Dear People of **MIT**,

Hello. My name is Mark. I live in Boston and work in Cambridge. I am passionate about knowing and understanding nature’s implementation at its most fundamental level we can fathom. I have ** extremely parsimonious** ideas about nature that are “

*in high tension*” with the present

*narratives*of physics and cosmology. I think this tension can be explained by a deficiency of the scientific method, specifically an inability to detect the likelihood of false priors and self-correct.

I hope these ideas will be of interest to those with* a wide range of foci,* in particular those in the fields of Chemistry, Philosophy of Science, Mathematics (especially Dynamical Geometry), Business, and Engineering.

Observations are a form of ground truth. I am in awe of the mathematical quiltwork that supports the effective theories of physics. However, I consider the modern **narratives** of general relativity, quantum theories, and LCDM cosmology to be seriously flawed due to a hierarchy of false prior ** narratives**. I would roughly trace those incorrect interpretations to the Michelson-Morley experiment era and more specifically the banishing of point charges to the isle of misfit theories. The scientific method is quite vulnerable to false priors. When an academic community loses its way on natural truth it is very difficult for it to get back on track.

Consider the positioning of a physics theory as being “an effective theory” where the math matches the observations to incredible precision. Some scientists tout the interpretation of this precision in ways I find ironic in a universe where energy is discretely transacted in h-bar (*j-s of angular momentum*). To spell this claim out clearly, it is tantamount to a precision virtual engineer slowly rappelling down an energy well that reaches 10^{-35}. When they are at 10^{-20}, **some 15 orders of magnitude from the foundation**, they shout up, “*still looks good here — can confirm transactions in h-bar!*”

Once the proponents of a theory capitulate to it being an effective theory, then that theory is no longer attempting to **solve** nature. Designating a theory as “effective” is honorable. These theories are exactly what they say, **effective**, meaning the math and observation match. Hence, we can take these as measured points of truth in nature. The theory and observations become important bedrock for science and technology and also establish and serve as test points for future theories.

Nature, personified, is a trickster. There are so many symmetries and superpositions it will make even the brightest scientists head spin. Now introduce a false prior into this high energy cauldron of interpretations. We can’t even see the false prior so deftly does it hide. Imagine trying to understand the patterns and having a false prior or priors clouding your understanding.

What do we do with the narratives that have evolved around an effective theory? My perspective is that the narratives associated with an effective theory are not to be considered a true description of nature. Those narratives represent the best reasoning, imagination, and visualizations of the scientists of each era, building on prior scientists work product, and trying to piece together the swaths of nature’s reveal into a quilt that suggests a coherent picture and description of nature.

From what I can tell, there are no new ideas required to solve nature. All it takes is a voyage first to Greece to pick up a Euclidean void in space and time, and then to the isle of misfit theories to pick up the point charges and refurbish them. Imagine that nature grants point charges immutability through limiting their closest approach. This is not a huge leap in imagination. Physicists already have enough of the math. It is fairly straightforward to do the mapping, once you get an inkling of the geometry of the structures that emerge.

Our best efforts to describe and model nature, *in my opinion*, should offer an implementation, defined as a set of ingredients and laws in conjuction with natural emergence, that lead to the reality we observe.

Imagine the universe that would emerge from these ingredients :

- A Euclidean void in space and time.
- A (large scale) density of equal and opposite point charges, which are the only carriers of kinetic and potential energy.
- the electrino (imagine a blue sphere) with a charge of -|e/6|
- the positrino (imagine a red sphere) with a charge of +|e/6|

- Classical mechanics and electromagnetism informed by this implementation of nature. Specifically, no two point charges may approach closer than a certain distance which is on the order of the Planck length. This natural law gives point charges immutability.

How many free parameters are needed to describe this universe? Two.

- The large scale volumetric density of point charges.
- The large scale energy density carried by the point charges (kinetic + electromagnetic potential)

N.B., I presume nature provides point charges in a ratio of 1 to 1.

**That’s it.**

That’s all you need. I highly recommend a deep think about these ideas. I’ve been thinking about them since January 2018. It took me a while to reduce to this set of ingredients. I recommend to begin your imagination at the peak of energy density, where a spinning sphere of point charges is packed to the most extreme density. The point charges are locked in and can not move relative to one another. I’m visual, so I imagine blue and red marbles tightly packed. Hence the ideal such sphere of packed point charges has one microstate and zero relative entropy (*a new term?*).

I find it to be truly amazing fun to imagine the dynamical reactions that might occur should an extremely high density orb of point charges breach to a region of space with less dense and energetic point charges. I imagine this would occur at the poles of the spinning orb of point charges. This is a good place to start a thought experiment. Ok, nature has unleashed immutable point charges at peak energy that obey Coulomb’s law. What happens next? Enjoy your thought experiments, if you choose to do so. If you want a goal, map the emergent structures to the standard model. It took me a few years, but I would guess that if you have the confidence that there is a completely easy, logical, and straightforward solution, finding that solution may only take hours to days for you.

*Spoiler alert* : What can we conclude so far about this universe? Immutability is a powerful concept. We see that it is impossible to have singularities and wormholes in this universe. Also, it is a single universe by nature of having only one Euclidean void of space and time. Theory checks out with **common sense** so far.

I am very interested to hear about your discoveries of the structures that form from the maelstrom. My primitive imaginations are at jmarkmorris.com.

*J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts*