Rosetta Stone

This is a rambling post where I cover many ideas. Enjoy!

I met Barry Barish in 2019-2020-ish after a talk he gave at UC Riverside on LIGO, when I approached to ask a question. Barry had an aide with him and you could tell they both stiffened up at the thought I might have an original idea and try to engage. In fact, right in front of me, the aide told Barry to signal him if he needed to be whisked away! Good grief, physicists are so paranoid and defensive about people with ideas. Anyway, I asked Barry something like “What are you to do if you think you have made a major advancement in physics, but no physicists will engage with you?” His response was that you have to play the game. You have to publish. I followed up with the statement that the journals won’t publish an outsider. Barry shrugged and repeated his advice to play the game and walked away.

You gotta play the game.

Barry Barish in response to J Mark Morris

I am still quite flabergated by Barry’s response to this day, and by the response in general from physicists to social media interactions, answering phone calls, returning voice messages, and unwillingness to discuss ideas with an outsider. I mean seriously. Do they really think there is no one else in the world who could have an idea that could help them? Why aren’t they holding contests for ideas? My gosh. How many decades of crisis must we endure?

Here is Barry in an interview with Lawrence Krauss. The long form style shows Barry in a much more relaxed and natural state than he was when I met him when he looked apprehensive and fearful speaking to an outsider (me).

I might come back and add some comments some day about this fascinating discussion. However, doing so at the moment is rather technical and will slow me down to get the proper terminology. It’s easy for the physicists so I’m going to skip it for now and hope they pick it up. I long for the day when they say, “Marko, we got this. C’mon in and let’s collaborate, and I just get to watch them brainstorming on the chalk or marker board.”

It will actually be bittersweet when I finally break through to the physicists, because I will be immediately left in the dust. I actually am not upset by this. So many physicists unable to get traction, and now everything starts solidifying into a cohesive theory of nature. It will be a long era of incredible advancement and I think that is tremendously promising and exciting. I will take great pleasure reading about the positive applications of the base knowledge of nature.

I posted this on reddit /r/mit :

Physics Historians?

Hi, I’m not yet in the MIT community, although I would love to be considered an ally in the long term. Short term, I have no idea how my ideas will be received. I would like to meet a physics historian to discuss the mapping of GR/QM/QFT/QCD/QED/LCDM and other concepts to my reality, which is a new way of looking at nature that is much simpler, with absolutely zero confusion.

  1. fermion generations (I have a big surprise for physicists on this topic)
  2. the concepts to which gauge theory are applied.
  3. UV catastrophe
  4. singularity issue
  5. renormalization cases
  6. all the places where things are thought to be continuous and discrete. (big surprises on this!)
  7. Emily Noether’s work (another surprise here).
  8. why isn’t the solution obvious? This is a serious question. Once seen, it cannot be unseen.
  9. did we come through some 150 year long tube of priors that blinded science?
  10. lessons to be applied to the scientific method

I’d like to reach the physicists with new ideas and part of my strategy is to be able to demonstrate that I can take their patchwork quilt of concepts, and transform each one and put the whole thing back together again in a far more sensible fashion. This transformed quilt of concepts will, after all, be the reference test for the best models and mathematics of the next era.

Please feel free to contact me by email at

I wrote a note to an past colleague of mine who went to MIT years ago but maintains contacts with his MIT alumni friends some of which are Ph.D. physicists. Maybe he will hook me up with an academic that I can connect with for a mind meld.

The issue seems to be that physicists have been off track since the 1870s or so when Michelson-Morley was interpreted as there being no aether. That single wrong interpretation led to a cascade of bad interpretations, including spacetime as a geometry. It’s not. Space is Euclidean and filled with an aether that has geometrical properties Einstein intuited. Also the quantum, gee whiz, that is just an energy level in a basic linear feedback circuit.

Here is the overall plan: You have Euclidean 3D space and time with no known beginning nor end in either space or time. This 4D space and time is populated with some density1 of |e/6| point charges, which I call the electrino -|e/6| and the positrino +|e/6|. These point charges are immutable. There may be multiple ways to model immutability. I think one way that could bridge into existing electromagnetic theory is to model the spacetime aether as having a permeability and permittivity that are a function of the local electromagnetic field strength. So let’s get into the story.

Let’s start with the zero entropy state. It’s a big deal to say that! This is the highest energy state of these immutable point charges which can only be packed to the density that nature allows which is is somewhere around the Planck length, 10-35. It is as if the point charges are spherical with a radius of exclusion. That said, and this is an important point, I think it is better if we demand nothing of space nor time. The simpler they are the better if what my intuition says. We must be careful in how we imagine this interaction. Kinetically it can be modeled as if the spheres bump each other under extreme energy conditions.

in terms of the spheres bumping each other. We should think in terms of the action between the field of each point charge acting in conjunction with the other point charge. If the radius of the spheres is considered to be r, then the action of each point charge on the other is at 2r. Since electric field strength falls of at the square of distance, this means that any given point charge can only tolerate a maximum electric field such as would be generated by a charge of |e/6| at a distance 2r. This may not be the optimal geometry, but it seems to me to be the simplest to explain. Maybe someone can find a better way to visualize the immutable point charge I’m all in for that!

We’ll skip over some details and imagine that these electrino and positrino point charges escape this high energy state and start mingling. Opposites attract. Likes repel. Very high energy electrino and positrinos start orbiting each other in a tight dipole due to Coulomb’s law. Imagine their aggregate magnetic field along and around the axis of rotation! The higher the energy the tighter the orbit due to Maxwell’s equations. And orbits must be whole, clicked off in quanta of energy. Yes, that quantum — it’s just a click, a gear shift among 1044 energy levels.

As these point charges, and the emerging structures they form, spread out and reduce in energy via conservative reactions with other, perhaps less energetic point charges structures, we arrive at an extremely stable configuration of three dipoles at vastly different scales of energy, with their planes of orbital rotation at some angle to each other. This has a lot to do with mass, but that’s another concept to cover later.

This structure of three dipoles, or three electrino-positrino dipoles is what I call a Noether energy core. It is stable in three spatial dimensions and provides for conservation of angular momentum. This 3:3 dipole is the essential building block of nature. Think of it like a gyroscopic dynamo. All kinds of other point charges can attach to it and give it a personality. The magic number is six personality point charges per Noether engine. So that is what makes the electron (six electrinos), positron (six positrinos), and the quarks (a mix of electrinos and positrinos). Also, the bare engine itself is the neutrino. A photon is a 3:3 personality layer with a counter-rotating 3:3 anti-neutrino. Apparently spacetime aether is the detritus of low energy point charges, but still retaining this basic 3:3 structure or some conglomerate that can quickly fire off photons with a drop of energy.

Here’s a discussion with a mathematically skilled friend who is interested in physics. I’ll call him Joe. It kinda starts and continues as a diatribe from me. Ooops. I have like zero E.Q,.

Mark : I’m not working on the solution to nature to try to be a physicist or mathematician or even a scientist. I’m none of those and have no desire to be. Think of me as a reverse engineering archaelogist who has come along and looked at the current crisis in physics and cosmology and then sifted through all the layers of rubble and detritus in those fields, back in time layer by layer for 150 years. In the process I was able to detect some potential errors in interpretation and in my simple mind I started to think about a geometry of only two charged particle types in a Euclidean void space and time. It’s like how an archaelogist might piece together an ancient settlement of amazing craftsmanship and intuit the overall architecture. At this point, I have put together enough pieces of the architecture that I can see clearly how nature works. It is so incredibly simple, just dipoles that chase each other in orbits and capture and structure formed by point charges that swirl in a set of wave equations, we see the patterns repeat even in solar systems and galaxies. This swirling of orbs.

Mark : I have had such a difficult time getting through to anyone. To me it is entirely obvious. And I have no idea how you came up with your theory, but it has all the right characteristics to describe the personality charge layer of fermions swirling weakly around a Noether engine at much smaller radii at three different scales probably between 10^-15 and 10^-36 meters. We should not need complicated mathematics to describe this. You have some of the math. I have the geometry of the standard model based upon point charges as well as geometrical structures all the way to the Proton and Neutron.

Mark : I have some new ideas on how to improve my descriptions visually, so perhaps that will help. I really want to get this transitioned over to the scientists because we need 10,000 of them driving the point charge solution of nature through all technologies that can benefit and ideally help us vastly improve the situation of all individuals and the environment as well. (the era of abundance).

Mark : This also implies that this idea is going to generate a gold rush of investment funds once it becomes recognized. The solution is so simple that it changes everything. Science, philosophy, religion will all be challenged with this new knowledge. I’m not doing this for money either, but I think fairly soon it is time to start showing the ideas to investors, because they will be motivated to listen and they can bring in scientists to bless it.

Joe : If you can come up with the mathematical proof of all these claims, it would be a major breakthrough. Until then, these are just speculative thoughts.

Mark : I think this is the actual architecture because it explains nearly everything that is confused or is an open unsolved problems in physics. Noether engines inflate/expand as they lose energy. That is Guth and Einstein in one structure! There is no singularity since point charges are immutable. NPQG utilizes none of the mysterious woo the physicists trot out to explain things. I’ve been all over the subject areas of particle physics and astro physics and all I see is clear and easy paths to logical solutions.

Joe : How do you know that all this is true?
Can you show how GR and QFT emerge from your theory?

Mark : The physicists readily admit that they are wrong in the sense that their theories are not complete nor unified. Those theories still work incredibly well at their scales of applicability. My assertion is that the physicists narratives or explanations are incredibly messed up. The quantum is not fundamental and they should already see that from existing formulas.

Mark : The personality orbits of electrons quarks and their antiparticles are at a large scale and their are a mix of six point charges in the personality layer of those generation I fermions. Those six point charges are flying around in what they call a wave equation but really we should track the individual point charges since they are conserved and immutable.

Mark : The physicists are stuck there and can’t really see inside but they have a patchwork of well researched theories that give them clues. Like color charge. If they could see inside the personality layer they would see the Noether engine. However those are on orbits far below our observational capabilities. As a made up example the three dipoles might be orbiting at radii of 10^-21, 10^-27, and 10^-33. The magnetic fields are incredibly strong and hence why we call it the strong force.

Joe : Can you provide the proof that current theories are wrong?

Mark : I’ve heard that before but I think it is not good advice. I should not have to fully understand incorrect theories to show the basis of nature. What physicists have now works at their scales of experiment but is only an approximation. It should be enough to focus on the geometry of nature and show how basic maths emerge from the structures that form from point charges. For example the Noether engine implements SU(3).

Mark : I don’t think what I am doing has really clicked with you yet. Once it does you will truly begin to understand nature.

Joe : If you want to have any chance of your ideas being considered by professionals, you should get up to speed with GR and QFT, and show how they emerge from your theory. Otherwise you’re wasting your time.

Mark : The issue is that it is a geometry with electro-mechanical point charges. I’m working towards explaining the patchwork quilt of GR and QM etc maths but many are far more complicated than they need to be and also way over my head.

Joe : I’m asking for some more clarification that would make it easier to understand your idea.

–end of conversation

It occurs to me that the phrase “mediated by photons” is so ironic because the clue to the structure of spacetime aether is this phrase itself. Spacetime aether is akin to old tired redshifted photons that lost their planar form and puffed up a bit such that their apparent energy generates some tiny mass and then dropped out of light speed and eventually just go with the flow of the aether.

J Mark Morris

I’m not entirely sure, but I think physicists may have the concept of spin messed up. On the other hand, it could well be my conceptual error. This is all so mind bending, especially when mapping concepts to point charges , their dipoles, and the structures that form around them. For example, the standard model says that a fermion must go through 720 degrees with one kick of h-bar. That is why they give it a spin of 1/2. However, it may be better understood as h-bar is half a revolution of a dipole and twice that to return to symmetry. This will all need to be sorted out by some really bright people and I wish them well.

The bosons — gluon, Z, W, and the photon all have a spin of one. That seems to mean they truly have to spin 360 degrees to return to the starting point. Does it also mean that one h-bar is enough for the structure to do that? I don’t know, seems like we need some smart people to figure that out in the new era. All I know is that the bosons are flat enough to observe a different form of statistics.

What does it mean to say that Higgs has no spin? It doesn’t absorb h-bar? It doesn’t interact? That is a fascinating interpretation. So first lets presume that the primary composition of the aether is extremely redshifted neutrinos and photons, or reaction products of them. These structures have dropped out of light speed configuration and continue to redshift and slowly lose more energy and eventually come to sort of a go with the flow equilibrium situation as spacetime aether. The thing is, because these are the low energy solutions, they are relatively small compared to local structure. These aether particles permeate everything. p.s., the Higgs condensate provides a ready source of low energy ingredients for any reaction. It’s no biggie to take electrinos and positrinos from spacetime aether. Just understand that point charges are conserved. Physicists will eventually be able to track point charges individually in every reaction.

I’ve been having many conceptual breakthroughs lately that will help me describe the new architecture in simpler 2D and 3D visual media. Once I start visualizing I start really innovating. So one important point in this theory is that on average every atom is shielding about 30,000 times more energy than it is exhibiting in mass. I’ve tried to get the attention of the Energy Department and other government agencies to no avail. Obviously it’s not been too easy to harness that energy to date or we wouldn’t be here. However, once NPQG becomes well known, scientists may need to update the Drake equation. Perhaps one reason we don’t find other life forms in the universe is that when they get to the stage of understanding the fundamentals of nature, some idiot figures out how to use that knowledge for destructive technology.

SU(3) is the symmetry grorup that describes the geometry of the Noether core and the strong interaction. It corresponds to the field of Quantum Chromo Dynamics (QCD).

SU(2) is the personality charge layer and the weak interaction. That makes sense.


Wikipedia says that SU(2) maps to spinors, so that sounds like another good connection that will make Sir Roger happy.

The SU(n) groups find wide application in the Standard Model of particle physics, especially SU(2) in the electroweak interaction and SU(3) in quantum chromodynamics.

SU(2) is also identical to one of the symmetry groups of spinors, Spin(3), that enables a spinor presentation of rotations.


We need to decode the U(1) as well. Here is a description that makes it sound pretty much like orbits to me. I’d like to know if it includes ellipses, cause we need that too. Well, who am I kidding, they are going to create all new math once NPQG explodes. That part I can help with is showing the physical correspondences from the geometry to existing theory.

Here is a comment I made on the 4gravitons blog. I will probably stop making comments there because the author has no clue what I am talking about. I get the impression that 4gravitons is a very kind and decent person.

Hi, I hope this isn’t considered off-topic, because I don’t intend it to be. I am only trying to connect the dots. I have just realized while doing some other research that probability amplitude is linked to quantum mechanics. I can explain all of this. It is simply equal and opposite point charges chasing each other around in orbits, or moving in wave equations. The three smallest orbits are way below our ability to detect directly at this point, but we know about them nevertheless. It’s three point charge dipoles at different super high energy scales that are coupled in an SU(3) geometry and they are responsible for the strong force and the domain of QCD.

I call these three coupled dipoles a Noether core, for obvious reasons. Then some many orders of magnitude larger in scale, but still quite small, is the personality layer of a fermion, which can contain 0 or 6 point charges. If 0 you are a neutrino. If 6, you are a quark or an electron or an antiparticle. Point charges have magnitude |e/6| so consider all the combinations of negative:positive point charges : 6:0 (electron), 5:1 and so on – it’s easy to decode the quarks and all the antiparticles. I won’t bore you.

My main point is that I think your amplitudes have a physical source which is very speedy point charges somewhere around the Planck length. Please take into consideration that I am trying to help and I think I see a direct connection to your amplitudes and it seems to me to be an appropriate revolutionary point to bring up in regards to an annual conference. My best to all who are seeking to understand nature and the universe.

I have been listening to a presentation by Dr. Nausheen R. Shah of Wayne State University. I really enjoy and resonate with the way Nausheen thinks about things. This is reaffiring and many ideas are occuring to me. I often think of the spacetime aether as a floating ground. The aether is communicating each particle’s mass = f(apparent energy) via excitations but relative to the local action and reaction, it’s the ground floor, metaphorically and physically!

Thought experiment :

Presume that there are only two particle types in all of nature and the universe. They are a positive point charge and a negative point charge and they are super tiny and indestructible. In this model of nature, we exist because point charges lead to structures emergence at larger and larger scales.

Over your lifetime many of these minus and plus charges will be part of your body and mind for various durations. The same will be true of anyone, including all those we care about. All point charges are indestructible. I could estimate the number of point charges that you will be associated with in this way, but just presume it is an incredibly huge number, i.e., zillions!

If you suspend disbelief and imagine that science were to establish the statements above as scientific fact, I have some questions :

  1. what are your thoughts about nature working that way?
  2. would you feel any sense of comfort to know that the point charges associated with you will continue eternally?
  3. how do you think this scientific concept could be integrated with your belief system, whatever it is?

Why do leptons not feel the strong force? Well, first of all neutrinos don’t have a personality layer to feel anything, so check that off. The remaining leptons are the electron and positron and they have an entirely symmetric point charge layer with six electrinos or six positrinos respectively. This sort of gives them a pass on reacting to the strong force since they are so symmetric. This makes total sense since the strong force is the vector sum of the magnetic fields emitted by the Noether engine.

I love PBS Space Time, but this episode is pure nonsense. There is no such thing as pure vacuum. All space is filled with point charge based structures. What we call spacetime is an aether of relatively low apparent energy structures compared to the energy of the standard model structures which are surrounded AND permeated by the aether structures. You can’t have aether decay, because the density of aether particles in the universe is such that no volumes of pure vacuum of space ever occur (there might be some exceptions at extremely high energy, but I would think those pure pockets of space with no point charges are very small volumetrically.

As I look at this emerging architecture, it must cover small radii point charge structures whether they are high or low energy. Velocity matters. Imagine that, all phase diagrams in chemistry can now be augmented with a velocity dimension. I’ve said it before, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Once this catches on, it’s going to attract an enormous amount of investment. Lots of opportunity for those who quickly learn and advance the point charge architecture.

p.s. to those who don’t seem to get Bose-Einstein condensate I say, oh, c’mon. You never had Jello? pudding? custard? flan? a ripe sapote? What’s the big deal? A BEC is just a 3D structure of spent gyroscopic flywheel batteries. Seriously. spacetime aether is simply low energy Noether cores and other lower energy detritus mingling together. It’s like spacetime aether is a neverending connected sponge of energy, taxing any matter that happens to concentrate and encouraging those structures to get more efficient and hence driving core density higher and higher.

Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts

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

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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