Categories
Nature

Innovation Contest

I’ve entered NPQG in an innovation contest! In a sense it feels odd because it seems to me like a gargantuan idea entering a contest that would typically draw less lofty concepts. On the other hand, the NPQG model is first and foremost extremely mundane and parsimonious. I guess it fits right in, even if it is the source code to nature. Ha!

Object oriented model of nature.

Idea

The source code to nature provides the greatest opportunites to
1) improve well-being and reduce suffering of individuals,
2) repair and care for the environment and biota of Earth
3) enable intelligent life to explore and populate the universe.

Problem and Opportunity

New technology.

Category

What is the implementation of nature? Modern physics is in a 50 to 100 year crisis with respect to this question, according to luminaries in the field. In fairness, physics has diverged into “effective” theory that has produced new technologies. The mathematics of physics is incredibly complex, nuanced, and accurate. These circumstances have resulted in physicists who are loathe to discuss bold new paradigm changing ideas with anyone inside or especially outside of academia. Why and how did this situation come to be?

The scientific method has failed to ameliorate the crisis in understanding the physical implementation of nature. The scientific method allows for a lazy passive correction of erroneous technical or narrative priors through the ongoing march of scientific study. However, the scientific method has no provision for proactively detecting false priors of any magnitude, and in particular, major false priors that have mis-directed the course of science.

The period 1870 to 1930 was remarkable for physics. First the Michelson-Morley experiment was interpreted as falsifying the concept of an aether permeating the universe. Jefimenko, Lienard, and Wiechert explored unit potential point charges and their path histories during a time where little was known about charge or photons. Einstein examined variable speed of light theories a decade before he transformed that variation into a characteristic of a curvy geometry of spacetime, with no implementation. The 1927 Solvay conference participants presided over a sea change from classical to quantum understanding of nature.

What if all of these seminal decision points in physics history were incorrect — either technically or narratively — leading to effective theories without revealing the implementation of nature? What if a simple and parsimonious solution was missed? Nature, personified, is a trickster. The symmetries of nature lead to bountiful interpretations that often seem quite sensible or at least useful in their domain. Physicists have made an art of being lost in this fun house of mirrors.

Jefimenko, Lienard, and Wiechert did their work at a time when charge was thought to come in units of +1 and -1. This was long before physics learned of quarks with their +/- 1/3 and +/- 2/3 charges. This was also a time where the speed of light and the speed of the electromagnetic field were being measured to high precision and quantified as the universal constant “c”. As a result, point charges were assumed to be limited to velocities less than or equal to c.

Let’s change these two assumptions and see what happens. First, let’s give point charges the magnitude + or – |1/6|, i.e., the charge equivalent of 1/6th a proton or 1/6th an electron. Let’s put no limit on the velocity of a point charge. Finally, let’s make an intuitive leap that groups or assemblies of point charges transiting orbital patterns, create what we call standard matter particles, emitting patterns in the potential field that science calls wave equations.

Instead of a Lego set, Lincoln logs, Kinnex, or Tinker toys we have a Euclidean void in time and space and a population of energetic unit potential point charges. Does emergence build nature from this source code? Buckle up.

First, note that any pair of plus and minus point charges is neutral — because of the concept of superposition which tells us that we can sum all incoming potential fields to determine the local scalar value. This gives us a degree of freedom when imagining assemblies of point charges.

Let’s imagine a point charge sub-assembly object that is net neutral, and which is able to bond exactly 6 additional point charges, each with magnitude |1/6|. What are the possible charges of the resultant assemblies?

  • 6-/0+ = -1
  • 5-/1+ = -2/3
  • 4-/2+ = -1/3
  • 3-/3+ = 0
  • 2-/4+ = +1/3
  • 1-/5+ = +2/3
  • 0-/6+ = +1

Wait, what just happened? We imagined a net neutral object that requires six personality point charges, each magnitude 1/6, and the net result is a set of objects with net charge in multiples of 1/3, exactly like the standard model of particle physics. This is one of many correspondences we can discover.

What is this net neutral object we imagined? It is the Noether core, named after Emmy Noether, a scientist who was instrumental in leading the way to understanding conservation of energy and momentum. The Noether core is a nested set of three orbiting dipoles, each at vastly different scales. It operates as a gyroscopic flywheel battery that shape shifts with energy and velocity. It is the engine of all standard matter particles, and is also the implementation of Einstein’s spacetime, which is a lightly interacting aether locally, but responsible for gravitation at scale.

A new model that purports to be the basis of general relativity and quantum mechanics must have strong logical and mathematical mappings to those theories and by doing so inherit their fit to observational data. That said, it is perfectly reasonable to discard and replace false priors of technical or narrative derivative. A new model should also be capable of explaining the unsolved mysteries of the prior era, and of making new predictions that can be confirmed with observation.

I could go on and on describing the point charge model with words, but pictures convey concepts much better. I’ll include in the attachments a number of figures that show the point charge model as well as mappings to modern physics.

Let’s switch gears and dive into the discussion of the implications of knowledge of the source code to nature.

  • It is important to first acknowledge that knowledge of the source code to nature will allow evil and mis-guided individuals to exploit that knowledge and negatively impact the well-being and suffering of other individuals. This pattern is well known historically with each new technology. The critical and open questions are scale, investment, impact, deterrence, detection, and responses.
  • Turning to the benefits of knowledge of the source code of nature, let’s brainstorm possible events in the early timeline.
    • While research moves quickly, early needs include conferences, reference models, continuous education and training on state of the art knowledge, as well as closely coupled software-hardware simulation tools, techniques, and systems. Simulation products on the leading edge in cost/performance will be desirable by the scientific and technology markets.
    • Early focii of intense R&D investment in technology will be on applications in energy, health, environmental remediation, space exploration, industrial materials/processes, and military.
  • Opportunities for our company,
    • Help to incubate the idea and nascent technology. Introduce it to the scientific community and gain professional validation. Earn good will.
    • Sponsor an open source repository for state of the art tools, APIs, and services that describe and simulate the point charge universe.
    • Sponsor the incubation of technology with promise in health fields.
    • Develop and offer proprietary value add products and services that align with the evolving strategy of the company.

I’ve painted an idealistic picture. It is certainly possible that the point charge formulation of nature is a dream in la-la land that makes sense to me and no one else. After all, I have said that the narratives of modern physics and cosmology are woo-ish nonsense in many respects. In doing so, I am suggesting that tens of thousands of scientists have fooled or reconciled themselves with nonsense narratives. Self-delusion is a powerful force.

With all due respect, I argue that the scientific method has failed science and scientists because it does not have proactive false prior detection capability. Hence, the field can go astray for long periods of time engaged in false narratives, such as epicycles were once believed to model how Earth was the center of the solar system.

The object oriented point charge model is a candidate for the solution to nature. If it is on the right track, it will cause a paradigm change in physics, that will in turn cause major impact to cosmology and astronomy. The model lends itself to extreme precision simulation which will percolate up into sciences of chemistry, biology, philosophy, and also into engineering and technology. Our company has the opportunity to lend our strong corporate values and skill sets towards the incubation of this new paradigm and responsible development of new technologies, products, and services.

Detail

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/