This post is a response to Dr. Stacy McGaugh’s post Despondency.
Well, I hope I can meet the high bar that Dr. McGaugh has set for acceptable comments. Seriously. My first logical argument to Stacy and the readers/commenters is that the scientific method has failed you. The scientific method has not provided a means for you to go back and correct the priors that were incorrect. To be totally frank, nature (personified for fun) is a trickster. Nature has fooled scientists in so many ways. It is difficult to even begin this argument, because scientists are so strident about the scientific method, and yet it is their version of the scientific method that has held them (you) back from discovering reality.
If one stumbles across the basic bone structure of nature, everything becomes entirely clear. Look, I’ll minimize mentioning here how science screwed up by throwing point charges on the discard pile, instead of giving them volumetric immutability, but had someone had that thought between 1870 and 1920, nature would have been solved easily within a fortnight. It is really that simple. I got lucky, and I can see how simple it is. So set aside everything you think you know for now.
Everything is local. Forget these idiotic fields with no field generators. Astrophysicists are in the best position for solving nature, but they are at the wrong scale. Drop down some 40-60 orders of magnitude. Everything is about orbiting point charges, which are Planck length order of magnitude, and the fields they generate and their influence on other point charges in spacetime aether or standard model particles. Actually that is redundant. You have no idea how mass works. You have no idea about energy shielding. You are deluded by incorrect priors. No wonder you are despondent. It is not possible to reach the solution building upon your faulty foundation.
You really must let go of your priors. General relativity is great at its scales of applicability, but it doesn’t work at the smallest local scales where it becomes evident that spacetime is an aether of standard model particles. Likewise, the inflationary big bang and expansion are ill-conceived. Yes, you will get all those back, but transformed. The inflationary bangs must be realized to be processes that may happen in any galaxy with the right conditions in a fashion distributed in time and possibly periodically. It is steady state at large time scales. Therefore expansion is galaxy-local and in opposition to other galaxies. I know it is strange to contemplate, but that is the reality, and pair production and other processes precipitate traditional standard matter which then gravitates back towards the dominant local galaxy.
Now that we have eliminated the 13.8 billion year old universe idea, in favor of steady state, it seems logical that spacetime is composed of tired photons and neutrinos that have redshifted so far that they become massy and drop velocity until they are captured by the last galaxy on their path. These tired photons and neutrinos and other detritus of decomposed particles that form the spacetime aether (curvy per Einstein) are typically at such low energy that they barely interact with low energy standard model matter. I suppose it is possible that they may even combine into other low energy stable particles. We know nothing about this realm. Seriously, contemplate that. We know nothing, because it is at scales many orders of magnitude below our observability technology.
Ok, this is getting long. It’s not me that is the problem. It is you. Physicists are so stuck in their ways and unwilling to question the scientific method, that they are despondent. I am offering the bone structure of the new paradigm. Suspend disbelief and take it out for a spin. Everything will make so much more sense. You can keep all your observations. Your ‘accepted’ math needs only scales of applicability. Sadly, there are many prior interpretations that you will need to discard if you want to move beyond despondency into productivity.
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California
p.s. I made the following reply at Triton Station to a commenter who was being tormented by a jackass loser physicist named Phillip Heilbig.
Oh brodix, don’t waste your keystrokes on Phillip. When I was in the corporate world we had engineers who we said were in charge of sales prevention, throwing flak into the air about why things wouldn’t work rather than figuring out how to make them work. You might have noticed that my idea has two particle types and two parameters. That’s it. And I even picked up the idea from the physics discard pile and repaired it. Yet Phillip never engages on the idea. He only defends the failed present conditions of particle and astro physics.
I have been astonished that scientists aren’t willing to consider new ideas that change the paradigm. My idea has zero woo, where the state of the art physics is chock full of woo. Even when I offer that I am only ideating in the scales and territories between GR and QM it doesn’t stop the vitriol from the likes of Phillip. I’ve even gone back and identified the specific decisions where the wrong narrative interpretation was chosen like a physics historian would do, and still no engagement. I have pretty much given up hope that physicists will ever engage. They are in an enormous crisis, yet like a caged animal, just roar and swipe at the zoo tourists that fund them and want to help. It is all so tragic.
Another reply to a tragically misguided comment on Triton Station :
My number one principle is to reciprocally honor the dignity of each individual. The issue here is the word reciprocally. For a number of reasons many physicists have developed antagonistic behaviour towards any outsider bearing ideas and even to insiders with out of the mainstream ideas. This is a huge problem for many reasons, but the biggest is that if it is true that major interpretive errors have caused the current crisis In particle and astro physics, then how will physicists get back on track?
I hope you have noticed that I focus on the interpretive errors. Observations are what they are (though even faulty priors could lead to confusion) and I have explained carefully where the math is suspect due to confusion around ranges of applicability, continuous vs. quantum, and so forth. These are highly technical observations about the foundational assumptions of the physics math. I’ve also given a physical implementation which physics sorely lacks and shown that implementation to be parsimonious and a simple repair to a prior physics theory.
It seems to me that there is a tremendous amount of intellectual dishonesty if physicists won’t engage on this set of ideas, particularly because these are many of the same issues brought up by physics luminaries and authors. Anyway, I’m continuing to make strong progress and maybe someday I’ll encounter a physicist who is truly interested on collaborating on ideas that have zero woo instead of banging their noggin on the same issues for decades with little progress. At some point I would think they must come to realize they made some major errors in the prior interpretations. That would be what I would do if I were despondent.
Another reply of mine :
In re: brodix’s prediction “that the background radiation will eventually resolve to be the light of ever further sources, shifted off the visible spectrum”
This is why the JWST is incredibly exciting to me. As I understand it, the JWST will be capable of observing farther away in time and distance than previous instruments. If it sees what I predict it will see, that will be the end of LCDM in its current form. As before, I think a lot of LCDM will be recoverable, but simply turned inside out and transformed to a hypothesis of galaxy local inflationary mini-bangs (GLIM?) in an ~steady-state cosmology.
Nobel winner Brian Schmidt mentioned in a 2012 lecture that the Hubble deep field images each cover about one 32 millionth of the sky and that each image shows around 5000 galaxies.
That is about 160 billion galaxies near the surface of the observable sphere at a range of ~10B years ago. What is the proportion of galaxies that have jetting SMBH or AGN at any one time? What fraction of the galaxies mini-banging in the even more distant Planck CMB observations would be required to account for the Planck photon observations? And in particular the power spectrum — keeping in mind it is basically the banging process but distributed in locality and time (intermittent).
Could a professional astrophysicist please explain whether CMB observations are merely consistent with a Big Bang or actual evidence of a Big Bang? Could the CMB observations also be consistent with galaxy local inflationary mini-bangs?
Thanks and I tried to be extra respectful and I really do simply want to help get the fields beyond their current major issues.
Dear Stacy and Crew:
I’ve been really impressed with the level of creative thought here recently and the willingness of some to talk about the big issues facing astrophysics (and particle physics – they are more related than most realize). I made a new post with pictures to show my hypothesis. https://johnmarkmorris.com/2021/06/15/new-physics-in-pictures/
The real key, whether you grok my illustrations or not, is : to realize that electric and magnetic fields have a maximum scalar value and this gives spherical volumetric immutability to the field generators (I call them point charges) that make the structures, that make all the ‘fields’ of particle physics (QED, QFT, QCD, inflaton, etc.).
The really cool thing about this model is what it means to the mathematics, so I will list a few of those here along with their implications. This does require that I talk a bit about my ‘pet theory’ but since there is some new open-ness here, perhaps Stacy will allow it. Or not. Whatever.
0) spherical volumetrically immutable field generators are incredibly symmetric mathematically. That is a good thing, because we need a lot of symmetry to understand why nature has been so hard to solve.
1) volumetric immutability means there is no singularity, anywhere. Therefore, physicists should perform the due diligence of rethinking the theory of black holes, especially SMBH. This also means say goodbye to wormholes which is probably ok with most physicists. It also means that SMBH could possibly develop a core of these immutable objects. And it would keep growing. My instinct tells me that the interior particles of that core would not be detectable beyond a few layers deep from the surface of the core which would be packed FCC or HCP (math).
2) volumetric immutability of the fundamental field generators also means that general relativity, as well as it works, is not correct in several respects. First, discard that portion of the integral that goes from the smallest field generator to zero. That solves a lot of problems, including the UV catastrophe. Next, realize that when you approach the scale at which these field generators exist, which is I think around the Planck length in radius, that there would be effects that are not accounted for in general relativity (which has no physical implementation.)
3) Next, let’s imagine that those field generators in ‘Planck cores’ can somehow escape the SMBH. They would present as an inflationary mini-bang. The field generators would do basically what the big bang theory says, which is to form structures. Take a look at my pictures of the standard model particles. Although I haven’t yet drawn the charts for W, Z, gluon, or Higgs boson, I did depict the photon. Each of these structures has its own unique pattern of electromagnetic fields that physicists call by different names as our higher level structure ‘fields’. I hypothesize that those behaviours lead directly to the math of QFT, QED, QCD, etc.
4) You can now determine what is continuous and what is quantized. Certainly the two fundamental electromagnetic field generators are quantized due to volumetric immutability. Oppositely charge field generators can form an orbiting circuit that can transact energy in h-bar units of angular momentum. This provides a physical implementation for so many of our formulas that talk about spin, frequency, and wavelength (except wavelength is not yet understood to be related to the velocity of the orbiting dipole). Background space is continuous. Field generators move continuously through space. Fundamental quantization is the two field generators. Higher order quantization is due to structure behaviour.
5) Renormalization was a clue, not a thing to work around! Sigh. Enough said.
Ok, I could go on and on and that would be too much. Also, it is a lot more fun, if you do the thinking yourself. Even if you want to call this a toy model, it is amazingly powerful. Explore it. Improve it.
Lastly, please watch at least the Particles section of this recent Frank Wilczek interview. https://youtu.be/LDTe8uFqbws starting at 1:21:56 through 1:55:58. If you watch the whole interview and pay very close attention I think you will realize that Frank, who is in my estimation the closest physicist to the solution of nature, is talking about things which map directly to the pictures which I have posted, or something very close. If you want to solve nature, examine my pictures, listen to Frank, repeat until you get it. Eventually it should click and then you can never go back to the confused state of physics today. Asymptotic freedom is essentially saying that there are limits to the fields. So as two attracting opposite point charge generators approach, this limit is repelling them!
Best to all of you and especially Stacy for stimulating the wonderful discussion.
p.s. Sincere apologies to anyone who is offended by my confidence in this solution or my clap-back on disrespectful naysayers. I think once you jump this hurdle to the layer below the standard model, everything will make sense. Again I appeal to you to look at my pictures with an intellectually honest open mind and collaborate on linking this model into particle and astro physics, even if it means rearranging prior interpretations. Since many of you have highly honed mathematical skills, you could probably turn these ideas into something the journals would publish far faster than I can. Please do.
p.p.s. If as I hypothesize, the fundamental charged field generators make structures that emit the higher level fields of the standard model particles AND those charged field generators have a limit to their packing density, THEN if nature generates such a clump of charged field generators it would have one microstate. S = k log (w). Therefore entropy would be zero, which would blow the minds of physicists today. Also the particles in the clump would have maximum possible energy yet zero kinetic energy relative to one another, or zero relative temperature. Does this ring any bells for anyone? It should. Explains major open problems parsimoniously. Love to all.