Categories
Nature

Hamiltonian, Paul Sutter Edition

Let’s review a new comment-worthy outreach video from Dr. Paul M. Sutter. Suit up, recline for launch, buckle in, and engage your mind. p.s. If you enjoy and/or benefit from Paul’s outreach please consider supporting his channel with a subscription. I renewed today!

Paul’s video about loop quantum gravity is very well done. He does a great job describing the mental reorientation required to understand LQG’s attempt to explain spacetime with quantum objects with size on the order of Planck length at 10-35 meters. Reframing is required! We’ll get into the implications on the other side of the video. T-minus 20 minutes and ten seconds until ignition and lift off. Open your mind and enjoy.

0:00 — Paul imagines a Broadway musical titled “Hamiltonian” where the cast is comprised of photons, neutrinos, quarks, W bosons, and all the other characters (structures) in the Standard Model .

The title of the musical is a pun contrasting the popular Broadway musical “Hamilton” to the “Hamiltonian” in physics, which represents total energy as the sum of kinetic and potential energies. I readily admit, that a nerdy wonk marble in my gumball machine of consciousness, finds this to be a hilarous vision. I imagine a CGI version with my point charge animations of the characters. Here are the cast of Hamiltonian, point charge edition.

0:40 — Paul describes the stage as a background that “supports the action of the actors.” He relates the stage to spacetime in our universe. This is a mistaken conception in GR/QM/LCDM era science. The stage in our universe is a passive Euclidean void in space and time. In our universe, spacetime is an aether of tiny particles with low apparent energy, and these spacetime particles are actors as well. The table sums up the situation. Bold red indicates wrong science.

Theories vs. Space/TimeEuclidean space and timeEinsteinian spacetime
Newtonian MechanicsPassive background of the universe.No concept of spacetime.
General RelativityNo concept of a Euclidean background.

Low energy spacetime behaves like Euclidean space and time.
The background of the universe is described as a GEOMETRY
that interacts gravitationally with quantum mechanical matter.

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
are not integrated in this model.

Matter tells spacetime how to curve,
and curved spacetime tells matter how to move.”
J. A. Wheeler

String TheoryPassive background of the universe.The graviton particle mediates the force of gravity.
Incomplete understanding and
integration of general relativity.
Loop Quantum GravitySpace and time are quantized, i.e., discrete.
Matter moves in tiny quantum leaps through spacetime.
Incomplete understanding and

integration of general relativity.
NaturePassive background of the universe.Spacetime is implemented by an aether of point charge
structures exhibiting low apparent energy.

Isomorphic with Einstein’s geometry.

7:40 — Paul notes that LQG uses mathematics of spin networks or spin foams. The term “spin network” is very interesting. I can imagine reusing that term describe a particle structure as a spin network of immutable point charges. LQG doesn’t contemplate point charges, but I wonder if the mathematics of LQG spin networks are leverageable in the point charge model of nature. Unfortunately, the mapping between LQG spin networks and systems of orbiting charged orbs is not immediately apparent (to me) at the moment.

8:50 — “The hallmark of [quantum mechanics] is a whole bunch of math that makes great predictions but [scientists] have a really hard time putting into words and conceptualizing what is actually happening.” Huh. You don’t say. That pretty much fits with particle physicists punting into the intellectual swampland of effective theories.

10:55 — Paul talks about the LQG concept that there is an indivisible smallest unit of discrete spacetime and the implication that there are no singularities. Ok, super. Keep going. Paul mentions that this resolves the issue around general relativity that the center of a black hole would have to be infinitely dense. Ok, go on. Pffft. Arghh, no discussion of the implications. Paul mentions the Big Bang as another case where a singularity arises. Ok, getting close. Put 1 and 1 together, c’mon you can do it. Pffft. Nada. Insight opportunity squandered. Lemaître’s ghost gloats glorifying “God’s genesis”. Wait, this brings the Big Crunch and Big Bounce back into play. Shades of Sir Roger’s CCC. Alas, it is too much cognitive dissonance for LQG theorists to see beyond the fallacies and reorient to the mundane behaviour of nature emergent from point charges.

Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science  And The Bible: Schroeder, Gerald: 9780553354133: Amazon.com: Books
Not even wrong senior meets Not even wrong junior?

From the point charge universe perspective, it is fascinating to look back in history at the ideas comparing and contrasting two incredibly wrong theories. One central conclusion must be that the electrinos and positrino structures in the human brain have a remarkable talent for self-delusion.

The human brain‘s electrino and positrino structures are skilled at self-delusion.

16:20 — “Loop quantum gravity should contain within itself general relativity.” It is easy to see why LQG fails in this respect if we examine from the perpective of NPQG. The problem is that LQG’s vision for the quantum of spacetime does not implement variation in volume or frequency with energy. That is what is needed for general relativity to be mapped properly.

Since 2022 is the year for progress on NPQG math and simulation, it makes eminent sense to begin formulating the Hamiltonian of immutable point charges in a Euclidean void of space and time. Stay tuned and/or collaborate! Nature is open source!

J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts

p.s. I posted a blurb on YouTube :
Hi Paul and fellow space cadets. If folks are willing to open their minds to loop quantum gravity, then considering Planck scale immutable point charges should be reasonable as well.The model works out exceedingly well and I am building a mountain of evidence that it is isomorphic to the patchwork quilt we call the standard model. I invite you to check out my review and response to this episode here : https://johnmarkmorris.com/2022/02/04/hamiltonian-paul-sutter-edition/

p.p.s. I find it ironic that we know that…

1) the laws of Newtonian (low energy) gravitation are remarkably similar to the laws of point charges (Coulomb’s law)

2) we see with our own eyes that structures of orbiting orbs form at different scales, planet-moon systems, solar systems, binary mergers, galaxies, clusters

3) we know that zooming in or out in scale is an idempotent operation. Our minds can easily zoom over 60 orders of magnitude.

4) and yet, though it has dawned on physicists before to model nature with orbiting orbs (such as the Bohr atom), the idea has been out of favor for 100 – 150 years.

5) really? all because no scientist thought about imagining a rule in nature where no two point charges could approach closer than somewhere around the Planck Length?

6) with the veritable mountain of woo-ish cognitive dissonance in physics and cosmology, why was there never an Apollo 13 moment where the leaders of these fields got together and said, “Ok, let’s drop all the nonsense woo. What exactly are we looking at if all these paradoxes resolve in favor of common sense?”

Frankly, it boggles my mind that scientists have not been able to intuit nature from observed behaviour and dualities. There are dozens of ways to illusrate this, such as “Gee the universe looks really flat, except around really high energy orbs. Maybe we should try a model where the universe really is fundamentally flat (ala Euclidean space and time) and then imagine an overlay layer that inflates, expands, and dilates its shape with energy? Wait, wut!? Hold up, could that relate to what we’ve been calling dark matter and dark energy?”

Is it possible that due to the maze created by a growing tree of wrong priors, that physicists got so lost and wrapped around the axle on math, that they are incapable of imagining a physical implementation? Even that should be ok though, because it’s still math. Weird, huh?

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/