2021 Noam appeared and revealed a simple equation from which you can derive the standard model particles including spin, anti-ness, and color and then go on to calculate some particle masses accurately. It appears Noam is not aware of point charges, but I can mathematically link point charge geometry to Noam’s equation, and if this linkage holds, advance the overall point charge theory considerably. Now this linkage gets into the alignment and energy relationship of the six rotating point charge dipoles in a fermion (most -/+ and others -/- or +/+) and weak mixing angle. Making physical sense of all that in point charges while reading the QM view is mind blowing even though I can see it is simple mathematically with the point charge geometry. And this gets back to where I ask : Is the general consensus of physicists and cosmologists that they want some lucky hobbyist who somehow stumbled onto the idea of point charges combined with immutability to be making these discoveries from first principles with closed form solutions (thanks to another independent ideator)?
Lemaître projected matter/energy back to a primeval atom. As a researcher, he erred. It is better to take a photon, six electrinos and six positrinos, in two planes of 3/3, a neutrino and anti-neutrino flying in formation. If you project THAT backwards you get a Planck point charge core.
Can a random 1:1 distribution of electrino and positrino point charges at e/6, maximally packed, immutable with radius Lp/(2pi) emerge to form a universe like ours? They do form structures.
- neutrino 3/3
- up 1/5(3/3)
- down 4/2(3/3)
- proton 15/21
- neutron 18/18
- electron 9/3
- photon 6/6
The interminable delay to embarking on the next era is the most serious intransigence of the physics community. It seriously could allow intelligent life as we know it to be snuffed before it spreads. Frankly, the leadership and senior experienced physicists should be ousted from their jobs and careers.
Physics is so much easier with immutable point charges, the electrino and positrino. You can go through the PDG and back-propagate to combinations of |e/6| or let it find the magnitude itself. Then you will be able to reconstruct the true reactions, below the scale of today’s observability.
We are going to need a new name for black holes in the point charge universe. They’re just another kind of star with unique properties regarding photons, emission, and the relationship to general relativity. Here are some ideas. Point charge stars? Planck stars? Mash and Bangers? What do you suggest?
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California