Draw Freely Upon Your Imagination

I believe in intuitions and inspirations.
I sometimes feel that I am right.
I do not know that I am… [but]
I would have been surprised if I had been wrong

I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Knowledge is limited.
Imagination encircles the world.”

Albert Einstein — Saturday Evening Post correspondent interview, 1929.

I saw this quote in a tweet by science author Paul Halpern. I responded “That is such a wonderful quote! Why don’t particle physicists and astrophysicists/cosmologists think this way?! It is so tragic to see them so lost and in crisis, especially when the solution is so obvious. It’s the priors! You have interpretive errors in many priors. Go ➾ 1870.”

A few comments I made on the PBS Space Time Discord :

I would like to put this in the relativity topic, but since NPQG is still new to everyone, here we go in speculative ideas. So, I was watching the 2020 MIT General Relativity course on YouTube and lecture 2 gets into tensors so the first time through I am just kind of glazing over trying to find something to latch on to visually or logically because I haven’t yet determined how to visualize the Einstein representations. Anyway, after a huge amount of notation building, and remember, we’re talking Einstein and curvy spacetime here, the lecturer says one of the key aspects is to build a frame invariant representation of an event. Frame invariance. This is a fascinating idea.

I started to wonder if or how frame invariance relates to my Noether cores, which are the energy conservation engines with features like energy banker, stretchy ruler, variable clock, perfect black body, and more. A Gen I Noether core is included with every Gen 1 Fermion (neutrino, electron, up quark, down quark, and the anti versions) as well as the photon, the W and Z bosons. Not sure about gluon. Higgs may describe the aether which I think is a soup of extremely redshifted and massy photons and neutrinos. Whatever, other than gluon, they all have a Gen 1 Noether core of three point charge dipoles at different energy scales. Here’s a picture. I still haven’t figure out how to depict a Noether core, since the orders of magnitude difference in energy and radius may make even the second dipole a speck on a non-log chart. The third dipole may not even be visible from the second. Anyway this is also the mechanism for fermion generations. CERN blows away the outer dipole, now it is Gen II. Blow away the 2nd dipole and now you are left with a Gen III fermion. No wonder Gen II and III aren’t stable – they are missing containment.

For anyone new here, the background is that I am a creative problem solver who picked up point charges from the physics discard pile and asked myself, could we model the universe with point charges if they had immutability at a radius around the Planck length? Immediately a lot of problems in physics just go poof (singularity, wormhole, UV catastrophe, renormalization, etc.).

Long story short, I’m pretty sure this is an amazingly great way to model nature and the universe and I’ve been developing that model on my blog for 3 years mostly via thought experiment, logic, and more meta math than equations. I think it can connect directly to GR, QM, and LCDM at their scales of applicability, although LCDM will require quite a bit of rearranging. QM learns that there is a layer below and the quantum is not fundamental. Similarly GR learns that there are Noether cores in all stable particles including the particles that make spacetime aether, and those Noether cores implement GR. That said, GR may be less predictive as you approach 10^-35 due to the granularity of point charges. No worries, quite a few years until experiments get there, and meanwhile simulation will be amazing.

The strangest thing about this immutable point charge theory is that it transforms so many of our concepts inside-out but on the other hand it is pretty similar and now everything makes sense. It’s all the same observations of course. It’s a lot of the same ‘accepted’ theory, but rearranged, properly bounded for scale or conditions of applicability. There is a lot of interpretation that gets tossed aside and replaced, but that is actually a good thing because now most everything will make sense. Come to think about it, it is a new era and the economics are also reversed. Those who understand the point charge model of the universe become incredibly valuable. Way more than the Ai folks.

I would like to start a universal research institution. I am looking for superscalar technology corporations to commit to 10 years of funding at $1B per year. Of course we will welcome other funding and collaboration, but we need to get started on the institutional infrastructure. For example, I’ll be looking for amazingly wonderful campuses around the world where the best and brightest can create, invent, brainstorm, theorize, realize and develop new science and technology that can reduce suffering and improve well being, enable intelligent life to spread throughout the cosmos, and repair and mitigate damage to Earth, our first home.

It is ironic that after being dang near tortured and committed by the guardians of physics who love to deploy the c-word upon creative ideators (Maybe I’m sensitive, but that is rough to deal with. Thank you PBS Space Time team for maintaining a civil public square for intelligent conversation.) — that those physicists who are the first to grok the immutable point charge basis of nature and get on board will have a tremendous opportunity. Multiply compensation 10x or 20x. Start a startup to scale higher. This will be an enormous golden era for science. Even better, the ability to turn ones focus from drilling downward to discover nature, and now with the architecture and blueprint, turn around and imagine what you can build, what you can realize. The universe is the limit.

I submitted this comment on the PBS Space Time Discord channel for episode suggestions.

Here’s an idea for an episode or three. First, I acknowledge there is a movement to remove “James Webb” from the name of the space telescope and I support that movement and I would like to see it renamed for a female or LGBTQ astronomer. What kinds of things might the JW Space Telescope find that would challenge or even falsify LCDM? That would be a great topic, because it is framed where you can speculate on perfectly reasonable things that people might wonder about. For example, what if JWST observes galaxies or other events that are simply far too old for LCDM? Then what? I mean, it was sort of convenient that the lowest energy photons we can detect from the most distant space and time are 13.77B year old photons, wasn’t it? I suppose if you are a believer in the Big Bang it was a confirmation, a sign from the heavens. I presume there are several other known ways the JWST could observe things that would upset LCDM or other theories. Please consider.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California