Marco's Blog
Marconomics, Comet Whisperer, Clothing engineer
Saturday, October 07, 2023
Sunday, March 07, 2021
Quantized Inertia (QI) Extended to a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) based on the conservation of information
Quantised Inertia (QI) is a very powerful, yet incomplete Scientific theory by Mike McCulloch (@memcculloch). In this blog post, I will, in layman's terms, extend QI with a very small and reasonable set of axioms I believe are implied by QI, yet ignored by the founder of QI as ways forward to better quantify anomalies explained, and lock down scientific inputs to engineering.
1) There is no such thing as "Linear Momentum" What we perceive as linear momentum on Earth is actually angular momentum with very large radii. We are in a privileged acceleration situation on the surface of the Earth, where completely inelastic collisions in a linear sense can seem to happen because of the essentially infinite angular momentum of the Earth damping any residual angular momentum to its surface angular velocity, giving the impression of an "inertial frame" see 2.
<Since acceleration cannot be zero, masses cannot travel in a cosmic straight line, and thus have a minimum arc in all three dimensions - via QI's idea of minimum accelerations.>
2) There is no such thing as an "inertial frame of reference". Acceleration cannot be zero in any axis *nor at any physical point in the cosmos*. This leads to a conundrum, however. A large, but completely solid object, that is nominally in a low cosmic acceleration environment, rotates slowly. There are physical points within the solid that nominally would be in acceleration equilibrium cosmically, but the minimum acceleration laws apply. This is incompatible with a cold solid. There is no "near minimum acceleration" points anywhere we can place a solid into to test.
3) For minimum acceleration laws, it is the actual net cosmic acceleration on the mass in question having to be a minimum value. For instance, within the space station, although gravitational acceleration balances the centrifugal force, the whole of the space station is still in the privileged cosmic acceleration required to stay in orbit. Artificial satellites damp relative angular momentum by their 3 axis reaction wheels and similar.
4) Thrust should not be considered a linear force. Since neither inertia nor momentum is linear in nature, "equal and opposite reaction" is completely an angular momentum exchange. Thus what can be interpreted as a linear thrust that violates the linear conservation of momentum, should instead be interpreted as a balanced exchange of angular momentum that conveniently obtains a relative acceleration in a desired direction without the direct expelling of mass to achieve.
5) Concepts such as "position", "velocity", "acceleration", "mass" and "energy" are not fundamental but derivatives (actually integrals or sums) of information, which of itself has the property being conserved, but also being summed and added to which derives time. Thus the uncertainty principle really is a combined principle of the conservation of information, and the additive nature of information in the forward direction of time.
6) Information integrates to other nominally conserved quantities by the following process. The unit of information is the qubit. Each qubit is represented by a point of the surface area of the Bloch sphere - In the Universe's case this is the CMB. Each qubit is holographically translated/mapped to the volume inside the sphere, which is the visible universe. The qubit is the mirror particle to what we perceive as the smallest unit of mass at the neutrino scale. The neutrino and the CMB mirror are quantum entangled - everything in between is the observable universe that thus has laws that stay uniform through every part of that. (HT to @marnisheppeard, physicist missing in New Zealand)
7) In the mapping of the qubit to the volume of the universe, it is the spin of the neutrino which derives the mass/energy from the qubit of information. The minimal acceleration derives both the direction of time, our expanding universe, the uncertainty principle. The forward direction of time is the direction of new information due to minimum acceleration. New information means an expanding Bloch sphere and thus expanding visible universe. The uncertainty principle is the randomness of which axis the acceleration is going to add on to any component neutrino.
8) Component spinning neutrinos "fuse" additively to make up all known fundamental particles. The associahedra in general and the permutohedron specifically are important shapes to consider that build hadrons from fused subatomic particles, which themselves are fusions of neutrinos.
9) The most fundamental conserved quantity in the universe is angular momentum. It is the sum of all of the angular momenta of all component information, and can only get bigger over time, but by only one qubit at a time. It is essentially the centripetal acceleration of the spin, which integrates to velocity, and then position. Mass is the 3 axis stabilised sum of information in the accelerating frame of reference of the body representing the mass, and gravity is just the quantum entanglement of the masses as they add up over time and integrate to a different relative position to the masses it still is quantum entangled to.
10) Mass/Energy/ is not conserved precisely over time. It increases at a steady quantised rate in a random axis (1 of 3)
11) With QI, a Universe of continuous creation is possible (rather than big bang theory) due to the re-interpretation of the CMB, and a viable mechanism for mass/energy/information to add up over time evenly over the universe, but mainly concentrated in the hearts of massy bodies that conserve the information within a locally integrated position.
Sunday, December 08, 2019
Information and Secrecy are the keys to modern civilization
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Intellectual Property, Quantum Gravity and Marni Sheppeard's work
I am very interested in the origins of ideas, but more importantly in emerging ideas that are a new revelation of truth (or at least an insight with great utility). When many people share ideas on Theoretical Physics, there are many ways to twist them around, and the people who benefit are the people in privilege - Well connected, well funded, authoritative and almost always male. I am not one of those males.
In fact, theoretical physics isn't really my thing (I'm more into comets and the origin of life), but in the last year or so, I have found many great things authored in theoretical physics, with great insights and they are, by and large, outside and contradicted by the mainstream.
These new insights, put together, are even greater in scope with that of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, and are likely to result in a new physics revolution.
Who should get the credit for these new discoveries in physics? Knowing his-story it will be the male with the most bluster and with the finger in the most pies that can wrest the credit away from the rightful author just when the final bit of proof is authored.
However, with ubiquitous technology that can store and date the text of online conversations, tracing back prior art is something even an amateur like me can take part in.
I first met Marni Dee Sheppeard on Twitter when she made a point of outing a male physicist protagonist with a clever insight outside of the mainstream. This male physicist would list followers that were brave to speak against the mainstream and in favour of his own brand of physics. They just happened to be all male, and without creative ideas of their own to offer on theoretical physics. Marni was definitely brave to speak out both against the mainstream, but also with her own brave creative ideas.
My conclusion is that Marni's ideas have more of the pieces of the puzzle correct that will lead to a new revelation of truth. Additionally, in tracing back the origin of these pieces, there is good evidence that they are attributable to her, and that she has more of the pieces enough to complete the work she has started - *If she is given the chance*.
So.. I don't really have any power in this situation, and my hope is that attribution will flow given the evidence of prior art, to the rightful author(s). Whether the historical papers that prove attribution are peer reviewed or not is immaterial. What is important is that they are recognised as reliable science, and confirmed to be legitimate original manuscripts.
That being the case, if the formulation of Quantum Gravity of Marni Sheppeard is found to have the most utility as a Grand Unified Theory, then Marni should get the credit for having thought of it, regardless of her lack of privilege.
Sunday, March 10, 2019
Marni Sheppeard's Neutrino work
Marni's work on (motivic) quantum gravity is quite revolutionary in physics.
An interesting revelation for me was the realisation that the conservation of conservation laws across all of space and time can only be explained via Noether's theorem. Every conservation law has a symmetry. In this case the symmetry is between the Neutrino and the maximally non-local mirror on the CMB.
Whereas the braid terminology is used by Quantum Gravity, I like to have a visual geometric concatenation in forming other basic particles from a spinning neutrino.
A spinning Neutrino itself, is a natural explanation of a photon, as there is a 1:1 correspondence between the wavelength and the frequency of spin.
Non-Local Mirror Neutrino
http://vixra.org/abs/1711.0119
The Algebra of Non Local Neutrino Gravity
Quantum Localization and the Sterile Neutrino
Tuesday, January 01, 2019
Linking Mike McCulloch's Quantised Inertia and MU69 internal dynamics
Saturday, September 15, 2018
Explaining the Axis of Evil Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies
The most recent and accurate maps of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) have been made from spacecraft that orbit at the Earth-Sun L2 region (WMAP and Planck). This should be a moot point because they are observing the most distant phenomenon possible, in both space and time, which should be independent of our reference frame. However, it appears that the CMB is anisotropic in precisely the plane of the solar system ecliptic. This axis is dubbed the cosmological "Axis of Evil" That is also the plane around the sun that the observing spacecraft orbit (as well as the Earth around the Sun). The centripetal acceleration due to the orbit of the craft is in a vector direction on average in the opposite direction to observations as they are made over the course of an orbit of the sun which is a calendar year. The accelerating frame of reference is thus precisely in the same plane as the anisotropy of the CMB for both of the two independent craft studying the CMB.
The only way that the acceleration and CMB can be connected in this way is if the CMB constitutes a Hubble horizon - that is, a cosmic scale fundamental limit to information. Thus, the anisotropies that we see in the CMB, far from being information about the early universe, is a reflection of observer's own acceleration frame of reference, and is therefore information-less Unruh radiation differentials. That is, what we see in the background radiation instantaneously reflects our frame of reference at the information boundary in that precise direction in which we see that radiation.
This would seem to imply a non-local communication between a local object and the Hubble horizon which violates known limits. However, the answer to this is that the phase speed of a monochromatic Unruh wave is not limited by the speed of light since it carries no information. So a local Unruh wave may well be aware of distant horizons without paradox.
An easy way to test this dependence is to repeat observations from the same craft, but always in arcs that are 90 degrees to the centripetal acceleration. The whole sky can still be scanned within a year of observations, the sun (earth) angle will always be 90 degrees to observed CMB rather than a friendlier 135 degrees plus in previous observations.
Monday, August 13, 2018
Foolproof way to Objectively judge reliability of scientific theories
B.(foolproof way) I have used this way since I have discovered its power back in 2012. First of all forget any pre-conceived pet theories. Then when looking at an established theory, avoid until a much later stage the idea of needing to *replace* an established theory. This way is to find where the established theory is probably wrong, and why it is wrong, not to suggest that the established theory should be overturned. We are looking at negative results - experiments that are repeatable that do not match the established theory and failed predictions thereof. Then we look at the *chain* of evidence for the established theory. To speed this process, we have to work back on the trail of citations to an early part of the theory and then to whatever process of formulation was used initially to produce the theory, and then to the fewest assumptions used (parsimony). Check that the assumptions were not and still are not, amenable to direct experimentation or observation. Check whether the negative results were available when the theory was formulated. Then cycle through the assumptions starting from the most arbitrary to the least and check the *sensitivity* of the negative result to each assumption. Do this for any negative result that you can think of. Choose the assumption that the negative results are most sensitive to. Consider this assumption wrong and start a search for a suitable spectrum of possible replacements *for the assumption*.
Invariably there are *No* papers to help you in this process B so don't look for them even though the arguments of A demand them. In terms of looking for the "spectrum of alternatives to the assumption", anything that refers to any options online to the assumption or the conclusion of an alternative theory is worth looking at. When looking at an alternate assumption, try to use all the arguments, methodology and mathematics of the established theory apart from that linked to the assumption. When looking at alternative theories, first make sure the argument is *coherent* such that there is flow from the assumptions to the conclusions of the alternative. If there is not, disregard the incoherent aspects of the alternative theory concerned. If there are coherent aspects of an alternative theory, track back to the simplest assumptions and compare notes to the established theory. Take note of the *alternate assumption*, not any other aspects of the alternate theory. As an example, I have successfully extracted some useful alternative assumption from "creation science" without needing to take other assumption unrelated to the wrong assumption of an established scientific theory.
There you have it. Challenge me with an example of an established scientific theory.
Friday, July 27, 2018
Axioms or premises to have a conversation with me about the origin of life as we know it
I am not going to discuss a point if a god (or anything omnipotent or magical or capable of breaking the laws of physics/nature) is going to be invoked either as a conclusion or a starting possibility in any discussion on the origin of life.
2. No argument of "always having existed". I will only have reasonable discussions on this topic if we can agree that there was a time in our universe where life as we know it, did not exist.
3. Abiogenesis as is currently formulated is impossible.
That is, no non-living mixture of any chemical ingredients in any environment, at any complexity can generate anything like life as we know it in terms of metabolism and reproduction.
If anyone reading this can accept all three of these premises (even if just for argument's sake) then I will happily engage in conversation. I can defend these axioms/premises to the hilt. If, when reading this, you believe these axioms to be contradictory, you are obviously not trying hard enough.
Thursday, July 19, 2018
PHILAE versus 67P don't forget the AM
Monday, July 02, 2018
My ideas for Haumea (Plutoid, TNO)
Knowledge about similar objects out at this distance (Pluto, Charon, Enceladus) have been used together with laws of angular momentum to work out what is physically possible. It ignores formation mechanisms at this point so as to concentrate on what is physically and mechanically possible given observations of Haumea and several other well observed analogues.
Pluto, Charon and Enceladus have been found to have ice shells and liquid water oceans beneath. Geysers on Enceladus go to form a ring at Saturn, so this probably explains the formation of Haumea's ring. Out-jetting of water at speed is what is happening at Enceladus, and this would be enough to torque even such a large body as Haumea. A thick ice shell would be enough to hold up to compression at the neck as the centrifugal force, friction, and conservation of Angular Momentum does the rest.
There will be gradual and even stretching of the neck as angular momentum is increased - in the same way as couples ice-skaters do the "spiral of death"
Tidal friction from the moons and ring keeps the motion circularised in the same way as the skating spin.
Sunday, July 01, 2018
Conditions for Contact Binary via collision
1: Formerly connected bodies "reconfiguring"
As shown in a previous blog post, with the real case of couples skaters to demonstrate, bodies twist away from each other to retain angular momentum using their previous independent rotation as a dynamo (at the point of collision in the case of asteroidal bodies)
2: Independently rotating objects colliding from outside each other's hill spheres at "baby crawling" speed.
Inelastic collisions are of course possible for non-rotating (or trivially rotating bodies that collide in the perfect offset to cancel independent rotation). This is because the required collisional/deformation damping is obtained passively and gives a reaction force in the correct direction opposite to motion, and proportionally to motion so that the force stops when the relative velocity between bodies comes to zero.
A head on collision with a random (in observed ranges of possibilities) rotation or offset collision even with no initial rotation makes an inelastic collision impossibly rare given:
Coherent bodies - Mainly solid that can deform but not to the point of liquidity.
The two bodies are of similar size - smaller body is no less than about a third the radius, or no less than a tenth of the moment of inertia in rough figures.
Due to the laws of physics, forces that perform torque on each other must balance.
Overall angular momentum must be conserved.
If work is required to perform torque to change rotation that must be in the amount and direction made possible by friction, reaction force or gravity.
The following is a way to create model to test generated samples to verify this blog's order of magnitude analysis:
http://www.euclideanspace.com/physics/dynamics/collision/threed/index.htm
For a perfectly inelastic collision to ensue, not only relative speeds must be damped to zero, but relative rotation rates must also be damped to zero and still be touching. At the point of touching, the combined bodies' moment of inertia is at the minimum - Therefore, the rotational velocity required to maintain angular momentum is at its maximum. The kinetic energy associated with the required rotation is also at a maximum. There is work required to achieve this synchronised higher rotation unless the initial conditions are perfectly selected. The same fluidity that allows damping of the impact force allows shear perpendicular with the relative spin velocities which would throw the bodies apart further than reactive forces alone could do. In other words, a notionally inelastic collision would convert rotational velocity to inertial frame velocity in all except perfectly tuned cases which are extremely rare given the assumption of random initial spin state.
Friction under tensile stress or associated with outward movement (Stretch) is the only option to passively glue the bodies together keeping coherent orientation. With stretch (or expanding orbit) there is natural damping as the moment of inertia increases for the duo in proportion to its reduced velocity. Whether loosely connected at the neck or two bodies orbiting the barycentre, outward movement from previously connected bodies is the only passive way to stabilise mutual spin.
Pairs skaters use this particular rule of thumb to spectacular effect with the "spiral of death" spin. The technique spirals the (female) skater outwards with her head balanced inches above the ice. The gradual outward release damped with the action of muscles gives exceptional control that appears paradoxical and adds to the appearance of magic levitation of the head off the ice.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Rotational kinematics - possible and impossible spin-ups
Monday, June 11, 2018
Why couples figureskaters (and bi-lobe comets) don't do that spin up trick that individual iceskaters do!
It is well known that a figure skater takes advantage of the conservation of angular momentum to achieve incredible speeds of rotation by having their arms outstretched and bringing them in.
Ever wonder why they bring both arms simultaneously?
Or why couples skaters don't/can't pull each other in to achieve spectacular combined rotations?
or why bi-lobe comets don't collapse on the neck and reconfigure to a much faster combined rotation?
In short, the problem is the Coriolis force!
If an ice skater has just one arm outstretched and pulls it in at a rotating reference, the force required to counter the centrifugal force would topple the skater with the skates as the fulcrum and they would precess violently. The equal and opposite arm acting in unison balances the forces required to bring the arms in and all the work exerted on doing this gets converted to torque, spinning up the skilful skater.
With the couples skating this becomes a two body problem. As they pull each other in from outstretched arms, each person's individual moment of inertia is far more than the nominal amount of a single outstretched arm. Therefore, the radial pulling that they can exert on eachother topples them both over quite effectively. The only way they can exert the torques required to hold them in a configuration is to wrap their arms around each other. Countering the centrifugal force and friction at their contact points is not enough to effect the principle, as it CANNOT prevent the two persons from spinning independently from each other, conserving angular momentum both individually and as a non rigid unit.
This principle, when applied to a bi-lobed comet like 67-P Churyumov-Geramisenko means that a partial collapse of the neck which allows mutual gravity to pull them closer together could not result in a faster rotation keeping the same configuration in the rotating reference frame.
However, if the lobes rocked at the neck with a slight precession, the same configuration could be kept and the rotation restabilised with less precession if the neck lengthened and the friction caused a slower mutual rotation in the same configuration in the rotating reference frame.
This is exactly the same principle that couple skaters use to stabilise the rotation when doing death defying spins with the female skater's head just inches above the ice. A gradual lengthening of the arm under tension dampens any wobble in the spin allowing complete and graceful control of the spin.
Saturday, February 03, 2018
Anuket Boulder move timing and Cause identified
Sunday, January 08, 2017
Liquid water on comets assertion
Sunday, November 06, 2016
Recombinant Fission in 67P comet nucleus
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Timing for Anuket (Sah) collapse. - NOT perihelion
Copyright ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM – CC BY-SA IGO 3.0
To view a copy of this licence please visit:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/
FOR OSIRIS
Credits: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DyASP/IDA/
All lines and dotted annotations by Marco Parigi