I made a post on reddit despite my trepidation. Mind you, this was in r/ParticlePhysics. The comments became quite interesting including yet another ambassador of physics trying to shoo me away. You can look up the reddit post for the comment string in the unlikely event that the moderators have not removed it, but here is some of the thread.
This is going to get a little harsh, but given the amount of your life you’ve spent on this already I feel like maybe some mildly tough love is appropriate to prevent more time being lost.Commenter
If physicists had been cooperative as opposed to adversarial, I could have guided them to the solution to nature by year end 2018. However, proceeding without their engagement and my thought experiments alone has taken three additional years.
Three years is enough time that you could have already completed an undergraduate degree in physics. You were advised to do this (as a stepping stone to a PhD) by the experts you contacted. If you go against professional advice you shouldn’t be surprised when you get undesirable outcomes.
All you have to do is define two flavors of energetic immutable charged field generators. You can keep your patchwork quilt of fields and math which are basically good, even though they are way overly complicated. Nature is so much simpler. To make real progress you need to redefine your theories and math to be expressed in terms of these charged field generators interacting with each other and in some cases with their own field.
You are overestimating your own understanding of physics and your progress towards something useful. Or perhaps it is that you are underestimating the level of complexity of the subject due to mostly reading popular science. Either way, since you come from a database/computing background I will try to give an analogous story from that perspective (I apologise for my own lack of expertise in this subject).
Imagine that you are at work constructing a database model, tweaking network configs, or measuring performance/failures under different access patterns. Suddenly someone you’ve never heard of emails you and politely says that they have a revolutionary idea for a “POSIX compliant distributed TCP/IP auto-healing database network” that can easily outperform PostgreSQL. Plus it’s so much simpler and easier than anything on the market at the moment! You’re a bit confused because none of that sounded right at all. There were words related to the subject and the sender didn’t seem to be too crazy, if a bit grandiose, but it really didn’t sound like the sender was too well-acquainted with what they were talking about.
There’s a link to a website and it’s more of the same. Everything feels off, and this person doesn’t appear to have actually created a minimally working database system yet at all, it’s just claims. Plus when you start looking into it the person seems to have never worked with database systems before, and has no idea how to do programming either. How can they expect to make one from scratch? When you dig deeper it seems as though their idea is to use files stored in Dropbox as a database server, and they believe this can solve literally all modern database issues even though they didn’t actually test it yet. They’ve not understood the basics of how and why modern systems work. And certainly not all the technicalities, pitfalls, or prior work. You tell them to go and do a degree in computer science and gain some experience working in the field before attempting anything so difficult and technical. But they’re adamant that SQL was a mistake and relational models are overly complicated. Every problem can obviously be solved with a networked file system!
This is what reading your writings is like. You have no training but you declare all experts to be dogmatic and too rigid to accept your simple solution. This is morbidly fascinating, but the lack of self-awareness is utterly incredible.
Obviously there are unsolved problems in physics, that’s why it still exists as a subject. At some point there will likely be a new model confirmed or an experiment that finally breaks the Standard Model directly. But no-one is going to listen to you until you prove that you’re worth listening to. That takes years of focused learning to understand the subject properly, and several more years of experience doing research to be able to contribute meaningfully.
I suggest that you just let the whole thing go as a brain worm that you got too invested in. Enjoy life doing something more immediately productive, you’ll be happier for it.
That’s kinda funny and I appreciate the effort you put into lovingly trying to straighten me out. Seriously I do. In other situations that might make sense and be very kind.
In my world view, this is yet another amusing event in this tragi-comedy of my relationship with those who act as authorities on physics (sorry I don’t remember your background, but I do presume you are a bonafide physicist). I am attempting to straighten out some 20,000 physicists (I read that was the size of the profession) so the rest of science can get on with it having the entire set of blueprints to nature and then technology entrepreneurs will leverage that knowledge to truly usher in the era of abundance. The main goals in my ethos being to improve the well being and reduce the suffering of intelligent individuals, to improve the environment on Earth, and to enable intelligent individuals to spread throughout the universe.
Did you study the New Physics in Pictures that I linked above? I would like you to come to understand that it will be possible to connect all of your math and observations to this model. Do you have a visceral feel for what will happen with this set of universe ingredients and emergence of assemblies?
You know, maybe it is good that I topped out at BSEE, because I still remember quite vividly how electromagnetic fields and Maxwell’s equations work in conjunction with classical mechanics. Now, those will both need to be augmented and reformulated, but still they are quite good approximations of nature as you already know. Physicists have invested careers to develop the next levels of approximations, but let’s be intellectually honest — physics is currently a patchwork quilt of sub-theories and specific observations and there is no unifying understanding of how nature is physically implemented. Please don’t try to influence me with the ‘dozen digits of precision‘ story. We both know that something in nature is clicking off h-bars for 1044 different states. Are you kidding me, 12 digits? That’s nothing compared to what you will be able to calculate if I can just help you look at the same situation inside out, from the basis of nature.
I don’t know if it will ever be possible for me to break thru with my unrequited intellectual love for physicists. Here is one more try, focusing on things physicists are quite confused about. Consider these items in relation to the New Physics in Pictures I linked earlier in this thread.
- You observe neutrino mass oscillations, but it perplexes you. How can a single particle exhibit oscillating mass? Once you realize that the triplex Noether engine containing three spinning dipoles, each consisting of an electrino and positrino point charge at -/+ |e/6|, is the heart of every standard matter particle as well as any other exotic as well as the detritus of particles that make the spacetime aether then you are on your way to understanding nature. Imagine that. Three orbiting electrino : positrino point charge pairs. Each with 1044 energy levels. Three different orbital planes and the angles between them. Oh sure they are technically elliptical, but I’ll leave that to the professionals. And they are perturbable. Oh, and now consider the group velocity of the assembly through a spactime aether made of the same Noether core based assembles, but at very low apparent energy.
- Imagine photons that have redshifted to the point where they can no longer maintain a planar 2D oriented boson structure and sort of puff up and drop out of light speed and become a neutrino or directly join the aether. Similarly neutrinos redshift and tire and eventually drop in speed and eventually join the aether. Now consider that those energy levels of the three orbitals might lead to orbital radius of 10-24, 10-28, 10-32. Just making that up but imagine it. That’s gonna create some rather interesting magnetic fields don’t you think?
- Consider that the way this works, these electrino-positrino dipoles are implementing general relativity and the quantum! Yes, this is what I was trying to get at before – and it all links to Planck’s law and the equations for the Planck constants. You just have to understand the transformation, of which you already have 99% in your equations. Maybe 100%,
- The geometry of orbiting point charges must account for the virtual position from whence they perceive their partner’s emitted field. The image of your partner can be delta away on the arc in front of you. And the image of yourself can be a delta behind you on the circular, er elliptical, arc.
- The two inner electrino : positrino orbits in each Noether core are quite energetic and they correspond to Gen II and III of the standard model. That is to say the Noether energy core has a simplex, duplex, and triplex models. Physicists sorta named generations the wrong way, so now we have this weird translation formula : fermion generation + Noether dipoles = 4. Sigh. Please fix this in the next era. And not just for fermions. For the whole standard model.
- Ok, that was a bit pedantic but it seems to suggest that every standard matter particle has orders of magnitude more energy than science realizes. Thankfully nature doesn’t provide easy ways to get at that energy or we wouldn’t be here. But you can see the evidence of that energy in the particle showers from proton-proton collisions at CERN for example. Still we will need to modify Drake’s equation now. Perhaps the knowledge of nature enables nitwits to destroy that information.
- Ok, so let’s talk about FIELDS defined for specific standard model particles. Each and every one of them is caused by some configuration of point charges, and often when they form structures of point charges in orbitals and wave equations. Just think of a bunch of point charges flying around in knots. Gen I fermions have 12 point charges as does a photon. Protons and Neutrons have 36, including three of the Noether cores. Physics’ “fields” are the scalar and vector potentials cast off by those assemblies.
- It will be a lot easier to figure out wave equations when you can decompose the superposition down to specific orbitals. Then we have the ‘inflaton’ field which is simply the Noether core going from an incredibly high energy state and losing energy quickly and it’s radius growing. That’s it. Same point charges, different situation. Well, if you looked at my New Physics in Pictures you already see the hints of the geometrical structure.
If that doesn’t get through to physicists, I don’t know what will. Perhaps physicists are unrecoverable. Too far off track to rope back to reality. I’ve already started engaging chemistry academics and finding them to be very kind and inquisitive. My recommendation is that physicists engage as quickly as possible with this new era and own it and own the screw-ups for the past 150 years. Face the music. It may be painful in the short term as the paradigm shifts, but the opportunity is enormous and will be largely low hanging fruit. I predict most of you will have lucrative opportunities in government and corporate research labs. What did you think the start of the era of resource abundance would look like?
I appreciate that you have this worldview. You absolutely believe that you are correct, it makes sense to you, and it’s incredibly important. But to experts this is a lot of assumptions and jumbled wording. You assume that your model agrees with observations, but you never prove it! That’s what doing physics is all about, and it allows us to quantify whether models are good or bad without resorting to subjective opinion. Doing that properly requires years of hard study and work.
The main problem I see is that your personal identity is now connected to your idea being broadly correct, and worryingly it is also connected to the idea that experts are wrong. The idea cannot be wrong or confusing because you don’t feel wrong or confused. And if experts can’t understand your explanations or dismiss you then they must be wrong/biased/etc because the idea is clearly correct and easy! It’s pretty circular, and ultimately it circles around your personal identity rather than actual proof and testing.
I suppose I should ask, how can we possibly convince you this is a bad way to go about physics when you don’t value expertise in this area anymore? Your brain has put you into a cognitive trap from which nothing can pull you out because you don’t want to be pulled out.It’s nice to have dreams, but living in them all the time is addictive and hinders your real life.
This is classic Dunning-Kruger effect. You most likely remember things like Faraday’s law, Lenz’s law, right hand rule, etc. But even the basics of classical electrostatics, electrodynamics, and the relativistic formulations are beyond you at the moment. I don’t judge you for this, most people never learn this stuff and it takes real effort to become fluent in them (I’m not anymore after not using it for a few years). But I cannot overstate how incredibly far out of your depth you are. When constructing your ideas you have ignored the entire subject of electrodynamics as if it’s a maths detail to fill in later despite it being the entirety of your model! Why on earth should I believe that the gravitational, weak, and strong forces are a complicated outcome of electrodynamics when you can’t even prove the basics of this being plausible and free of contradictions?
I just cannot fathom beleiving so strongly in anything without mountains of study, experience, predictions, maths, and expert review backing it up. I don’t trust my own work until I test it thoroughly. That doesn’t make my work infallible or always correct, far from it, but it’s an excellent way to keep grounded.
I appreciate your efforts, I really do. However, both you and the field of physics are lost. The ONLY reason that things are so hard is that you haven’t figured out the fundamental geometry of nature. How can I explain this to you? Ahh, the allegory of the cave. You started on top of a solid rock mountain filled with valuable ore. Unfortunately you missed seeing the elevator on top of the mountain that takes you down to level -36, 10-36. From that level you can easily see the geometry of nature and how everything evolves. You really don’t need much math at this level if you do the following:
- guess/intuit the geometry
- watch, listen, read volumes of physics outreach media
- catch the key mechanisms and problems and the ‘poker tells’ of physicists where they aren’t comfortable with their own explanations.
- figure out which narratives of physics are wrong or incomplete
- repeat until done.
It turns out it’s not that hard to figure out nature this way. However, physicists missed the entrance to the elevator in the 1870’s or rather a bad prior occurred that obscured the entrance to the elevator. Instead physicists embarked on a journey to rappel down the sheer rock cliffs of the mountain and do experiments from the outside that only gave hints and shadows of nature inside. These are like the shadows from the allegory of the cave. It is very confusing and that explains why physicists, starting with one wrong prior have compounded the problem with at least a dozen more incorrect narratives. That all said, considering that they are doing science the hardest way possible, physicists have done an amazing job figuring out their patchwork quilt of theories and mathematics.
Can you see how this explains your perspective and makes me just a fairly normal and creative problem solver who tripped over the entrance to the elevator and then got on to 10-36? Because I accidentally guessed the simple solution and was not confused by wrong priors and unnecessarily and overly complex mathematics, I was not biased or blinded to nature. We’re gonna need a new name for the opposite of Dunning-Kruger. When an entire field goes astray and thinks they are too intelligent for anyone else to understand them. Physicists ARE intelligent and that is why this is all such a tragedy. Ok, enough of that.
Let’s get back to solving nature. I’ve got the basic geometry now and all problems will easily be solved going forward. It is the architecture and blueprint of nature. Study my new physics in pictures images at the link above. Can you now explain precisely the root causes of lepton number, baryon number, and strangeness? Can you come up with a more general understanding of these numbers? It is truly easy with the information I have given. There are 17,700 members in this sub-reddit. Does anyone else want to give this a try? If no one else does it, I’ll add a picture to my linked page in a day or so showing how it works.
Now, to the question of whether I should do the math. Wouldn’t that just add insult to injury? I mean I am rather sad that physicists predecessors have thrown current era physicists under the bus like this. When I started I had no idea that physics was built on a rickety foundation with many incorrect prior interpretations. To be frank, it will need to be torn down below the current foundation and entirely rebuilt. Fortunately, almost all of your most accepted theories and math have a role and can be refurbished and reused in the next era of physics (or chemistry if physicists don’t get a move on soon!).
I suspect by now that some physicists already are picking up on what I am talking about and quietly advancing it in stealth. They want to beat the rest of you to the papers and prizes or maybe they are in the “defense” industry. Or maybe they are like me and just want to improve the lot of intelligent beings and their environment. In any case, it won’t be long now until this new architecture of nature goes exponential.
Best to you all,
J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts