Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity

Followers of NPQG may find this obvious, but there is a topological transformation we can apply to GR-QM era physics to reveal NPQG and the true natural configuration. The galaxy center supermassive black holes are essential in these topological transformations. In NPQG positive infinity meets negative infinity to some degree within the transformation. Technically I am obfuscating. The fact of the matter is that there is a hard limit at Planck scale and we must reflect that limit in the mathematics. The pun on reflect is intentional and literal.

• There is a hard limit to packing of Planck particles.
• There is a hard limit to the amount of energy a Planck particle can carry,
• There is a way for a Planck core to escape through the poles under specific spacetime aether frame dragging conditions.
• Planck particles are immutable.
• Planck particles observe the laws of classical mechanics and Maxwell’s electromagnetism.

GR-QM era physics does not address this properly. Let’s talk about renormalization. I am torn between being gracious and saying that renormalization was a useful detour, or whether to slam renormalization as glossing over a clue that should have caused a hard stop and a search for a physical root cause. Even though renormalization was a detour, it has enabled a lot of good science.

So, there is a hard limit and a topological bounce. The Planck core forms from the supermassive black hole ingestate, which is often spiraling in from an accretion disk.

As the supermassive black hole spins, vortexes form in each polar region. Although we don’t know all the enabling conditions, clearly there are some which allow the Planck core to jet from the poles for lengthy periods. Those jets create new spacetime aether, new matter-energy. including protons, photons, etc. Exactly as been modeled by Big Bang theory which now needs to be transformed.

As the jets continue, the Planck core is shrinking. Since mass is only revealed on the surface of the Planck core, the evolving shape and surface area are impactful on galaxy dynamics.

There are so many fascinating dynamics to consider here with the NPQG model.

• We can account for the inflationary big bang as the topological transformation to the accumulation of Planck jet events. In our universe this would occur at a certain space and time statistical density.
• For theories that talk about a big crunch, we can map that to the process flow that leads to ingest into the supermassive black hole.
• For theories that talk about a big crunch we can map that to the supermassive black hole developing the conditions that eventually lead to Planck limits.
• For theories that talk about the big bounce, we can map that to the reflection off of the Planck scale. It’s not really a reflection. Particles can remain in a Planck core for an indefinite period of absolute time. However there is only one way in and one way out so that is what we mean by ‘reflection’ or bounce.

J Mark Morris : San Diego, California : October 23, 2020 : v1

NEOCLASSICAL PHYSICS AND QUANTUM GRAVITY
Imagine that nature emerges from a 3D Euclidean space containing a density of immutable, energetic, charged Planck radius spheres that construct all matter and spacetime æther.
𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 explores this foundation for nature and how emergence produces our Universe.
GR, QM, and ΛCDM observables are retained, while narratives are transformed.

RIDDLE ME THIS : How can a universe expand without increasing in size? This turns out to be a key issue in the steady state vs. big bang debate. Unfortunately, during the decades the the debate raged, the science of black holes was immature and there was no knowledge that supermassive black holes were at the center of nearly every galaxy. Now, with NPQG we know that expansion is galaxy local and neighbor galaxies oppose each other’s expansion.

In this video, Dr. Becky gives a lesson on this great debate on whether the universe is in quasi steady state or whether it originates via a big bang. As you watch and listen to this episode, pay careful attention to debate points that are influenced by the insight of galaxy local expansion. Check it out and come back for discussion below.

Let’s go through the debate points one by one and I’ll provide the NPQG perspective.

Debate point	npqg perspective
How did the universe begin?	While NPQG provides a very frugal set of ingredients for the universe, NPQG does not tell us how the universe began or if it had a beginning. For all we know the universe has always existed. NPQG does not tell us if there was an origin for the background 3D Euclidean space or the energetic, charged, Planck spheres. It seems at this point as if all of these questions are unknown and very likely unknowable. The lack of an origin for the universe is an opportunity for those who will create imaginary stories with no basis in fact or logic. As we know from history, imaginary and disparate views of that which is unknowable can be used in both good and evil ways. However, given how much we will know about nature in the NPQG era, it is my hope that any origin stories that arise are limited in their ability to influence large numbers of people negatively.
What is the overall model of the universe? ΛCDM describes an event that occurred around 13.8 B years ago that created spacetime and matter-energy and the laws of physics. Since then the universe has been growing in size via expansion. Matter-energy falls into black holes and the model does not know what happens, but it does say that black holes can evaporate over time periods many orders of magnitude larger than 13.8 B years, presumably if they stop ingesting, which will happen when the universe spreads out so much that energy density drops to near zero. In my view the narrative of ΛCDM is poor and has far too many leap of faith issues and open unanswered questions.	NPQG describes a universe of unknown and presumed infinite age, future, and extent. The dominant process cycle is based upon highly independent galaxy local dynamics. The galaxy center SMBH Planck core breaches the poles of the SMBH through which jets of Planck plasma escape and inflate and generally follow a similar process as described by big bang and inflation. Spacetime is implemented with a physical æther that expands in the galaxy until meeting spacetime aether expanding from neighbor galaxies. Thus the universe is in quasi steady state. There are large scale processes in regions of the universe where gravitational attraction causes galaxy mergers and cluster formation. SMBH jets may birth new galaxies. There is the possibility of black holes, perhaps ultra-massive black holes, that so rarely disgorge matter-energy that they are essentially only a sink of matter-energy. This is an area to investigate.
The static universe as conceived by Einstein. Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, Λ into his equations to act against the idea of gravity eventually collapsing the entire universe so that a fixed size universe would remain quasi static. Einstein later called Λ his biggest blunder. However, in Einstein’s conception Λ balances the universe on a knife edge. If Λ is too large the universe would expand forever and if Λ were too small the universe would contract and collapse. Friedmann generalized solutions to Einstein’s equations that allowed for open, closed, and flat universes.	NPQG is based on a fundamentally flat Euclidean space. Still that begs the question about whether the spacetime æther is expanding as a whole, steady state, or contracting as a whole. The best fit is that the universe is dominated by the galaxy local recycling process and thus steady state. We end up needing Einstein’s Λ in the equations though because spacetime æther does expand from the galaxy center SMBH. It is counteracted by opposing expansions from neighbor galaxies and the attrition of æther transmutation to standard matter-energy. Note that Λ is not a constant and is not a free parameter. Λ is a local phenomenon driven by galaxy dynamics.
Lemaitre linked observations of redshift to an expanding universe where distant celestial objects were moving apart. Then Lemaitre imagined rewinding the expansion to a single point and event that he called the cosmic egg.	NPQG teaches that these were fundamental cognitive errors. That it is possible for expansion to be everywhere in the universe without the size of the universe increasing and objects receding from each other. Therefore Lemaitre’s idea of rewinding time to project back to a single origin event is erroneous.
Relic energy of the big bang event should be detectable as redshifted photons from the farthest observable portions of the universe.	NPQG teaches that independent, intermittent galaxy-local SMBH bang/inflation events are also a solution to the CMB and isotropy. Consider the number of active galaxies that must be in the surface region of the observable universe that was probed via the Planck satellite measurement of the CMB. Furthermore all intervening galaxy quasars (AGN SMBH) would intermittently emit photons of lesser energies that may have redshifted into the microwave band by the time they reach our instruments. Lastly isotropy is guaranteed because the recycling process passes through the Planck core state which is a form of matter-energy that has one microstate, zero entropy, and contains no information. Therefore the same physics is guaranteed in each galaxy subject to local variation.
In 1948 Hoyle, Gold, and Bondi proposed an eternal steady state universe idea. They suggested that as the universe expands as a whole that new matter would be created to fill the created space.	NPQG is an eternal steady state model. NPQG properly explains expansion as galaxy local and in opposition, which will have the same effect on a photon as conceived in theories where the universe as a whole is expanding. NPQG provides mechanisms whereby physical spacetime æther creates a ‘particle rain’ e.g., pair production and other mechanisms where aether can be converted to the standard model forms of matter-energy that gravitate and thus eventually the process direction is toward the SMBH the Planck core, and recycling via the Planck plasma jets which creates new spacetime æther. Essentially NPQG is aligned with Hoyle et al, while providing an improved understanding and physical mechanism.
Ryle found that radio sources were denser at greater distances. This was interpreted that radio sources were more comman long ago than they are today. This interpretation was confirmed with optical observatons of quasars. This is called the evolution of the universe. The term ‘space density’ is also used. Wikipedia says “Observations show that more distant galaxies are closer together and have lower content of chemical elements heavier than lithium.”	This is related to the issue of the cosmological principle of space but not time. The wikipedia page lists a number of inconsistencies related to large quasar group structures that are far larger than predicted possible. This is an open issue for NPQG. If NPQG is correct, then one possibility is some kind of non-linearity in the redshift-frequency-distance relationship that results in the deduction that objects are closer than they actually are. This could happen if redshift per parsec were less for higher energy photons than lower energy photons. This could make sense since higher energy photons have a smaller radius. If the observed objects are more distant this would reduce the density and solve the large quasar group size issues as well. NPQG expects that the perfect cosmological principle to hold, that is the universe is expected to be homegenous and isotropic in both space and time.
The universe begins with a singularity.	In NPQG, the end of the crunch is at the Planck core in a SMBH which corresponds to Einstein’s singularity. The next phase is the breach of event horizon at the poles of the SMBH and the jetting of Planck plasma which inflates, corresponding to the bang and inflation. It is somewhat amazing and perplexing that scientists consider the big bang to arise from a singularity while they also talk about singularities in black holes, but they do not connect the dots.
ΛCDM provides no explanation for how matter-energy can come from nothing in either the big bang or steady state theory.	NPQG explains that matter-energy recycles through the SMBH. Both energy and Planck spheres are conserved.

In my view, NPQG provides strong explanations that flip the debate outcome back to the universe being considered quasi-steady state and following the perfect cosmological principle. That said there are two issues that need further work in NPQG and that is re-interpreting spatial density of structure vs. time observations as well as finding an alternate interpretation for the measurements that led to the concept of the accelerating expansion of the universe.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : August 27, 2020 : v1

This post is about developing an intuition about how nature behaves given the fundamental ingredients of the universe as informed by NPQG. The chart below shows the elements of the NPQG universe. This is it. There are no other physical elements. This set of ingredients follows the physical laws of classical mechanics and electromagnetism and from the interactions that occur, everything else in nature emerges.

Let’s start by reviewing the concept of intuition. Intuition is grounded in a feeling and a past or history.

Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning. Different fields use the word “intuition” in very different ways, including but not limited to: direct access to unconscious knowledge; unconscious cognition; inner sensing; inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition; and the ability to understand something instinctively, without any need for conscious reasoning.

The word intuition comes from the Latin verb intueri translated as “consider” or from the late middle English word intuit, “to contemplate”.

Wikipedia

In NPQG there is no intuitive aspect of science. It is only nature. What would nature do? Once you truly understand the fundamental basis of nature and then resolve yourself to this concept, the grand cycles in the universe quickly become apparent. After all, it is about cycles isn’t it? Cycles within cycles, within cycles, within cycles, ^{_{within cycles, within cycles, within cycles}} …. Sometimes NPQG may at first seem counterintuitive, but upon more reflection the grand pattern emerges and is sensible and becomes the new intuitive.

• 

• 

• 

• 

One of the first subjects that comes to mind is that hot air rises. We define rises to mean away from Earth. Yet, from another perspective, hot air rises above cooler air. What is really happening with hot air and cool air? A little bit of physics tells us that hot air is less dense than cool air and therefore experiences a buoyancy that causes it to rise above the cool air.

Yet on the other hand, gravity causes standard matter to experience a force towards massive objects. Massive objects have energetic, hot, cores, for example, the earth has an iron core at about 10,800 degrees Fahrenheit. NPQG teaches that matter-energy in spacetime æther experiences a force towards the steepest energy gradient.

These two situations might seem contradictory, but they aren’t really. Each is driven by entirely different physics.

Emily Noether’s theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law.

Wikipedia

Let’s reflect on Emmy Noether’s teachings on conservation. Conservation may be thought of as a double entry bookkeeping system. If one side goes up, the other must go down. This is the essence of differentiability. No asymmetries are allowed in conservation. Fortunately nature provides spacetime æther as a quantum bookkeeper for reactions with standard matter-energy. As a result of Noether’s theorem, the net exchange of conserved quanta between spacetime æther and standard matter must move in a debit-credit or credit-debit arrangement. Now that all said, spacetime æther and standard matter are each composite structures, and many transactions are in quantum units. However, not all transactions are quantum — gravity is continuous.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : August 11, 2020 : v1

In 2020 Stephen Wolfram’s computational approach to identifying the fundamental basis of physics has been announced and is garnering attention. I am starting to arrive at some thoughts and impressions about Wolfram’s approach, so I thought I would start a post for collecting insights on this topic. I imagine that I will add to this post as I learn more and have deeper understanding on how to compare and contrast Wolfram’s Physics to NPQG.

The Essential Ideas of Wolfram Physics

• Technical Introduction : A Class of Models with the Potential to Represent Fundamental Physics
• Potential relation to physics
  • “The basic concept of applying our models to physics is to imagine that the complete structure and content of the universe is represented by an evolving hypergraph. There is no intrinsic notion of space; space and its apparent continuum character are merely an emergent large-scale feature of the hypergraph. There is also no intrinsic notion of matter: everything in the universe just corresponds to features of the hypergraph.“
• For example, space is modeled as a graph network that evolves over time given a set of rules. This work builds on Wolfram’s prior work in cellular automata.

Stephen’s appeareance on the podcast of Dr. Brian Keating (UC San Diego) is a 2.5 hour session on meta characteristics of Wolfram Physics. While this is quite interesting, there is no real discussion of the actual detailed approach. Instead we learn that it is a computational approach that is much like a cellular automata in that basic primitives are supplied along with a rule set for evolving in forward moving time steps. Yet the primitives and rules are not discussed at all. However, the meta impressions that Wolfram has gleaned from this work are fascinating and several are very similar to the insights I have had working on Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity.

I wrote a YouTube comment to Dr. Keating: “Dr. Brian – Say, I am in San Diego as well. If you are interested I would be open to discussing NPQG with you. It is an approach to physics that starts with a Euclidean 3D space and duos of energetic, immutable, charged Planck spheres. There are only two free parameters – the density of spheres themselves and the density of the energy they carry. As you can imagine symmetry is inherent with an empty space and immutable spheres. The fascinating part is the structures that emerge. I am confident I will be able to show that this model can recover scientific observations in physics and cosmology. NPQG also lends itself extremely well to thought experiment and logic. For example, from only these ingredients I know how to turn cosmology inside out and resolve the tensions in LCDM. And best of all, after all the initial objections, I am sure this will be one of those cases where it will become entirely obvious eventually and scientists will arrive one day at the ‘of course, how could it be any other way’ moment. My work can be found at jmarkmorris.com along with my contact information.”

Insights and Comparison to NPQG

NPQG models a fundamental 3D Euclidean void which has been permeated by a structure that we call Einstein’s spacetime or the quantum vacuum or more properly spacetime æther. Spacetime emerges from an abundance of æther particles which, in free space and low gravity environments like Earth, are very low energy particles that interact extremely lightly. The spacetime æther particles are undetectable directly by 2020 era technology, but we see their effects in processes like gravity, pair production, transmission of photons, and many other processes we take for granted. The evolution rules in NPQG are simply classical mechanics and electromagnetism. Compare this model to Wolfram’s more abstract computational hypergraph.

When I think of the computational approach to NPQG there is no fundamental need to calculate fields in empty Euclidean space. It is only necessary to calculate the aggregate of all electromagnetic fields at each location in absolute space and absolute time where a Planck sphere exists. The electromagnetic fields will determine the electromagnetic forces on the sphere. We must also consider the velocity and momentum of the sphere. Lastly we need to consider any in-elastic collisions between spheres that happen at that moment. The most challenging part is the first part – calculating the impinging fields from all other Planck particles, because that involves working backwards through time at increasing incremental radius and identifying all other Planck particles lying on each incremental circle T_n where n represents the number of simulation ticks backwards in time.

How do electromagnetic fields emitted by a Planck sphere propagate over time?

1. Does the propagtion rate change depending on intervening particles? Let’s simplify for now and say no.
2. Do the fields pass right through intervening particles like they aren’t there? Let’s simplify for now and say yes.
3. What speed shall we assign to the propagation velocity of these fields? The most obvious choice is the asymptote of the speed of light in free space. I say asymptote because that is the speed in low energy spacetime where the spacetime particles are the largest, and would correspond to the speed of the photon when lease limited by the least energetic aether.

A significant issue for Wolfram physics is that there is no fundamental physical basis for the computational graphs. While it is not clear to me how a physical basis could be incorporated, I presume it would be possible. I would hazard a guess that with Stephen Wolfram’s experience and infractructure for computational science that if the NPQG physical basis were the starting point that rapid progress could be made.

One key similarity between NPQG and Wolfram Physics is the idea that the universe evolves as a cellular automata. All influences and reactions are local and based on physical laws (NPQG) or rules (Wolfram). This automata approach is contrasted to GR/QM/ΛCDM era physics which identifies or curve fits equations to describe nature at scales many orders of magnitude above the Planck length scale.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : August 23, 2020 : v1

Today started like every other day during the pandemic and more recently the Southern California heat wave. I woke up and made coffee and browsed social media. Oh, Sabine Hossenfelder has a new song! Cool. Her songs are usually top notch. But this one was about a sore subject, dissing people who are out of the mainstream and who attempt to share their theory of everything. Ostensibly she was targeting Eric Weinstein, Garrett Lisi, and Stephen Wolfram, but she also addressed the rest of us.

Sabine’s not interested, and that’s fine with me. However, to then go on the attack is way over the line in my opinion. If you’ve been following my blog you know how much it bothers me to constantly get attacked for sharing my NPQG ideas in social media. And it also disturbs me greatly to see others subjected to the same invective, even if their ideas are nonsense. Perhaps most of all, it frustrates me to no end that professionals in the fields of physics and cosmology would engage in such hostile and bullying behaviour toward independent ideators who hold them in high esteem and are crushed by their response. There is no excuse. There are neutral and diplomatic ways to ignore, mute, or decline unsolicited ideas and conversations. On top of all that, I think this aggro behaviour is endemic internal to the fields and is related to the challenges that so many new and diverse entrants to the fields face in their careers.

So with steam coming out of my ears, I pounded out a dozen tweet responses to Sabine, and called her out for poor behaviour and then rattled off thirty-seven major items of nonsense that the fields themselves have wrong in GR/QM/LCDM era physics and cosmology.

Recently I have encountered a spate of negativity from physicsists and cosmologists. I was banned on Eric Weinstein’s discord for sharing my ideas and BEING bullied. Then a splinter discord was formed because some the folks didn’t like seeing people banned and I was invited and joined it, but so did the bullies. Of course, when they bully me, I’m not going to take it on the chin, so I fire back my best words designed to cut them down to size and tick them off even more. I do my best to attack ideas, but I’ve gone over the line as well when under withering attack. I feel terrible later and go back and delete those comments since they have served their ephemeral purpose to fight back against bullies. Unfortunately, I’ve noticed that I do get more defensive as time passes, bracing for attack and ready to counter-attack, as you will see later in this post.

---

One of the few bright spots on social media for me has been Sarafina Nance, who is an astrophysicist Ph.D. student at UC Berkeley. She’s full of happiness, good cheer, joy, love, and wonder for all things astrophysics. She’s totally plugged into current social issues and I learn a lot from the information she shares and her opinions. Sarafina makes fun astrophysics related posts, stories about her dog, hosts live drunk science videos (more like tipsy), and generally shares a lot of her life with her followers.

Sarafina also is a “BRCA2 previvor making cancer her bitch” as she says, and in the last year has had three surgeries including a double mastectomy and reconstruction. So besides fighting cancer, which would crush most people, she made it all public as a service to others to be informed, brave, proactive, and also created a social media support network. In so many ways, Sarafina is a superb individual.

This week Sarafina tweeted about a man who had sent her multiple messages about his theory of everything and how she wished she had an ounce of his confidence. I don’t have any issues with her tweet at all, but her followers, many of whom are scientists, were triggered and openly started scorning the ‘man’ as a crackpot and displaying the typical hostility of science towards people bearing unsolicited ideas. I decided to come out and respond and try to ideator’splain myself.

Note to the astute reader, there is also an element here of the popular generalization of the ‘evil privileged white man’. I’m an individual and am opposed to generalizations, but I understand that they are talking about a pattern which requires vigilance to aggressively defend against and to educate about appropriate behaviour.

---

With all of that as the backdrop to my week, I have been in a fairly lousy mood. Yet, there is absolutely no way I will give up. If NPQG is right, and I am convinced that it is, then it is urgent to transfer this knowledge to the scientific community. The future of intelligent life and the environment would benefit tremendously with knowledge of how nature and the universe actually work from the foundation level up. So after work today, I signed on to the PBS SpaceTime discord server and had the following pleasant conversation. You can see that I started out defensively, but once I was afforded some psychological safety the conversation went very well.

TorchFire
Very interesting theory in this article. They’re putting forth the idea that instead of a single Big Bang, instead the universe continuously expands and contracts forever in a “Big Bounce”. Thoughts?

Quanta Magazine : Big Bounce Simulations Challenge the Big Bang
Detailed computer simulations have found that a cosmic contraction can generate features of the universe that we observe today.

Dark energy is definitely important but it appears to be baked into both the Big Bang and this Big Bounce Model. The interesting implications of the Big Bounce model is that it removes the need for a multiverse and string theory, which many argue are untestable, and therefore not very useful.

Basically we need to know whether dark energy causes the universe to expand forever no matter how sparse the energy gets (Big Bang), or whether dark energy eventually becomes too sparse to continue expanding, and the universe then begins to contract (Big Bounce)

Mark
@TorchFire : I’ve given a lot of thought to whether LeMaitre got everything off on the wrong track when he reversed time backwards to a single event that we now call a bang. Guth, et al, later added inflation. But then inflation was extended to eternal inflation, so supposedly it is still happening but we can’t detect it, which doesn’t make sense because bang and inflation are supposed to happen everywhere all at the same time.

After a lot of thought, I think the scientists have made an enormous error. In my opinion they need to reposition the bang, inflation, and expansion to be galaxy local via the SMBH and its jets. They get crunch for free. In other words, parallel, independent, intermittent galaxy local processes. That means that each galaxy is essentially an enormous recycling process. How long would it take on average between a galaxies bangs and newly minted spacetime aether to make it to the point where it is encountering aether expanding from neighbor galaxies – about 13.8 B years.

What about expansion? You can keep it, but its really galaxies expanding into one another. So there is no such thing as all galaxies receding from one another. The expansion effect on photons is the same. This eliminates H0 tension and means the Hubble rate specific to any observed object can also be used as a distance measure. Also it eliminates tension with certain processes that take much longer than the age of the universe, some even trillions of years, so it is no longer a tension that we just happened to be lucky and find ourselves at the beginning of time (on that length scale). There are more tensions this takes care of as well. This also gives new mechanisms that could help solve dark matter, dark energy, and galaxy rotation curves. And pretty much everything remains the same observation wise. Only narrative changes. You get isotropy because there are billions or trillions of observable galaxies. It’s a bitter pill for scientists to swallow though.

Astrophysicist
“because bang and inflation are supposed to happen everywhere all at the same time” This is not an accurate presentation. In eternal inflation models, big bangs are simple bubble nucleation events within the eternal inflaton field.

Mark
“In 1983, Paul Steinhardt was the first to show that this “new inflation” does not have to end everywhere.[1] Instead, it might only end in a finite patch or a hot bubble full of matter and radiation, and that inflation continues in most of the universe while producing hot bubble after hot bubble along the way.” – Wikipedia. That sounds like what I said, but maybe I am not interpreting it correctly.

Astrophysicist
With eternal inflation, there is an eternally inflating inflaton field, and at times, certain locations of the inflaton field tunnel to a lower energy state. This precipitates particle production — a big bang. A big bang doesn’t involve the entirety of the inflaton field, only the location of tunnelling, so to say the big bang happens ‘everywhere’ is a misrepresentation.

Mark
Actually that sounds like it would map quite well to an SMBH containing ‘inflatons’ or what I would call a Planck core and jetting Planck plasma.

Astrophysicist
In the eternal inflation model, ‘the big bang’ is simply ‘a big bang that initiated our hubble sphere/universe of which our hubble sphere is a part’

Mark
@Astrophysicist : That’s ok. And I am suggesting we need to change the scope from our hubble sphere to galaxy local.

Astrophysicist
I’m merely pointing out that the way you presented the eternal inflation model was a bit off. Wasn’t making any commentary on your model.
But eternal inflation is by no means galaxy local, and cannot be rescoped as such.

Mark
Ok, well I get most of my learning from the outreach materials and so my language reflects the way the scientists describe it, e.g., the expanding balloon model, etc. Why could eternal inflation not be modified to reflect independent galaxy local bang/inflation events via the SMBH/jets?

Astrophysicist
Because the space between big bangs never stops undergoing inflation, which happens at superluminal speed. I can see the Andromeda galaxy (with an adequate telescope). Thus the inflaton tunnelling to a lower energy state at those locations that comprise our hubble sphere (or universe of which our hubble sphere is a part) is larger than a galaxy. We can observe galaxies some 13.5BLy away, and that includes galaxies, clusters, super clusters, walls, and voids. If it was galaxy local, we would not be able to observe other galaxies. A galaxy-local eternal inflation would predict galaxy-island universes.

Mark
So I would change that to inflation in the volume around the jets, which eventually at enough distance gives way to expansion.

Astrophysicist
Doesn’t work either. You’d be instantiating superluminal inflation between galaxies again the moment the jets form.
At the moment of the formation of the jets, such a model would predict all other galaxies would be forced out of sight.

Mark
Well, let’s break it down. So the jet erupts and out flows Planck particle plasma and besides all the other stuff that the bang model says it will form, it also makes spacetime aether particles. This is all local to the jet. In terms of superluminality, I can definitely see such a jet piercing right through cold spacetime aether and once it is cleared out of the way there would be no speed of light limit.
But it would only go as far as it does until it piles up in a terminus

Astrophysicist
And its that terminus that is incompatible with eternal inflation.

Mark
Ok maybe we are speaking past each other. There will be some modification required to existing models. In what I am saying you get the eternal inflation through independent intermittent events from active SMBH throughout the universe. So it is eternal in that sense.
And we can observe it.

Astrophysicist
Eternal inflation is a model that proposes the underlying structure of the cosmos is an eternally inflating inflaton field. If you instantiate such a thing inside a tunneled patch of inflaton (ie: a universe), you tear that patch apart.
And very very quickly at that.

Mark
Ok, I see. You are using ‘eternal inflation’ to refer to a very specific model that solves a problem. I am trying to solve that same problem a different way and calling that ‘eternal inflation’ as well.

Astrophysicist
Given you’re wanting to tether big bangs to the jets, you’d likely find the fecund universe cosmology more fruitful.
Eternal inflation is just an interesting attempt at the problem of prima causa. It’s a hypothesis to explain a hypothesis. The ultimate problem here is simply the seeming flatness of spacetime (ie that in general it appears very close to a flat Minkowski space)

Mark
I hadn’t heard of the fecund universe before, but a lot of these terms like multiverse and etc would no longer make sense if we rebased LCDM on to a different galaxy local cosmology. We’d just say – other galaxies instead of fecund universe. Or other galaxies instead of multiverse.
Well, I have a solution to flatness too, if you want to hear more of my radical ideas.

Astrophysicist
Given we can see other galaxies, any model that is galaxy local is going to have major hurdles. And fecund would be a little more useful in that sense, though for some reason you’re attaching to the jets, whereas fecund attaches to the inside of the black hole.

Mark
In my model the jets emanate from inside the black hole.

Astrophysicist
Yes. That’s one of the problems. We know they don’t.

Mark
I’d say scientists think they don’t. And I’d also say they are likely wrong.

Astrophysicist
We can observe that fact.

Mark
Everything I have seen works backwards to prior assumptions, like can’t breach the event horizon, so must be the accretion disk. Can’t be superluminal, so must be a narrow viewing angle. What can we observe that proves the jets are not emanating from inside the black hole? And I’m ok with accretion disk material going along for the ride.

Astrophysicist
Yes. Working backwards from what is known is the essential nature of science. Going from first principles is not. As for observations, we can observe relativistic jets originating from black holes and neutron stars. We can observe their formation in model analogs (though not sure we have to date; but a possibility — anyone know if we have?).

Mark
As an aside. Thank you for discussing in a friendly manner even if you think I am wrong. That is refreshing. I usually get the pulp beaten out of me.
So part of my thinking is that we have a fairly lengthy series of at least 8 decisions that were wrong that cause problems for the priors.
I am trying to work from first principles and meet up with established science. But so far, my imaginary thought experiment universe makes a lot more sense and I can see how it solves the paradoxes and open problems. Of course that is thought experiments and I know that gives scientists quite a bit of concern. Still, I keep moving forward and maybe some day I’ll find something that passes muster in more minds than mine.

Astrophysicist
I don’t think it’s concerning. It simply isn’t the methodology. As a thought experiment there’s nothing wrong with it. But it has no means for error correction. Consider that those with FAR more background have pointed to two particles being unable to reproduce quantum physics. My understanding is not that advanced, but, to the level I do understand, it accords with my limited intuition of the field that two particles of the nature you describe could not give rise to all the quantum numbers, ie all the degrees of freedom, needed to replicate QM.

Let us assume they are correct. When you start to formalize the system trying to replicate QM, you will fail under this assumption. How do you detect at what level the error occurred? It may be that the immediately prior step is the error — but it may be that it’s the two-particle model itself. It could be any level in between. Since you’re beginning with these assumptions and building up, you have no experimental way to find the error, and little conceptual way to do it. You would essentially have to introduce corrective terms and see how they propagate back to your first principles — you will have to use backwards reasoning with correction. Given this, I fail to see the scientific value of starting from first principles, since validating them will require working backwards anyways. That said, again, it IS an interesting thought experiment — and thought experiments rock. They can lead to insights. GR started with a thought experiment in Einstein’s head (ignoring the foundational work set up by Poincare and Lorentz). I mean, I’m one of those more than happy to throw out any rule of logic, adopt new ones, and just see what happens, even if those laws have absolutely no relation to the universe we observe… I get the appeal of a purely intellectual exercise. 🙂

Mark
Great! Super! It’s nice to meet you. So, my starting point isn’t exactly unnatural. I am working with Planck scale after all, and I get it that physicists don’t assign a true physical reality to Planck scale. But to your point, what I am finding so far is that this particular thought experiment leads to entirely new ways to look at things. Here is what I wanted to share earlier which I think is just amazing. In my model I start with a Euclidean 3D void. Then you toss in a certain density of duos of these immutable charged energetic Planck radius spheres. All you get is classical mechanics and electromagnetism. So there are two free parameters – the Planck sphere density and the density of the energy they carry. So what happens — well if you pick the parameters properly, then structure will start forming. One of the dominant structures to form is the spacetime aether, which is made of composite particles that have this cool property where the more energetic they are the faster their Planck constituents execute their wave equation orbit and the smaller the radius gets.

This is where I say that nature is really a trickster because it gave us a flat Euclidean space and fills it with an aether that has Riemannian behaviour. No wonder everyone is so confused. So you have to move Einstein’s inertial observer from low energy spacetime aether into the Euclidean void. Now, you are looking from there things look entirely different mathematically. Even the simple math. Like if you are in the aether, speed of light looks constant because the aether particles retain a relationship of radius and frequency. But if you are in the Euclidean frame you see varying speed of light. And then that would fit with the aether having a permittivity and permeability that varies with energy and your standard speed of light formula applies with that variable permittivity and permeability. So currently I am working on trying to augment basic equations with the Euclidean view.

It’s fascinating, so in an SMBH the densest these Planck radius spheres could be packed would be FCC or HCP and they would have stopped moving at that point. Temperature zero. That matches theory. One microstate – no entropy. That’s cool. No information in a Planck core. Even if this is all imaginary it is a really cool idea. And we eliminated singluarities and wormholes along the way.

Astrophysicist
I’m confused. As I understood your model, you have the positrino and electrino, and these are your planck spheres. You’ve just proposed a neutral particle.

Mark
Oh, no just the two electrino and positrino, but they form structure. So the spacetime particle is a group of them executing their individual wave equations. Think of maybe three dipoles orbiting in orthogonal planes just for thought experiment purposes.

Astrophysicist
Okay, so the neutral particle being referred to is a composite. Now, you’ve used wave function, implying some sort of field. What is the relation of that field (or fields) to the positrino and electrino?

Mark
So the electrino and positrino are each charged, and I am currently using 1/6th e magnitude because that maps well when I try to decode the composite standard matter particles. So you have the electric field of each of these particles and if they are moving, the magnetic field they emit. So the hypothesis is that the Planck sphere electrino and positrino in whatever structures they form at higher and higher scales are the fields of QFT.

Astrophysicist
Given that explanation I understand better why others with more experience and expertise would point out that you cannot achieve the necessary degrees of freedom for replicating QM. Your system doesn’t have a way to implement symmetries other than those afforded by electromagnetism. Weak isospin and the weak interaction would not be recoverable in this model.

Mark
I don’t know yet. I am hoping that those will emerge out of the structure that forms.

Astrophysicist
Fair. But might serve as an error-checkpoint. I would suggest that might be a high-value target then. If you can, you’d definitely have something.

Mark
Ok, good. But I also have to do what I am capable of and while that is improving, it is very slow.

Astrophysicist
Especially given such a solution would give you a path to the electroweak unification. Yeah, this would be SUPER high value.

Mark
I am trying for something that to me seems more within reach, which is a formula for mass.

---

At the end of this pleasant conversation I was in a good mood. I was so charged up that I decided to go out into the late afternoon heat and pick fruit from my small orchard, a bucket of deep purple figs and a bucket of softball sized sapotes. Yum. You’ve gotta love low hanging fruit! Cheers!

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : August 19, 2020 : v1

There are a very few forums where an independent physics and cosmology ideator can contribute. Publication is unlikely as journals look askance on people who are not in the field as well as on grand new ideas. On scientist’s blogs you will often get banned. On Reddit you will get banned. Likewise they will go after you on Quora according to another ideator I know. On most Discord servers I’ve encountered you will either get banned or if you are lucky you can post in a channel for speculative ideas. You’ll take a beating there though. You can try Twitter, but conversations are few and far between and most physicists or cosmologists will mute you or block you. For all your efforts sometimes you will run across defenders of GR-QM-ΛCDM era science who will try to get you canceled across social media. They seem to take some pleasure in trying to squash you like a cockroach. From what I can tell almost all of those who are hostile or bullying are men, but that’s probably not a surprise.

I’ve already written several blog posts about the experiences of an independent ideator. In this post I thought I would include a long rambling comment I just made on Dr. Stacy McGaugh’s Triton Station blog. He has been kind enough to allow me to post comments in the past. He occasionally responds to me which I appreciate, but its not the true engagement that I feel will help me get NPQG some serious consideration from the field. Nevertheless, I’m having fun, even if I am often frustrated with the fields of physics and cosmology, so I will persevere.

---

[This is my response to discussion mentioning the crisis in physics and cosmology as well as the pejorative term ‘crackpot’.]

I’ve read Lee’s more recent book but I’ll think about ordering The Trouble with Physics.

As to the term crackpot and the hostility of some physicists/cosmologists towards independent ideators, it greatly disturbs me. I get it that physics/cosmologists/astronomers get peppered with ideas which are largely nonsensical, but I still don’t think that should be a license to be a bully. These ideators are people too and they are excited and they do genuinely think they are on to something, even if they aren’t. And then they get crushed by their heroes. Wow, it is such a bad look for the fields.  Plus, if you think every paradox and open problem is an indicator that something major is wrong, and if you listen to Sabine, Lee, Roger and others that THEY think something is wrong then it’s gonna be really bad for the field when that is discovered and all those mistaken interpretations come to light.   Also, I think that the intellectual superiority and hostility is a carry down from the early days of physics and while ideators like me do get the heck beaten out of us, I can’t really imagine what it must be like inside the field as a new person with ideas and being told directly or indirectly “shut up and calculate” or any of the other intellectual mind games people play. No wonder so many of them feel like the deck is stacked against them, and often they are right.  

There are so many more neutral or kind ways to deal with these eager ideators. 1) ignore them, 2) mute them, 3) block them – although that is sort of aggressive if they can see that, 4) if you feel compelled to respond, just have a short canned answer something like “Thank you for sharing your ideas, but I will not be engaging because I am entirely focused on my own work.”  That’s not hurtful. 5) The field could even have some fun with it – create a reddit forum for the ideators with some rules that they must state their idea in N words or less, with no appeal to myth, and as scientifically or logically as they can muster. Let the ideators themselves rate the ideas and a few scientists agree to look at the top M per quarter or year. You never know, a gem might appear. 6) #5 with an entry fee and the proceeds go some to the reviewers of the top M (again let the ideators winnow down the mass of entries) and some of the proceeds go to a good cause. Everyone is happy.

As for me, I have been ideating on a TOE for 2.5 years and have a unique approach of starting where Planck left off, with Planck radius particles that can carry from 0 to Planck energy and are charged, immutable and conserved. Take duos of those particles and toss them into a 3D Euclidean void at a certain particle density and energy density (two free parameters) and I think the universe will emerge.  Using just logic alone you can come to some fantastic ideas. If they are immutable, there is no singularity. Then what happens?  Well maybe those SMBH are jetting them out? So you go through all the outreach material and you find out that bang theory doesn’t require a single place or time. And you find out that inflation must still be going on, but we can’t see it. And you find out about pocket universes and multiverses from Dr. Guth.

And then you have to deal with some of the issues. What about the event horizon? Surely a core of Planck particles at Planck energy in an SMBH could overpower an event horizon of its own making, right? Maybe spin is involved, maybe the frame dragging around the polar axis creates a vortex that allows lower energy spacetime aether to approach the event horizon and bang, the jet breaches.  Ok, so what about expansion?  Ok, you scratch your head on your fledgling ideas and it dawns on you, hey wait a second, if spacetime is an aether and each galaxy AGN SMBH occassionally and independently erupts in a bang and if Planck plasma inflates from Planck density to what we can observe, then you struggle and it dawns on you – what if expansion is galaxy local! Sure, that makes sense, if inflation comes from the jet each galaxy will expand INTO its neighbors. So now you have repositioned the bang, crunch, and expansion local to galaxies.  And galaxies are your ‘pocket universes’ in the multiverse. Much more parsimonious. Oh, and you get crunch for free because it is a black hole and that is nice for all the bright scientists who’s math shows a crunch (Roger, Lee, etc.).  And you have expansion but not universe outward, galaxy outward, so it’s in opposition and nothing is going anywhere fast and now the Hubble tension goes away and you realize that oh, those measurements vary because photons take different paths through different galaxies, each of which is in a different stage of a general recycling process.  Yeah, you still have some issues to work out with the idea of an ‘accelerating’ universe but you have enough mechanisms now that you will chip away at that issue.

Meanwhile your spacetime aether is a construct made of particles made of Planck spheres and it provides a Riemannian geometry, except at the smallest scales. So you happen across UV divergence, and IR divergence, and renormalization and you think — uh oh, those integrals bounds don’t go to zero or infinity. There are cutoffs where things are going to get chunky and discrete.  Meanwhile, since you started with a Euclidean void, you realize that Einstein’s inertial observer needs to be repositioned from low energy spacetime into the Euclidean void. And you realize that nature is a trickster to provide two overlapping geometries sandwiched together like that. And you realize you will need to rewrite the basic equations from the perspective of the Euclidean observer. Since it is an aether, you realize the Euclidean observer will see a variable speed of light, while the Riemannian observer IN the aether will see a constant speed of light because the particles of the aether must guarantee a relationship between their radius and their frequency. That relationship is sort of counterintuitive because at higher energies, those aether particles get smaller and their frequency decreases – but that fits with Einstein and curvature and dilation and contraction.  Oh, that means that the aether has a permittivity and a permeability from the point of view of the Euclidean observer and that is nice for the formula c^2 = 1/sqrt(permittivity * permeability) if they vary with the energy in the aether and that makes sense.

Every once in a while you pop your head up to share what you are finding with the physicists and the cosmologists and they beat the crap out of you.  So, you are like, well ok, if you don’t want to be involved picking all this low hanging fruit, then no problem. Unfortunately it delays the benefits for intelligent life and the environment. So back to picking fruit. You think more about your Planck core in a SMBH and you realize that as speed of light slows in the Euclidean reality that ingested particles will not be moving in the Planck core. All the energy will be in electric field of attraction and repulsion. No magnetism (not moving), no kinetic energy. Oh that’s why the temperature is zero!.  Oh, that’s only one microstate, therefore no entropy. Oh there’s certainly no information in a Planck core.  Well arguably one bit, Planck core or not Planck core.  So you think well that knocks down a few more paradoxes and open problems. Might also mean we need to adjust the Second Law to an equality considering we haven’t been accounting for the aeither.  Of course, you realize, the aether is the grand accountant for all things conserved! So you think about how physicsists are all wrapped up in their issues with some kinds of symmetries not being conserved, yet they don’t understand the aether, and you think well, that math is way over my head, but I wonder if the aether is actually doing the conservation and they don’t know it. Set that aside, too much intense math.  Can’t pick all the fruit.

So you surface again to tell folks and again they greet you with hostility and bullying.  You can not do physics without our 10^-20 math! You cannot do physics without understanding everything we have done! Really?  Well your outreach stuff is actually pretty good. I don’t have a career to worry about. I have the luxury of listening to all the tells when scientists aren’t sure about things and how they each tell a somewhat different narrative. And I recognize that narrative is interpretation and is a degree of freedom I have as long as I preserve the observations and most of their math. And when you come back kindly and say, but don’t you understand emergence they just get madder. And when you say, don’t you understand you are looking at structure that is 15 orders of magnitude above where I am ideating, they just get madder. And then you try to give examples, like thinking about probing around the outside of a computer and what could you discover about the CPU chip, and if you took off the cover and probed around the circuit board what would you know, and if you probed around the CPU’s pins and developed techniques to probe the ball grid array what would you know, and if you figured out how to take off the package and keep it running what would you know with your probe? Do you know anything yet about semiconductors or junctions or gates. Nope. Still it doesn’t get through because they are in so deep.   So then you say things like you are climbing K2 or Everest the hard way, I found a nice heated paved gently sloped path on the other side.  No dice.

So you go back to cosmology and think about all the new mechanisms that could explain galaxy rotation curves. First you have this spacetime aether generator erupting every so often for however long it erupts. So you have this inflationary aether wind. Maybe that has an effect.  And you have this kind of interesting observation that the internal Planck spheres in a Planck core have no way to transmit their gravitational mass since all their neighbor particles are maxed out. Wow, so that means that as matter is ingested, that if a Planck core has formed and the ingested matter-energy joins it, it falls off the accounting books for a while, until it jets out if it ever does. So that’s interesting for the orbitals of the stuff in the galaxy that had been attracted to that stuff which is no longer gravitating.  You think well the surface of the Planck core is still presenting it’s mass and that core must grow while the SMBH is not jetting and shrink when it is jetting and that’s interesting because the surface area is varying over large time scales, but you don’t know what to do with that. Can’t pick all the fruit. And you realize that when those jets blow that is a lot of mass that all of a sudden reappears and probably does something to galaxy dynamics, but haven’t figured out what yet. 

So you redouble your efforts to keep working at it, in hopes you can find something numerical or mathematical that is new and convincing, because it is already clear that simplicity and logic are not doing the trick. And so goes the life of an ideator….hopefully to connect sometime if they are right because it would be unfortunate to croak before the idea gets out and then it takes another 100 years for scientists to figure it out.

Best, Mark

---

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : August 17, 2020 : v1

Many public facing physicists and cosmologists do a decent job with outbound information to the public considering that the fields are in crisis and have scores of paradoxes and open problems. Yet if their fans or independent ideators wish to help by contributing and discussing ideas with those in the field they face an uphill pitched battle and are met with open and brutal hostility and bullying.

It is fair penance that physicists and cosmologists be subjected to the constant unsolicited inflow of helpful, if mostly nonsensical ideas. Why is this fair? Because physicists and cosmologists are the official purveyors of the greatest nonsense of all, under the banner of science. No wonder physicists are cranky, bullying, and hostile — had they not made so many mistakes and failed to correct them, they could be lauded — but they are locked into a Sisyphean struggle against dead end ideas and a public that is increasingly aware of their nonsense. It is mind blowing to me how much physicists and cosmologists have gotten wrong and how strident they are about resisting efforts to fix the gigantic mess they have made. Let’s take a look at the barrier’s some of these so called scientists put in place to outsiders and their ideas and the hostility and bullying these scientists use towards those outsiders.

---

Katie Mack — North Carolina State University

The following is from Mack’s website FAQ.

---

Warren Siegel — Stony Brook University

Are you a quack?

psychosis |sīˈkōsəs|
noun (pl. psychoses |-ˌsēz| )
a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
New Oxford American Dictionary

There is a fine line between sanity & insanity: A large portion of the public is in denial about evolution, global warming, vaccination, etc. Most of this can be attributed to distorted views of reality, as defined by personality type. But only a few are driven to egregiously contradict well-established science when doing so cannot have any direct effect on their everyday life.

This page is dedicated to the many people who have occasionally drifted into my office, or sent me e-mail, or even mailed me their books, eager to tell me about their new theory, which they know will turn all known physics on its head, even though they have only studied an infinitesimal fraction of the latter. Some of them are just ignorant or naive, but are willing to learn; this page is not about them.

There is a distinction between “artistic” scientists & true quacks. The former have some bold new hypotheses (i.e., educated guesses) that have not completely confronted reality. (A former advisor of mine had a bumper-sticker-like sign in his office that went something like, “Your new theory is beautiful and elegant. Too bad it’s wrong.”) The latter have old ideas that have been fudged to try to reproduce some of the results of new ideas. (For example, anyone sticking to Ptolemaic epicycles after the advent of Copernicus & Kepler would fall into this category. Fairy tales are also old ideas.) Real quacks would not even make good science fiction authors.

On the other hand, there are also “pessimistic” scientists. They do not reject proven science, but refuse to consider new conjectures until they have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Unfortunately, playing it safe seldom leads to new discoveries. (“Nothing ventured, nothing gained.”) These also differ from quacks, who tend to reject proven science of much (if not all) of the 20th century.

Quacks (also known as “crackpots” or “cranks”) have several well-known mental conditions in common with other conspiracy theorists:

Paranoia: No one will listen to their self-contradictory claims; therefore there must be a world-wide web of conspiracy, lasting generations (apparently even between opposing sides through the World Wars & Cold War) to promote fantastic theories which, for some unexplained reason, seem sufficient for the design & operation of modern technology.

Delusion/denial: For some unclear reason (religion? artistic taste? lack of ability or motivation?) they reject well-established science, & replace it with something of their own invention that they find more satisfying.

Grandiosity: Their theory could never be wrong; therefore everyone else’s must be. They want only to talk and not to listen. Their pride blinds them to their incompetence: They are not good con men; their arguments are unoriginal & transparently wrong to any expert.

Projection: They accuse scientists of all of these obvious failings of their own, before their victims get a chance to respond. After all, it’s only 1 person’s word against another. (In common terms, this is known as, “He who smelt it, dealt it.”) Thus, all established scientists are scientifically incompetent, ignorant, derisive, religious fanatics, mentally ill, etc.. It’s a wonder that society has managed to advance @ all.

Quacks are dogmatists: Their point of view is a belief. A belief is something one assumes to be true because one wants it to be true. They only come up with “proofs” or “evidence” to sway non-believers to their belief. So you can waste your time disproving all their fallacies, but it won’t matter to them, because they were invented only for you, & are totally irrelevant to their conviction.

It is easy to distinguish the quacks; although they may seem reasonable at first, they degenerate into absurdity progressively with any conversation. This is because quacks are organic forms of artificial intelligence: They would not pass the Turing test applied to a physics conversation. (This might be a good problem for a computer science student: Write a quack program, designed to sound as much like a true physicist as possible, then allow it to engage in a conversation with a real quack.) They simply copy and paste text & equations they have found in 19th century literature, introductory physics textbooks, or the web, none of which they understand well enough to pass a test in school. (A musical description of them can be found in the song “Swinging on a Star”, especially the mule & fish parts.) Whenever questioned on any of their errors, they reply with repetition, non sequiturs, or insults. Eventually the true quacks make the same remarks, some version of almost all those listed below. Generally, their comments are of 3 types:

Attacks on established theories, based on distaste and fear
“I have proven that special relativity/quantum mechanics/… is wrong.”
You mean you did an experiment whose results disagree with the predictions of that theory? I didn’t think so. You mean you proved it is self-contradictory? Not possible: Mathematically it’s an elementary system, whose consistency is easy to check. You might as well claim that you can prove 2+2=5. (If you think you can do that, I’m willing to give you $2+$2 change for a $5 bill.) If you think you have found an inconsistency, you have probably made an assumption that is not implied by the theory. The fact is that these theories are not only well confirmed by experiment, but practical use is made of them every single day.
Note: You will not dispell a quack’s distaste for modern physics by relating it to classical physics, since they usually do not understand that either. This is an unusual example of “Familiarity breeds contempt.”

Quacks seem to dislike modern physics literally because of the word “relativity”: In their attacks, they focus on what is relative, not on what is absolute. They know special relativity says time is relative, but don’t understand (or care) that proper time is absolute. In rejecting relativity, they replace it with the ether, rejecting even Galilean relativity, because they refuse to accept that even velocity can be relative. They know general relativity says reference frames are arbitrary, but don’t know that it’s curvature that displays the physics. They’ve heard that the uncertainty principle says there are things you can’t measure, but don’t know what you can measure. Apparently they view modern physics as an attempt to limit their personal freedom. Their egotism does not allow them to accept any frame of reference as equal to their own.

Consequently they are basically 19th century physicists, except for the fact that they don’t understand even that. They focus on attacking the physics of the 1st quarter of the 20th century & its results, oblivious to the fact that it is backed up by all the dependent theories & results since then. They want to return to the “good old days”, & constantly refer to archaic papers, as if history had anything to say about recent experimental results.

Thus quacks are in perfect agreement with the alleged statement of the Commissioner of the US Patent Office in 1899, “Everything that can be invented has been invented.” So it’s not surprising they reject ideas developed by someone while working @ the Swiss Patent Office a good several years later.

For those of you quacks who want to know what it’s like trying to explain 20th century physics to someone like you, I suggest you go to this web site and try to explain 19th century physics to the people there.

“But it’s obvious nonsense!”
Then why does it work so well?
“You’re wrong!”
That’s just contradiction, not an argument.
“BUT I HAVE PROVEN YOU WRONG!!”
I already responded to that remark. And your caps lock key is stuck.
(Maybe you should use a bigger font.)
Update: I have already been yelled @ with a much bigger font — another prediction confirmed.
Straw man semantics
A type of argument I just recently noticed is that they change the definitions of scientific terms to “disprove” a well known result. They will use a definition that doesn’t apply in that context, or use a definition that directly conflicts with any known published definition, even from the Oxford English Dictionary. So apparently they have not only disproven established science, but also the English language.

Promotion of a new unified theory, based on laziness and pride
“My theory is prettier than the accepted one.”
Take it to an art dealer.
“But Einstein/Feynman/… himself said that a theory must be pretty.”
You have already admitted you reject their theories.
“My theory is better philosophically”.
Take it to church.
“My theory agrees with the Bible/Quran/…”
The author of that book has not written any papers with testable predictions. Furthermore, many of the claims of that book are disputed (quite violently) in most parts of the world.
“My theory cures the common cold”.
Take it to the hospital. (You now qualify as a quack in the strictest sense.)
“My theory makes more sense.”
What could possibly make more sense than to have a theory that agrees with nature, as determined by experiment? If your theory only makes you feel better about its subject, it is a placebo, not a cure.
“Experimental verification isn’t important in science.”
Look up “scientific method” in the dictionary. Science is the study of the real world. If you make a claim in court, you need real evidence to back it up. If you make a bet, you have to provide a way to test that bet in a way that is unambiguous. It must be either right or wrong; there is no third alternative for a meaningful statement.
Quacks are always “theorists”. It never occurs to them that there are a large number of experiments with which their new theory must agree. (People who do cold fusion or sell snake oil are a level above these sorts.) This is because they live in worlds of fantasy, to which the real world can never be relevant. One quack emailed me that he had in fact done an experiment that disproved special relativity. Turned out that it was a “gedanken” experiment.

Another one told me that all the experimenters had purposely misinterpreted their raw data to make it agree with accepted theory. This was in spite of the facts that:

1. He had never seen the raw data.
2. He had no clue as to how the experiment was done.
3. He didn’t know any of the experimenters, at least not enough to slander their integrity.
4. The experiments were performed by many groups of people over a period of 60 years.
5. The first such experiment preceded the first theoretical calculation of the quantity.
6. His own prediction was 10,000,000 standard deviations off of the most recent experimental and theoretical ones (although it’s doubtful he knew what a “standard deviation” was).
7. His theory was not capable of describing the dynamics necessary to perform any experiment to measure the quantity.

Apparently this quack was under the impression that all experimenters and theorists were part of a huge conspiracy, dating back decades (if not centuries), to unanimously support one theory. (If only cooperation between scientists were that good…) This is another example of how quacks are ignorant not only of physics, but also of psychology.

“My theory doesn’t need any complicated math.”
Then how do you calculate anything? Science is not just knowing “what goes up must come down”, but when and where it comes down.
Note: Quacks come in slightly different levels of sophistication in math. Some use only words, and no numbers whatsoever, but lots of pictures. (However, with today’s technology, it’s easy for some of them to copy & paste equations they think look nice.) The worst one I ever corresponded with claimed that dimensions did not physically exist, but were just abstract mathematical concepts, and you could never prove the existence of anything unless you could do it without equations. After giving him the examples of directions, he claimed that “up” and “down” did not physically exist.

Better ones actually know arithmetic, but no algebra, so even E=mc2 is usually beyond them. They will quote lots of numbers, which they “predicted” by some numerology, but never functions (like cross sections). They don’t understand units, or conventions, and will not appreciate that some constants of nature may be more natural with extra factors of 2π or so, or that some are actually not constants (like running couplings).

None of them seem to understand statistics. So they are incapable of estimating the relative probabilities of the existence of worldwide conspiracies vs. that of the existence of quacks.

Since quacks never get over special relativity & quantum mechanics, even the ones who “re-derive” those results never get to doing the same for general relativity or quantum field theory. They take great pride in what they take as reproducing the physics of Maxwell’s equations or maybe even the Schrödinger equation, but have no awareness of the equations of Dirac or Einstein (gravity). They have no understanding of the meaning of “approximation” or “perturbation expansion”. The worst don’t even know how to make order of magnitude estimates, to determine what is & isn’t relevant to a problem. One actually told me that in the problem of an artificial satellite orbiting the Earth, the motion of the Earth about the true center of their mutual orbit was not negligible, in spite of the fact that the satellite’s mass was over 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the Earth’s.

“Numbers aren’t important in science.”
I guess you can throw out your clock.
“How you explain something is more important than the numbers.”
Try that the next time you pay a bill.
“You have to spend some time studying my theory.”
I already spent some time: You don’t need to eat a whole apple to know it’s rotten. How much time did you spend getting an education in physics?
“Why don’t you spend some time telling me what’s wrong with my theory?”
Why don’t you take a course? That’s what they’re for: So that many people can be taught the same thing at the same time, making more efficient use of the instructor’s time. The instructor’s office hours are for those who already took their own time studying the course material.
“My theory totally replaces the accepted one.”
Sorry, science doesn’t work that way. Why do you think theories get accepted in the first place? Because scientists like them? No, because experiments verify them. And if some experiment agrees with some theory, that fact isn’t changed by the invention of a new theory. The worst (or best) that can happen is that a new experiment disagrees with that theory, or an old experiment is done more accurately and is no longer in perfect agreement. Then the old theory is recognized as an approximation to the truth, that doesn’t apply in all situations, or works only to so many decimal places. That’s why classical mechanics is still taught in spite of quantum mechanics, and nonrelativistic mechanics is still taught in spite of special relativity, and your neighborhood butcher didn’t throw away his scales when general relativity was discovered. And even if you or someone else eventually finds a replacement for special relativity or quantum mechanics, it will not change the fact that experiments have already proven nonrelativistic physics and classical physics to be wrong. You can only go forward, not backward; there is no nostalgia in physical law, it is not fashion.
“I know my theory is right, without wasting my time learning the accepted theories.”
Science doesn’t work that way, either. The fact is, the accepted theories already work, so why replace them? To start with, you have to reproduce all the correct results of the established theories: That means you first have to learn those theories, then check that your new theory can successfully reproduce their correct results. After all, if they’re so wrong, why do they work so well? Secondly, to replace the old theories, you have to do better: Successfully predict something the old theories don’t. In other words, your new theory has to agree with the old theories where they agree with experiment, and also agree with experiment where the old theory disagrees. But how would you know all that if you haven’t studied the old theories in the first place? Would you read a movie review by someone who didn’t see the movie?
“I can explain all of physics, and I didn’t need to go to graduate school or study any graduate textbooks.”
Would you allow yourself to be operated on by a surgeon who never went to med school? “Oh, yeah, all that medicine they teach in college is a waste of time. I learned surgery all by myself at home! Yeah, from the internet! Oh, lots of practice — every Thanksgiving, when I carve the turkey! I even removed my own X-organ! That’s what those stupid M.D.’s call a liver — or is it a spleen? And I didn’t even need an anesthetic! Now just hold still while I make the initial carv-, er, incision…”

Personal attacks, as a diversion from their failure
“That’s what they told Galileo.”
I know Galileo, and you’re no Galileo. On the contrary, you’re one of “they”, people who, without any evidence in their favor, contradict real scientists. (Actually, “they” to whom you refer have been dead for over 300 years. The world has changed a bit since then.)
Note: Quacks usually contradict Galileo, by rejecting Galilean relativity. They also often personally attack Einstein, claiming his useful stuff was done by Lorentz, who found fewer results based on more assumptions (like ether). I even got one claim that Voigt did Lorentz transformations 1st, ignoring the fact that he got them wrong. Apparently, being 1st is more important than being right. That allows them to stay in the 19th century, & pretend special relativity is wrong because Einstein didn’t discover anything.

“The establishment always rejects new ideas.”
2+2=5 isn’t new, but it is wrong. Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean you’re right. Actually, there is no “establishment” in science: Scientists often disagree, until nature (through experiment) determines who’s right, just like people making a bet. But quacks always welsh on their bets, never admitting they’re wrong.
“I knew you were going to say that!”
Then why are we having this conversation?
Then that is the first prediction you have made that has proven true.
“I knew you wouldn’t listen, you scientists are too arrogant and closed-minded.”
Look in the mirror.
Note: Quacks, like criminals, often blame others for their own crimes. They call real science “belief”. If you try to explain to a quack the actual physics at even high school level, he will immediately claim that you are the one who is ignorant.

The amazing thing is that many quacks claim to have read this very page, & yet repeat the exact mistakes listed here. They have a predictable, uncontrollable compulsion to make these same errors. When realizing they have done so, their guilt then forces them to accuse me of those very faults.

“I’m going to talk to a real scientist instead.”
Good luck.
Note: Long ago a professor of mine told me that he got letters from 2 quacks, so he forwarded each’s letter to the other. He got back an angry letter from one saying, “Why did you introduce me to this quack?”

“I spend my time helping humanity, you waste your time on garbage.”
No, you waste your time trying to convince people who know their theories work that they don’t, when all the evidence is in their favor. I only spend part of my time on garbage, and only when it contacts me first.
“You %$#@@%# $% #%#* *#%!!”
You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
Note: Some quacks have blogs, to try to attract moral support from other quacks. I found one such site devoted exclusively to attempted character assassination of physicists. I was criticized for my physical attributes, including some bigotry I haven’t heard since elementary school. Quacks are totally oblivious to the fact that childish behavior serves only to destroy any shred of credibility they might have had left, & they will not hesitate to disseminate this as widely as possible. (Apparently their parents never taught them internet manners.)

Mental illness is common, but most of the afflicted can still function in today’s society (although often this is because they are retired). Most people continue to use computers, even if some deny the science they are based upon. (Quacks are hypocrites as well as ingrates.) The situation is less serious in physics than biology: Some people pass laws to prohibit or restrict the teaching of evolution, but there have been no serious attempts to outlaw special relativity or quantum mechanics since the days of Hitler & Stalin (which failed because nuclear science required them). Fortunately, the world depends on the technology derived from modern physics for its economy, communication, leisure, etc.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html (fair use)

---

John Baez – UC Riverside

Crackpot Index

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of “Einstien”, “Hawkins” or “Feynmann”.
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don’t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for each statement along the lines of “I’m not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations”.
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is “only a theory”, as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn’t explain “why” they occur, or fails to provide a “mechanism”.
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a “paradigm shift”.
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it “suppresses original thinkers” or saying that I misspelled “Einstein” in item 8.)
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the “The Evans Field Equation” when your name happens to be Evans.)
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
20 points for each use of the phrase “hidebound reactionary”.
20 points for each use of the phrase “self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy”.
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the “scientific establishment” is engaged in a “conspiracy” to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

John Baez — UC Riverside — http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html (fair use)

I think the entire concept of the crackpot caricature is hostile and bullying and anachronistic in the current era. The Overton window has closed on this kind of ad-hominem attack on persons and not ideas. I suggest that the concept of crackpot be canceled. It is simply no longer acceptable to brazenly state that people who are trying to help science are mentally ill because scientists are frustrated with too many unsolicited ideas. These three scientists are brazenly being hostile bullies to the enthusiastic public, crushing their egos and targeting them with insults about being mentally ill. There is just no excuse for this behaviour when scientists could simply hit the delete key, or the mute button, or put a kind message on their blog explaining that they are focused on their work and won’t engage with unsolicited ideas from people outside the field.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : August 15, 2020 : v1