Gravity is Quantum and Continuous

NEOCLASSICAL PHYSICS AND QUANTUM GRAVITY
Imagine that nature is emergent from pairs of Planck scale fundamental particles, the electrino and the positrino, which are equal yet oppositely charged. These are the only carriers of energy, in electromagnetic and kinetic form. Now add in an infinite 3D Euclidean space (non curvy) and Maxwell’s equations. 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 explores this recipe for nature and how it emerges as a narrative that is compatible with GR and QM, yet far superior in ability to explain the universe and resolve open problems. For 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 basics see: Idealized Neoclassical Model and the NPQG Glossary.

This post is in response to Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder’s video on How to Test Quantum Gravity.

Sabine Hossenfelder

Let’s think about this from the perspective of NeoClassical Physics and Quantum Gravity (NPQG, see johnmarkmorris.com).

  1. There are two fundamental Planck scale particles, the electrino and the positrino, equal and opposite, 1/6 charge magnitude, immutable, conserved.
  2. These particles form shells that may or may not encapsulate payloads. A neutrino is a 3 electrino, 3 positrino shell, or 3/3. A photon is a 6/6 shell.
  3. The particle that implements spacetime is a 12/12 particle and it permeates the universe as a superfluid gas. Space itself is a simple 3D Euclidean void (non-stretchy). I don’t know whether to call it a graviton or axion.
  4. Each electrino/positrino shell carries energy in quanta, which are the harmonics of the wave equation(s) of the shell’s electrinos and positrinos. The energy of the shell includes what we call mass energy; i.e., the energy required in the shell to hold the payload at low scales of velocity relative to local spacetime gas.
  5. So we have two quanta at this point – the physical quanta of each shell, and the energy quanta carried by shells.
  6. Adjacent particles shells interact with each other as the electrinos and positrinos come in and out of proximity while they follow their wave equation around the shell. These electromagnetic interactions are continuous, according to Maxwell’s equations.
  7. Interacting particle shells share a continuous ebb and flow of energy between them and forms a energy wave that proceeds spherically outward from every shell. Note that energy is not transfered discretely in gravity, it is merely a continuous ebb and flow.
  8. This continuous energy ebb and flow is stored in the kinetic energy of the electrinos and positrinos as well as the electromagnetic field interaction between every pair of electrinos and positrinos, which propogates at local c.
  9. Now consider that gravity is merely the local effect of all of these ebb and flow energy waves from every other participating** particle in the universe. Of course since this falls off as 1/r^2 the local energy gradient is dominated by more local particles. This is why gravity pulls things near Earth towards Earth. This is why the Earth is accelerated by gravity towards the Sun, and our solar system is pulled towards the center of the Milky Way galaxy, and etc.
  10. So, in NPQG, gravity is a result of quantized shells, quantized energy harmonics, and continuous ebb and flow of energy between shells (kinetic and electromagnetic).

The best path forward is to continue to develop the NPQG model and show how GR and QM emerge and then use NPQG to solve the outstanding problems in physics and cosmology. That in itself is a form of theory and model based testing. With ongoing development of NPQG, the degree of understanding of emergent nature will rapidly increase, and further experimental testing opportunities within reach of science will become apparent.


** Some particles in the Universe do not participate in gravity, in particular those electrinos and positrinos that happen to be inside a Planck core that may have formed in a black hole. They begin participating again once they escape the black hole via jet or rupture.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : January 21, 2020 : v1


Addendum: A commenter on YouTube asked very good questions, to which I responded. I copy that dialogue below and edited it for spelling and clarity.

lukas oulehla :

1. why 1/6 charge magnitude? relative to what? and what is “charge”?

2. does it mean photon is composed of 6 electrinos and 6 positrinos? and tis charge?

3. – particle that implements spacetime – do you have a name for such particle refered to by known science? – this 12/12 refers to 12 electrinos/positrinos? – If space is void then how is determined inertia?

4. shells carries mass energy you say but what makes matter continue its motion when you step on brakes? these shells?

5. so particles electrino positrino form shells (physical quanta) and shells contain energy (energy quanta) right?

6. now you made electrino and positrino step outside of shells which they form? Now you lost me.

7. “shells share a continuous ebb and flow of energy between them and forms a energy wave” – you call a flux a wave right?

8. how can energy flow/ebb be “stored in the kinetic energy”? – and the pair propagates the space at “c”? or the EM field? Or is the electrino/positrino pair the EM field?

9. you say that “gravity is merely the local offect of those flows of waves FROM other particles in the universe.. – does it mean particles exchange this flow/ebb? but this should keep them in equilibrium and not drag or pull them towards each other right?

10. GR emerges? out of where? it is a theory, model and has nothing in common with how nature works. You do not need to make any attempts to implement GR into unified theory. Just leave it. And work on better theory. Why you do as I can see. “some particles in the universe do not participate in gravity” – which do not? – why do you think so? because any particle is a concentrated and organized (magnetic) field which causes more tension/charge within eather which attracts more and more matter together towards its barycentrum.


Here is my response:

Thank you for engaging thoughtfully.

1. 1/6 charge is relative to the charge magnitude of 1 for electron or positron. Electron = -1, Positron = +1. Electrino = -1/6. Positriono = +1/6.

2. Yes, I am modeling photon as 6 electrinos and 6 positrinos and as a result it is a neutral particle since the sum of charge is zero.”

3a. The current era scientists who think of spacetime as particle based seem to call it either an axion or a graviton, or maybe even could be interpreted as a Higgs. I kind of softly refer to a spacetime particle as ‘possibly an axion or graviton’ because the scientists already have a lot of assumptions that go along with the terminology and they get upset and confused when the terminology is re-used. Yes, 12/12 refers to 12 electrinos and 12 positrinos. In my notation m/n, the numerator m is electrinos, and the denominator n is positrinos. It’s not really a fraction though.

3b. Inertia is relative to the local spacetime gas, which is very very lightly interacting. I am not sure how much the spacetime gas flows though. Certainly it must flow, because presumably spacetime gas is being consumed by black holes and produced by the jets and ruptures of black holes and other events that react with spacetime gas.

4a. The way I currently model it is that a particle with essentially zero velocity relative to the spacetime gas must have a shell with the energy required to be stable before it decays. So if there is a payload inside the shell, then the shell energy required to contain that payload is related to the mass of the particle. If there is no payload (photon, neutrino, and spacetime particle (perhaps axion/graviton)) then the shell energy is that required to maintain stability of the particle before it decays. This also means that even photon and spacetime gas particle have a “mass” even though it would be extremely small scale. At rest this is related to E=mc^2.

4b. So if a particle is accelerated, then the shell must take on more energy. This must all be related to the expanded Einstein equation that includes momentum. So if the force of acceleration is removed, the shell still has the higher energy and can continue onward with its momentum. Likewise, deceleration would require reduction of shell energy, i.e. transfer of energy to whatever is applying the decelerating force.

5. Yes.

6. Ok. Consider that every particle in standard model and above is surrounded by spacetime particles. So all these shells are in proximity to neighbor shells. Incredibly dense. But in a typical case the particles including the shells are stable. They are not reacting or decaying. So you have the electrinos and positrinos in one shell doing their wave equation motion in their shell. So is each of their neighbors. Now, we know the electromagnetic fields will interact with a strength proportional to 1/r^2 where r is the distance between any pair of electrinos or positrinos. Those very tiny interactions cause very tiny continuous shifts of kinetic and electromagnetic energy. But those shifts of energy would not be quantized – they would be continuous, and typically the energy that shifts a tiny bit from one particle to the next will shift back to the original particle. This is what I am calling ebb and flow. It is wave energy that propagates without discrete transfer. I hope that makes sense.

7. Yes, I have used the term ‘flux’ for this.

8a. Imagine two adjacent shells, each formed with electrinos and positrinos. If an electrino and positrino come in closer proximity due to the wave equation path they are taking around the shell, they will attract electromagnetically. Each will gain some small amount of kinetic energy due to that electromagnetic force. But then they are going to be tugged back towards their shell because the shell is stable, so after they reach their closest point of approach, that small continuous boost of kinetic energy will return to electromagnetic energy as the electrino or positrino returns to their normal wave equation path. That very small deviation and continuous transfer back and forth between electromagnetic and kinetic energy is essentially how the tiny wave of gravity is passed from shell to shell. You can combine both forms of energy and think about it as shell temperature or total energy that shifts back and forth.

8b. The electrino and the positrino are each independent particles interacting according to Maxwell’s equations.

8c. I didn’t mention it in my original comment here, but c is local c. Permittivity and permeability vary according to the temperature (total energy) of the local particle shells, which are primarily going to be spacetime gas shells except in very dense objects. This is related to how how spacetime gas implements Einstein’s curvy space. Yes, c varies and what scientists call gravitational lensing is simple classical refraction. You also have to tie in Lorentz here and realize that shell radius varies with total energy. So the more energy in a shell, the more it shrinks and the slower it’s particles move. That is the cause of space contraction and time dilation in my model.

9. Yes. Imagine the earth with all the protons and neutrons concentrated in our spherical rock. That is a lot of massive particles concentrated in one spot. Each particle shell is interacting with every other particle shell, including the spacetime gas shells that permeate everything. So since they are constantly doing this ebb and flow thing, all shells would I think have a root mean square elevation in energy from this spherical ebb and flow (sine?) wave emitted by each shell. This will establish a gradient in shell energy as we move outward from the center of earth. I think gravity is essentially convection along this gradient. Each shell is tugged in the direction towards higher energy.

10a. GR and QM are emergent from this simple model of nature. What I mean there is that GR describes spacetime and gravity using a model of curvy spacetime and tensor math and so on, but really that has all emerged from a far simpler classical reality of electrinos and positrinos, energy, and flat 3D Euclidean space.

10b. “some particles in the universe do not participate in gravity” : I think that in some black holes, particularly supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies, that a Planck particle core can form. Essentially this is a solid form of electrinos and positrinos where each particle is storing the Planck energy. I model it as kinetic energy of zero relative to each other and the Planck energy stored entirely in electromagnetic field interaction of electrinos and positrinos packed at the Planck scale in some form of lattice. Interior to the core there is no energy flow, because no particle can accept more energy because it is already at the Planck energy. Therefore, electrinos and positrinos INSIDE the Planck core would not participate in gravity. They don’t ebb and they don’t flow!

10c. I also think that Planck cores can escape the event horizon of the black hole via rupture or breach. Typically we see that as those massive polar jets. If you follow this line of thinking, then you see that it is a mini-bang and there is no need for a cosmology with a single one time inflationary Big Bang. Instead, isotropy in the universe is guaranteed by supermassive black holes implementing the same physics throughout the universe. That also means we have no idea how old the universe is.

Thank you so much for your insightful and intelligent questions. I have written dozens of short blog articles at johnmarkmorris.com that provide more information about the model, which I call NPQG for Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity. It is a model that is in development and evolving as I learn more. I consider it to be open source, so if you find it interesting, please join in with comments on the blog articles or contact me directly.

Thank you,
Mark


Lukas replied:

@J Mark Morris good! You know I ask many people on many things they mention in their posts but each like tenth responds and each like 100th takes it seriously. I wish all would have the same approch as you do. Humanity would start to progress towards awakening much faster then it does 🙂 I will definitely check your portal.. Just a few additional remarks:

1a. – why do you chose for just 1/6 of electron charge? you refer to the mass of electron correct? (that is why I asked you about what is a “charge” according to you since people are ofthen confused about it and in fact do not understand what it is.. Main stream physics gives definitions which make no sense.

1b. – when you speak of positrino you refer to anti-neutrino right. But here with anti- you refer to spin being down where it was up in case of electrino, correct? Since also here people are often confused and wrongly call the opposite vortex (centrifugal to centripetal) to be anti-vortex and anti-particle and create anti-matter this way but it is not any anti-matter. It it is just different zone in the toroidal geometry in which all physical matter is manifested..

I will stop now in asking “why” it will be better if I go through your model so that you do not need to rewrite what is already written somewhere else.. And just few posts above you there is a post of guy by the nick of Xeno Bardock. We are in a dispute what ether does, he says it is a flow, I argue it is not. I would be most happy if you could add your perspective on what it does. There you also get the idea how I look at gravity and why my take on it is different from yours, despite I do not see much of controversy between you and me, in your model you just describe the mechanism of how the attraction is induced in a different way.
Thank you Mark.


Here is my response:

1a. I chose 1/6 for the electrino and positrino charge magnitude because I was able to then derive the formula for all standard model particles and many common reactions in terms of electrinos and positrinos, i.e., composite particles made from electrinos and positrinos. I did this by hand like a puzzle, but I plan to write a software program to exhaustively go through the reasonable possibilities and extend the test cases to include those in the Particle Data Group book of known particles and reactions from experiment.

1b. The positrino is the anti-particle of the electrino. Charges are opposite. In proximity they form a dipole. I am not sure the the electrino and positrino individually spin. However, shells do spin. Payloads inside shells may spin. Still working that part out.

I will take a look at your conversation with Xeno Bardock and see if I can contribute.
Thanks again,
Mark


lukas oulehla :

Mark, I wanted to make a post on your portal but asks for registration under wordpress.com which I do not find comfortable to do. So copying the feedback again here:

1a. – why do you chose for just 1/6 of electron charge? you refer to the mass of electron correct? (that is why I asked you about what is a “charge” according to you since people are often confused about it and in fact do not understand what it is. Mainstream physics gives definitions which make no sense. What is a charge in your understanding?

1b. – when you speak of positrino you refer to anti-neutrino right. But here with anti- you refer to spin being down where it was up in case of electrino, correct? Since also here people are often mix anti vortex with anti-matter (centrifugal to centripetal) to be anti-vortex and anti-particle and create anti-matter this way but it is not any anti-matter. I again wonder how you approach this.

2. photon consisting out of 6/6 which makes it 1electron 1positron. And you think there cannot be any other quanta then multiples of 1electron-1positron?

3a. OK

3b. spacetime gas – does main stream science have a word for this? And you think tha it exists appart from matter and that a black hole consumes this gas also appart from mater?

4a. when you speak of a shell do you mean a toroidal structure as we know from sacred geometry?

4b.OK

4c. What is your take on sacred geometry and matter manifestation?

5. OK

6. I should maybe ask what you consider to be :

6a. ether

6b. quantum field and how you map your model of electrino/positrino particles on them

7. ok

8a. if electrino/positrino particles are at planks scale then how can they have their own wave function, is not a plansk scale the smallest node which can exist?

8b. OK

8c. I agree on explanation of main stream gravitational lensing as mere refraction

8d. what is the relation between electrinos/positrinos and neutrino? if electrino is 1/6 of an electron, neutrino is 1/270000 of en electron, some calculations speak of a fragment of 1/1000000.

8c. tetrahedron geometry, is it anyhow significant for your model?

9. I only think that you are too “deep” with your shells (if they should exist at plancks scales). In fact you are at strong nuclear force and standing wave over there which holds matter together. Gravity as we deal with it is at microvave frequencies, somewhere there. That is why they can generate antivortices that repell from gravitational wave and enable TR3B hover weightless in the air

10a. you do not consider concept of “curved space” correct right? If you do, what is the mechanism how matter curves the space and what is space to be able to be curved?

10ba. “Planck particle core in the center of BH can carry Planks energy” – here I have the issue, Planks energy is energy radiate by electron while transitions from higher to lower orbit right. Photon is released and it is considered to be smallest unit of photon and its energy. But you say photon consists of 6 electrinos and 6 positrinos = 1electron + 1positron, means way more then its tiny fraction as Plancks energy is.

10bb. you propose that in in the BH electrinos/positrinos do not participate in gravity. Does it mean they do not interact with the spacetime gass?

10bc. then why does BH have so strong gravity?

10ca. I agree there are particles that can leave BH – neutrons do within jets, you call this rapture right?

10cb. I agree Big Bang is not needed and I understand that it flaws due to wrong understanding of redshift. Which is misinterpreted as “object accelerating from away from us” but in fact light just gets tired.. agree?

10cc. how old is the universe – I like the idea that it has no beginning no end, it is infinite. Because it is the ether, there time neither distances do exist, just pure consciousness


Here is my response:

Hi Lukas.

I thought I had WordPress set to NOT require registrations. I’ve asked a friend to check it out and see if I can fix that. They just got back to me regarding a test page. No registration required. Can you reply with the link to the page that required registration? I’ll try to fix it once I know which one it was. My intent is to have a completely open source effort with easy method to contribute ideas.

1a. Charge is standard charge as defined by conventions of electromagnetics and Maxwell’s equations. I am trying to work out the best way to describe mass, but essentially it is related to the energy required for the shell to be stable. That could be a shell with no nucleus or a shell with a nucleus (I call it a payload). Standard m=E/c^2

1b. I don’t think anti particles are all that special. There is no missing anti-matter. A neutron is a photon shell with an anti-neutrino payload. A proton is a photon shell with a positron payload. No big deal. Simple.

2. I don’t know the full taxonomy of shells. I plan to try and understand this better when I write my program and try to recreate the Particle Data Group listing.

3b. Spacetime gas is also called : aether, ether, superfluid, axion, graviton, quantum vacuum, vaccuum , spacetime, and probably more. Most people don’t really realize it is a very lightly interacting gas at a very small scale particle radius that permeates the universe. Regular space is just a 3D Euclidean void. The gas fills the void. I presume black holes can consume the spacetime gas. I don’t know if they are gulping it down, or exactly how that works. I haven’t spent a lot of imagination time on that yet.

4a, 4c. I am thinking of a simple spherical shell, where the electrinos and positrinos trace some path on the surface that is their wave equation. It may be circles for the most part, which can be polarized in reactions. I don’t believe in anything mythical so not interested in sacred geometry.

6a. Ether is the superfluid gas that implements spacetime.

6b. Quantum physicists use fields like opiates. Of course you can model anything with mathematical fields. How ridiculous they are to think that represents the reality of FUNDAMENTAL nature. Sure it models nature at a certain scale, but that’s not the ultimate objective.

8a. Because the electrino and positrino are often flying around the surface of shells and maybe shells within shells. So what really matters is how the shells behave.

8c. Cool. Great!

8d. I model electron neutrino as 3/3, 3 electrinos and 3 positrinos. Think of three dipoles spinning on x, y, and z axis. A very stable particle. I model gen II neutrino, the muon neutrino as 2/2, which is unstable. I model the gen III neutrino as 1/1 which is even more unstable. When I say unstable I mean in typical conditions outside of black holes.

8e? tetrahedrons. I think that there are electrino/positrino lattice structures that form in some black holes and black hole cores that may follow a FCC or HCP geometry, which perhaps could be related to a tetrahedron.

9. I don’t get into mysterious TR3B stuff. If someone has cool technology then demonstrate it with good video and scientific method. Grainy videos that look like common drones aren’t interesting.

10a. As particle’s take on higher and higher energy, their shell shrinks according to Lorentz. This implements Einstein’s curvy spacetime, i.e., time dilation and space contraction.

10ba. Photons can take on a range of energies. Look up the Planck energy. It is the highest possible energy for a particle.

10bb. In a SMBH Planck core, everything has been converted to Planck core at that point. It is simply electrinos and positrons packed at Planck length scale in the most powerful battery possible. Elon Musk would envy a Planck core!

10bc. There is still a lot of matter-energy that is not in the Planck core and also near to the outside of the event horizon. However, if you research it, physicists will say their calculation of black hole mass is not enough to hold the galaxy together.

10ca. A Planck core breaching at the poles would make jets. Two black holes colliding, or a black hole and a neutron star colliding, could presumably cause a rupture of the event horizon where stuff from the inside could blast out.

10cb. As I think you know, the awful terminology of ‘redshift’ just means that a photon is transferring energy and at the same time not scattering, i.e., proceeding along it’s path. This is sometimes called tired light. I think that photons can lose energy to the superfluid spacetime gas without scattering. I also think that there are several other forms of redshift that science does not currently discuss.

Best to you,
Mark

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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