Categories
Nature

Spoiler Alert : Solving Nature

Background : The thesis of NPQG is that a false prior in the 1800’s has stymied the discovery of a parsimonious solution to nature with only two free parameters. That root false prior grew into a tree of false priors which have led to the current crisis in physics and cosmology. These false priors have stumped physicists for 150 years. It is high time to chop down the tree of false priors and grind down the stump.

As I was walking in Boston Common thinking about the tree of false priors in physics and cosmology, I encountered this stump.
stump /stəmp/
noun : the bottom part of a tree left projecting from the ground after most of the trunk has fallen or been cut down.
verb : (of a question or problem) be too hard for; baffle.

I imagined today that I was asked to speak to a group of scientists (e.g., professors, post-docs, grad students, and undergrads in physics, cosmology and mathematics) and clue them into the solution to nature. How could I structure a series of statements so as to give the scientists the maximum opportunity to discover the solution to nature themselves? It’s actually so incredibly simple that I surmise many scientists would prefer to have minimal clues and their own blank canvas to paint upon in their minds. Simply blurting out the solution would be a spoiler for those scientists who would truly enjoy working it out themselves. Furthermore, I expect that this thought experiment discovery at scale with many scientists would be extremely productive and generate oodles of new ideas and insights.

Come to think about it, I should provide a trigger warning before having the entire discussion. Based on personal experience, expressing these ideas is often met with vitriol, bullying, banning, shadow-banning, muting, and who knows what else. I should alert folks that the ideas they are about to hear may trigger a knee-jerk reflex to deny and dismiss.

Considering the trigger warning at a deeper level, those who continue onwards to learn the solution to nature or take leave with a few clues in hand to discover nature on their own, may experience cognitive dissonance and possibly quite uncomfortable feelings akin to anxiety. In what shape does each scientist’s research area enter into the new era? Some sub-fields will require major reframing and recasting. Other area will prove to be nonsense or no longer interesting. What does this mean to their funding, their job, their future? A huge amount of change will sweep through the fields of physics and cosmology. Hopefully these scientists will be comforted upon realizing the enormous opportunities in the new era. Of course, the sheer joy of experiencing a paradigm shift and enlightenment will uplift their spirits as well.

To finesse the denial and dismissal situation, I think it would be entirely necessary to have one or two luminary authority figures lead off with abstract thoughts about paradigm change. Such an intro would give the participants confidence and permission to suspend disbelief and listen carefully. I imagine a precursor version of this process with Dr. Frank Wilczek and Dr. Alan Guth where each went through this discovery process themselves.

Here’s my script :


I. My name is Mark. Nothing about me really matters, because everyone hearing or reading the following statements is capable of discovering the paradigm change and the solution to nature. In my experience, it is incredibly fun and rewarding to go through this process oneself. Therefore, to enable those who wish to discover nature on their own, I will provide a series of statements. If you believe you have enough clues and choose to take leave to discover nature on your own, raise your hand and I will pause while you head off to your creative space and endeavors. We are now at the cusp of a paradigm change and a solution to nature. This statement is the first clue. Any hands? <long pause>


II. The first clue states that we are at the cusp of a paradigm change and a solution to nature. Not just progress. A solution. How can this be? <pause> There was a seminal false prior in the 1800’s that has grown into a tree of false priors — made from errors in narrative interpretation that cloud the ability of current era scientists to break through to the solution. These false priors are in the domain of interpretation and narrative. Raw unprocessed observations stand, as does the math that describes those observations. However, the science based upon false prior narratives which have looped around into the processed observations or math may benefit from being reframed and recast. This statement is the second clue. <pause and hold hand up>


III. Point charges can be imagined anew without the prior issues.


IV. Nature is implemented with a parsimonious constructor set.

  • A Euclidean void in 3D space and time.
  • Positive and negative energy carrying point charges with spherical immutability at a radius near the Planck length. Magnitude |e/6|.
  • Parameter I. Large scale density of point charges.
  • Parameter II. Large scale density of energy carried by point charges.
  • Emergence

Complexity is not fundamental.

Thank you.

J 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: 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/