Categories
Nature

Commenter I : Poor MIT

Recently I wrote a letter titled : Dear MIT : Physics Needs a Compassionate Intervention. I posted a link to the post on a psychologically safe physics discussion group and here are some of the thoughts that emerged from the ensuing discussion.

Commenter I : Poor MIT

Me: When will the tragedy in physics and cosmology be recognized? I would have thought long ago. Physicists apparently can’t imagine that incorrect priors have led to a crisis in the field. I’ve started turning my attention to the fields of chemistry and philosophy which are held back in myriad ways by the incorrect narratives. The geometers are missing out on a wonderful dynamical playground and the breakthroughs in insight and understanding by developing the emergent dynamical geometry of point charges. The pattern on reddit for my postings used to be banning from subreddits and purging my posts and the moderators going into full bully mode. Nowadays it is different. For example in r/particlephysics my posts are sometimes allowed to stay up for a few hours before a silent removal. I don’t get banned. The moderators don’t respond to inquiries. I don’t know what to make of all this. I know for a fact that there are some guardians of physics that track my posts down on reddit and appeal to the moderators to have my posts removed. This at the same time as patterns emerging that should not be possible for a hobbyist to be the first to identify. See my many visualizations of the geometry of point charges at jmarkmorris.com.

Me: I have no problems with the observations and mathematics of GR/QM era physics. I do say the mathematics are a patchwork quilt but that is not to disparage the math, it is simply the result of trying to solve nature while dealing with a tree of false prior interpretations. It’s nothing to get upset about. It happens. That’s why we get paradigm shifts. Nature is really tricky with symmetries and superpositions and false priors make the house of mirrors even more confusing. TL;DR : Nature is simple. Euclidean void in space and time. Energy carrying point charges at -/+ |e/6|. That’s it. Oh, one more thing, you also need immutability — no two point charges can approach closer than a distance around the Planck length.

Commenter I : How is your theory an improvement compared to the other theories? Is it possible to reobtain classical results in Hamiltonian mechanics or EM with your theory ?

Me : It is an improvement because it is far more parsimonious, leads to all known physics, is incredibly easy to reason about in thought experiments, explains all the confusion in physics and cosmology and why the confusion happened, has only two free parameters (this is a huge deal), and makes it easy to solve all big open problems. Those are big claims, and I understand why people are skeptical.

Commenter I : Big claims with no proof at all. Nice drawings although I am very skeptical of the people who claim everybody is wrong and that there is a sort of conspiracy explaining why other physicists (from MIT for example) do not listen at these theories.

Me : Almost 300 blog articles and scores of diagrams are considered to be no proof by you. I lay out the path to enlightenment but it does require that you think for yourself. I too would tend to put MIT scientists on a pedestal, but sometimes science goes off track and needs a reset. Thanks for the complements on the drawings. I’m working on one to depict a logarithmic exploded-view diagram of the fermions. Then I will do the bosons. These diagrams are conceptual geometries. I’m perfectly OK with science refining these. There is still a tremendous amount of work to do.

Commenter I : Well, it is not good proofs for me because it has no impact at all on my studies in physics of plasma.

Me : I suspect that this will revolutionize the science of plasma. One thing to note is that the three dipoles in the Noether core are at radii of orbit far below what is detectable with current observational technology. However, there is a LOT of knowledge about how they work.

Commenter I : How xD? Physics of plasma is largely based on EM plus QM and Hamiltonian/Lagrangian mechanics.

Me : One way this could revolutionize high energy physics is that we will be able to model every single point charge in a reaction and understand the provenance of each one, and the provenance of the substructures they came from. The point charges are immutable, therefore we know that the point charges that go in to a reaction must come out.

Commenter I : Physics of plasma is not only about high energy physics xD. We already use the approximations of point charges in physics of plasma.

Me : EM is good. Hamiltonian/Lagrangian are good and totally apply. Those dipoles are what implement the quantum, in particular h-bar j-s of angular momentum. Oh, sure, plasma covers a range of energies. I was thinking about fusion and tokamaks.

Commenter I : Well I study also physics of fusion and tokamaks xD.

Me : Very cool. I bet that is a blast.

Commenter I : Yep, and we don’t need that kind of theory to work xD.

Me : We don’t have fusion really working at scale either after what, 50 years of expensive research?

Commenter I : The problem is not fusion itself, which is really well explained. The problems comes from the stability but I don’t think it is really your speciality.

Me : I’m just saying, having the source code to nature is extremely valuable and should lead to tremendous advancements. Yet I understand the idea of effective theories and they do work extremely well. Here is why I think that is. Cause those Noether cores are essentially gyroscopic flywheels that trade energy in h-bar and change radius and frequency as a result. Hence, we have some really good ‘effective’ theories which work great.

Commenter 1 : That sounds like gibberish.

Me : Really? Why? Can you not imagine it?

Commenter 1 : nope x)

Me : I was hoping the exploded-view diagram would help others to see what I am seeing.

Commenter 1 : I am an experimentalist (ok a little theorician in physics of plasma also) but not a particle physicist.

Me : Must be fun. If it is helpful, try imagining your protons, neutrons, and electrons as assemblages of point charges. Electrons and quarks have 12. Protons and Neutrons each have 36. I’m starting up a software project to model and visualize how emergence and reactions work. For example, my intuition tells me that three quarks in each proton or neutron are somehow passing their individual Noether core dipoles back and forth and that leads to what we call ‘color charge’. So if that is right, then the dipoles would be the gluons. Also, this explains the revealing of the internal two dipole’s energy which is usually shielded, and hence explains the mass (apparent energy) of the nucleon. Anyway, the point charge model is really easy to reason with. I hope you will consider giving it a go. Nice chat. Thanks for being mostly kind.

Commenter 1 : @LocalExpert do you understand the theory of Mark?

Local Expert : Less than Mark does. I’ve been skimming every few months, but have my own projects to build out. You need a non-zero (need to look up details — it’s a vacuum expectation value of the electromagnetic field issue) to prevent some ugly numerical instability theorems re classical electromagnetic point charge orbits from kicking in. (When relating this to the Standard Model, you can think of this as a “shadow” of the Higgs field. I think one can avoid the same general techniques as compactifying dimensions for string theory, seems like a very small constant should be enough.)

Local Expert : And then there’s still the overall issue with even the Newtonian n-body problem being resistant to numerical simulation with best-known techniques (let alone its relatives, like General Relativistic). The exact shell arrangements re electrino/positrino look like they can be interpreted in terms of the su(2)/su(3) generators for weak and color force … i.e., once you have that electromagnetic Higgs field going you at least can get the duplication of the Faraday tensor into twelve copies fine. (you would be relying on a discrete math model preventing actually equating the charge axes — the “path” taken to the Faraday equation copy has to matter.)

Local Expert : Search engine re-check said what’s needed to stabilize this is a diamagnetic vacuum. It doesn’t need to be a numerically huge effect, as long as it’s noticeable near Planck scale (same quantitative loophole as string theory compactified dimensions: no way to experimentally demonstrate an exact equality about dense-math constants (i.e., rationals are just as bad as reals here, need integers to be able to experimentally demonstrate an exact equality).

Aside : I’ve read some of what Local Expert writes on this forum and it sounds like they know what they are talking about, expressed in the language of 2020 era physics. I have never found a way to converse about a model that requires their setting aside the core narrative interpretations of physics. On the flip side, I am unable to converse in the expert mathematical context woven into the quilt of incorrect narratives. Hence I usually just ask focused questions of such experts about really key intersection with point charge theory. An example would be a query related to superposition and energy shielding and mass.

Commenter II: The way in which you go about this reminds me of a person on a number of history fora that went around propagating his ideas about [the likelihood of success of an alternative history scenario]. It was an interesting conceptual idea but it brought with it a slue of difficulties, some insurmountable. This person however had become, also instigated by the broad disagreement and general dismissal of his ideas on a plethora of fora, absolutely obsessed by his ideas. This obsession also sounded in the way he phrased his ideas and subsequent comments. Moreover, he had become unable to truly scrutinise his own ideas and cherry picked his arguments to support the idea that had formed in his mind. It feels like you have taken an opposite position to a good portion of established physics and that defending that position, rather than the ideas themselves is what you pursue. I could of course be wrong. 🙂

Me : Self-delusion is a powerful drug, and I understand what you are saying, and thank you for your thoughts. However, I think it would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss ideas based on your argument. To me, judging a set of ideas upon things like how far they depart from a crisis of effective theories, or lack of credential of the person bearing the ideas, or lack of publishing in a journal, or even because some might find my writing style annoying (AITA?) — these themselves are unscientific approaches to debunking a logical argument. Instead, I recommend that if someone wants to put any energy at all into engaging with me, then do it productively. Think for yourself. Anyone who follows all the woo-ish nonsense coming out of the fields of physics and cosmology (dark matter, dark energy, singularities, quantum, … it is a very long list and I won’t belabor it further here) yet won’t explore a far more parsimonious theory is very seriously into self-delusion themselves. What is the point of watching woo-ish physics outreach material ad nauseum from each scientist pundit? How many times do you want to be wooed by the double slit experiment or Schrodinger’s cat? Does it release some sort of endorphins to oooh and ahhh at the topics even physicists can not explain in simple understandable and logical terms? TL;DR : I might be self deluding myself, but then again so might 20,000 physicists and their outreach audiences.

Commenter II: Sorry, didn’t mean to offend anyone. I am not saying that all those who think outside the box and all those who go off the beaten path are delusional. I only meant to say that there is a risk involved because the more a person gets involved in their own novel ideas, the stronger things like confirmation bias will start to kick in and the harder it becomes to abandon the ideas. I just wanted to emphasise to always keep reflecting on oneself and be aware of this dynamic. Reading Mark’s response it looks like he is aware, so all good there (although calling quantum woo-ish nonsense is a bit worrisome)

Me : I wasn’t offended by your comment. Maybe I wrote too much in response, but part of the issue I am dealing with is meta. Let’s talk about the historical moment before a paradigm shift. I don’t intend this snarkily, but epicycles to our current understanding of the solar system orbits is a great example. I will google later, but didn’t someone get banished or executed for proposing that new interpretation? I have great interest in the meta layer of how we think about sets of competing ideas. In particular what causes us to have confidence in one set of ideas and skepticism or dismissal of another set? Popping the stack back to my idea set, I naively thought a proposal that has A Euclidean void and two immutable point charge types and two free parameters and really cool geometrical patterns consistent with Coulomb’s law and Maxwell’s equations would have instantly caused interest in the minds of nearly anyone passionate about science or math or philosophy. Yet, I never get pushback on the ideas themselves. 100% of the push-back is in the meta space above sets of ideas. Gosh, I never articulated it even to myself this way before. Fascinating.

Commenter I : I am starting to really dislike you… as an experimentalist I kinda feel attacked by your sayings saying of us that we are followers…

Me : I want you to know that I really do admire and in awe of physicists in general and I think of my efforts as tough love to help your field over a paradigm change. I am in the rather singularly unlikable position of trying to awaken an entire field of people that their field‘s narratives (math is ok) are based upon false prior interpretations and conclusions and that there is a parsimonious and logical way of thinking about nature that appears to work based upon my thinking which I make available ‘open-source’. All I can use are words, symbols, and imagery to try to convey my amateur investigations into 1) a very promising new set of ideas that refurbish a discarded but once promising idea of physicists circa 1800’s, and 2) my sleuthing on how we happened to arrive at this current crisis in physics and cosmology. Do my words sometimes reveal my frustrations, my snarky-ness, and my anger at those who bully me over ideas? Yes!. Thank you PBS Space Time team for providing a psychologically safe discussion space. Could I be kinder and yet still direct and occasionally witty or pithy? Yes! The more I learn about nature, the clearer it is to see how I can apply more finesse to my clumsy challenges to the physics Zeitgeist. Could I make more inroads if I would do that math? Yes. Until now I visualize point charges executing the math. In 2022 I’m hoping to leverage my primitive understanding of the geometry of point charge structures and attempt the math in conjunction with simulations based upon the math. Do you need to like me to engage with these parsimonious ideas? No, you don’t. Would I like to someday be considered a friend of the field of physics? Yes. Is this all a tragedy? Yes.

Commenter II : Have you written a serious and complete paper about your ideas? If you want to convince people you gotta do it with one or several well written papers, that have some good and strong references (to show you are extending and building upon existing knowledge) and most importantly…. math. If I understand your observations correctly they require quite a hefty paradigm shift (just like Einstein back in his days).You cannot attack the foundations of physics without also showing all the oversights the scientific community has apparently been missing the last 100 years. Einstein did just that, with math. Also, when the math checks out, other researchers will be tempted to use your theory and build experiments to try and produce empirical evidence.

Me : I’ve attempted to publish in appropriate journals several times and the papers never even make it to peer review. Sadly, but not really surprisingly, a paper from a hobbyist proposing that physics abandon major narratives has no chance. Plus I received some really snarky responses from top journals. It’s not a psychologically safe space for me.

Commenter III : Physics is not about narratives. Interpretation are not that important, it’s either a mathematical model can reproduce or predict experimental results or it can’t. I still don’t know how to do computations with your theory

Me : The steps I am working on are 1) establishing a basic understanding of thinking about nature with point charges, and 2) linking these ideas up to the standard model. As the collection and detail of the linkages improve, including mathematical linkages, the better the evidence for point charges in a Euclidean void as the (next) basis of nature. If point charges are a progenitor of the observables which are effectively explained by the standard model, then we could all feel comfortable rebasing on nature being defined as emergence over a sea of energetic point charges in a Euclidean void of space and time. I find that to be a beautiful and parsimonious formulation of nature. To me it makes total sense. Point charges either repel or attract. We know Coulomb’s law and its implications. We know that the laws of gravity are curiously akin to Coulomb’s law. We know that gravitation leads to orbits. Same thing with Coulomb’s law and a positive and negative charge that attract. They orbit. That is your first structure. A dipole orbit. I truly love imagining how such a universe would work and the point charge structures that would form. I think I have posted this chart before, but here is one decoding of point charge structures and substructures into the standard model. Those point charges in the Noether core are orbiting at extremely small radii. The photon is on the chart. The technology that experimentalists employ to observe is based upon photons that are arriving at detectors. How would we observe the dipoles in a Noether core or a personality layer with a photon? I think the answer is that we would try to weave the patterns we see in the photons into a mathematical theory and then try to map that into the overall collection of mathematical theories we call the standard model. TL;DR “The photons is on the chart!

Me : I appreciate each of you participating in this discussion so much. I know it can be frustrating to grind out new ideas, but you are and continue to be a tremendous help in these discussions. I offend an experimenter. I feel empathetic. I try to be more E.Q. and think about it from their perspective — and I realize, the photon is on the chart! Experimenters are the masters of measuring and analyzing photons. That is a huge insight that will be invaluable in the explanation of how we got here and why. As I always say, nature is a trickster. Nature gave us photons to figure out what is going on around us at any distance, accounting for the path and speed of the photon. Yeah, this totally makes sense to me why it would be incredibly hard to figure out what is really going on. TL;DR Nature is a trickster.

Me : One of my favorite thought experiments is to imagine how photons might be constructed by point charges. Perhaps you might enjoy it too? The constraint is that the structure must generate the familiar EM waveform we observe. Imagine a a pair of similar energy dipoles coupled together and flying through space. Let’s say they are slightly offset from each other in time so there is no risk of the dipoles destabilizing by colliding. Imagine that these two electrino-positrino dipoles are rotating in opposite directions. I find slowing down mental visualization can be helpful and less taxing :sweat_smile:. Imagine the superposition of the electromagnetic fields of the counter-rotating dipoles. Imagine the locations of space where superposition leads to cancellation of the electromagnetic fields. In this experiment let’s consider dipole frequency low enough that c is a negligible factor in the field cancellation. In my imagination what remains is the familiar electromagnetic waveform we know and love. One of my other favorite thought experiments is to build upon this one and imagine how the different forms of polarization work. p.s. I have no idea what the inner two dipoles are doing in each of these conjoined Noether cores. Blissfully shielded in a cocoon? Propulsion?

krcrtv.com

BRAINWARE INTERRUPT : This is an example of where I blurt something out and a meta-thought goes “Wait, wut did you just say?!” “Propulsion? Are you serious?” “You know everything is redshifting and we don’t know why, right?” Do those two things have anything to do with each other for the photon structure or in general for any standard matter particle structure (see chart above)? Wait, is this a brain fart? This sounds bizarre. Hold up, it’s right on top of an area with a lot of unknowns. Why do photons fly around at c for example? How are we to understand DeBroglie wavelengths? It fits with the idea of the Noether core as the main energy engine. Gotta go think on this.

J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts

p.p.s. A bit more dialog the next day :

Commentor II : Mark, I like your ideas and the dedication you show. You seem to have a reasonable grasp of the existing theoretical body, as well as on your your own ideas. BUT, there’s always a but. Interpretations and narratives are virtually infinite. If one would try, they can come up with an infinite number of interpretations that can fit neatly together and are even able to explain reality up to a certain point, if you invest enough time you can explain everything using your imagination. Heck, even Flat Earth can explain a lot of phenomena while using an incorrect model of our solar system and the rules it abides by. This is also part of why String theory has difficulty really catching on (although the maths check out, but also don’t).
So again, your interpretations and explanations for certain phenomena can check out, but that cannot be the end of it, the maths has to check out as well and it needs to be able to make predictions. You have a good story, imaginative and seemingly able to explain someobservations but unfortunately it is not that important that the story fully fits together, assuming that our brain is not capable of grasping the full nature of reality (if there even is such a thing).
That perhaps also explains the hostility you come across, because you have a story, but people will say: “anyone can make up a story, I don’t see why this would be a better one.” Add to that your conviction that your story is able to compete with ideas (and ‘win’!) that have been able to stand the test of time for over a 100 years with thousands upon thousands of very smart people diving deep into it; ideas with a myriad of experimental, mathematical and observational evidence and I can understand why people are not so open to your ideas. Perhaps this is my recommendation: don’t see your own ideas as the truth but as an intriguing alternative explanation that still needs a lot of work. Until that work is done, don’t dismiss the existing ideas as it will not help you.

Me : I hear what you are saying and agree with a lot of it. Thank you. I have done all my work “open source” for a number of reasons, and that exposes the difficult and challenging times when fumbling around the dark cave trying to understand how nature works (as in the allegory of the cave). I also had the naive view that physicists would catch on quickly as I started linking up to their standard model. For both reasons, I suspect I have been silently muted or shadow-banned by quite a few physicists. I also had the thought that open collaboration on a new model which doesn’t require sophisticated Ph.D. level knowledge could be exciting and that bright folks who are not in academia, like many of us in the PBS Space Time audience, might join the effort. Here’s to hoping that the math emerges in 2022! I can sort of see the light at the entrance to the cave but as I approach I keep finding shiny objects to go think about, like some of the ideas yesterday. These will inform the math, so I am ok with these mental excursions.

Commentor IV : In my opinion, this is the biggest and most important take-away. We’ve learned from physics already that multiple seemingly-opposed interpretations can be true: e.g. in relativity, observers disagree on distances and times, yet they’re still both right. In QM, both Copenhagen and MWI fit with the math, and they’re both right in their own ways. I think the key here will be to understand and accept how and why the current theoretical framework works really well, while nevertheless perhaps introducing and presenting an alternate framework that could potentially work just as well. It’s not an either or situation. And then of course realizing that in order to communicate these ideas, one must adapt to the common language being spoken. For “modern physicists” , they must understand how these ideas can be reconciled to their own known and observed phenomena. But the other important thing here, I think, is establishing a translation key that doesn’t depend so vastly on accepting outright the proposed elements of the new theory.(Not a physicist, just a hobbyist and observer).

Me : Very well said! I agree.

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: https://www.paypal.me/johnmarkmorris

https://jmarkmorris.com
https://twitter.com/J_Mark_Morris
https://www.facebook.com/NPQG/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmarkmorris/