⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 💡 ❗ 😮 ❤ 😀 😎


hi all it was only about 2 mos ago a big ambitious update on quantum mechanics shifts was posted on the “fluid paradigm shift”. if you ask me this is all at least as epochal as the invention/ discovery of quantum mechanics itself about a century ago. and (unbeknownst to me at the time) theres been a striking new development.

around here updates to QM are measured in years and not months. have been blogging now a solid ½ decade on the topic and thats just the recorded history, my inquiries go back decades. but as mentioned in that last blog “my neurons are really buzzing”. something is in the air, the zeitgeist is electric right now. lightning is striking. all my spider senses are tingling. normally would not write very quickly on all this but heres a “flash update” based on the sheer significance of the announcement/ finding.

all the research is paying off. a breakthru has arrived. there is now SOLID EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR SUBQUANTUM EFFECTS.[a] thats right they have now been MEASURED and published in a reputable physics journal (physical review letters… uh hey preemptively addressing skeptics obsessing about peer review etc, didnt einstein + bohr + other founders have papers in there?).

that breakthru credit goes to the VINANTE-ADLER team. they have been working on this line of inquiry maybe about 2 decades judging by their papers.

which reminds me, some of my other top favorite physics blogs, some of the best on the net: woit, hossenfelder, baez, aaronson, Lumo.* NONE of them has said even a single tiniest )( hair of anything about this breakthru. even typically very garrulous/ LOUD reddit is silent but did scroung up 7 upvotes.[a2] so, this is a breakthru and a SCOOP for this illustrious blog wrt the physics blogosphere. nary a peep from anyone else! maybe the skeptics are in shock, maybe they are simply unaware. that seems to be the case in my favorite physics chat room where there have been many emotional, at times-stinging discussions about the utter impossibility and sheer ridiculousness of any theory deeper than QM, its all in the transcript.

it is now reported in New Scientist.[a6] the title is:

Is this our first clue to a world beyond quantum theory?

(lol) the answer is YES. as SE physics near-curmudgeon-retrograde Rennie said of this particular source in his stinging/ clipped british vernacular despite his apt readership, its “irredeemably superficial”. nearly a tabloid of science. eg maybe only 1 sliver of a notch higher in the gutter above Daily Mail, lol!

the new theory seems to be highly aligned with the FLUID PARADIGM and at least “emergent QM”. its based on brownian motion, something that pops up in a lot of QM interpretations. (eg fractional QM [i]). Bohm himself addressed it! actually was surprised that Bohm also cited Madelung fluid. but many Bohmians are not really conversant or even really comfortable with his actual deep ideas/ directions.[e]

also semiclassical (love+hate relationship continues!) found a paper on a staggering idea that have been pursuing conceptually myself and asked about on physics SE but it looks like my question got DELETED, ouch: the wavefunction of a set of particles as a superposition of the separate particle wavefns, by Norsen, believe this is something the rosetta stone for emergent quantum mechanics, and am not sure if any of the founders ever considered it (de Broglie? Bohm? etc).[e1]

elsewhere, circumstantially/ peripherally aligned, there is lots of reaction to the hossenfelder book.[b] just bought it and its at the top of my to-read pile.

Finsters “causal fermion systems” popped up for discussion on the physics chat room and we all poked at it a bit, cant really make heads nor tails of it myself but its a GR + QM unification theory and worth citing at least.[d]

Minwalla was mentioned in the chat room and then looked him up and he has some innovative ideas on a gravity + fluid paradigm unification, QM + GR.

solitons continue to be on my mind and in some deep refs.[g]

there was an extraordinary announcement about nanodumbbell torsion balance that might help measure “vacuum friction” and more music to my ears and the fluid paradigm interpretation.[h]

as also noted in the physics chat room, another extraordinary occurrence of the fluid paradigm shows up in the “semi empirical mass formula” and the so called liquid drop model, and old dusty long-forgotten buried-in-sands-of-time paradigm proposed for QM.[j]

furey got some attention for her new octonion theory and we had some great debate on the subject.[k] apparently theres a lot of controversy over the use of quaternions in physics eg for relativity but there are many solid papers on the subj for anyone not fooled by the anti-hype aka (unwarranted) skepticism.

in short the Adler-Vinante ideas look like they could be a massive gamechanger, aka REVOLUTIONARY, and think they are like the tiny plant growing through a crack in the sidewalk or a rock, which could eventually grow to be quite large/ strong, my intuition is that this is the birth of QM V2. all the utterly tenacious realist-doubters-contrarians like einstein, bohm, bell, de broglie, schroedinger will have the last laugh, their ideas are finally vindicated a century later.


* fineprint (sigh/ lol!): my positive comments have been blocked on the woit/ hossenfelder/ Lumo blogs. was also temporarily censored on aaronsons a few years ago (he announced it in comments). so much for being a contrarian eh? badge of honor™… freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press blog™.

** the Vinante results were turned up by Secret in the physics chat room and they are actually ~¾ yr old from fall 2017, an eternity in cyber time but a mere blip )( in scientific time… alas feeling a bit sheepish/ bummed that hadnt noticed/ found them before that! but the new scientist article spotlighting them (spotted/ shared by Secret) is only about a month old.

⭐ ⭐ ⭐

(update) “fineprint” semiclassical has immediate critical feedback in the physics chat room and says point blank Please don’t equate Adler-Vinante to Bohm. ah, some achilles heel already sliced at there. ok/ full disclosure/ alas, it appears Adler doesnt cite Bohm much at all in his papers despite the resemblance. so looked further, his cohort/ collaborator Bassi (there is an Adler-Bassi paper below [a17]) is very amenable to Bohmian theory and has written several favorable papers on the topic. yes, Bohm did not make brownian motion a central part of his theory but he certainly cited it as possibly contributing to or comprising the subquantum realm. my feeling is that Bohmian connections/ elements of this new theory are not immediately apparent/ obvious but will become clearer over time. the subquantum conceptual paradigm is preeminent, suspect it may even have been bohm who coined the word. bohm is also rightly regarded as nearly the founder of emergent QM theory.

a. adler + subquantum
b. hossenfelder
c. unification
d. finster causal fermion systems
e. bohm
f. fluid gravity/ minwalla
g. solitons
h. vacuum friction
i. fractional QM
j. semi empircal mass formula
k. furey


  1. J Mark Morris


    I’m new to your blog. Interestingly, I have been on a somewhat similar journey, for just over a year, and had many the same experiences – particularly rude on reddit, even in the hypothetical physics sub if you can imagine that. Also, I’ve been blocked on twitter by Sean Carroll and astrokatie and half a dozen others, and probably muted (an individual shadow ban) by 100’s of others. It is very frustrating. You can’t even catch a tidbit of feedback. I didn’t wade into stackexchange because that looks even rougher than reddit. Bee won’t post anything creative I say on her blog, and Baez has apparently banned me too. They don’t tell you and won’t provide an answer. So, I have stopped trying all of these dead ends. Nowadays, I tweet, blog, and have my own subreddit, facebook group, and my LinkedIn where I write exclusively about my model for physics and cosmology.

    Anyway, I have been approaching top and middle down, from the physics/cosmology transmit-only community videos, articles, wikipedia, and arXiv (the parts I understand). My approach has been to reverse engineer nature from all of these inputs. I seem to be reasonably good at telling when the scientists are bluffing with their narratives. So, at this point I have a new narrative and high level model. My hope is to start getting into the math, but frankly, it will be slow going.

    You appear to be open minded, so perhaps you would look at my one page narrative/model here on WordPress. Any feedback you have would be helpful. I think it would fit well with some of the ideas you mention. As a plus, it is parsimonious, explains a lot of unsolved problems, and looks to me like it is compatible with experiment and much of the math. Oh, and by the way, I show how GR and QM are incomplete. https://johnmarkmorris.com/2019/01/03/a-graviton-particle-based-narrative-and-model-of-nature

    I’d also be willing to have constructive conversation if you are interested.

    Best regards,

    J Mark Morris


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s