NEOCLASSICAL PHYSICS AND QUANTUM GRAVITY *Imagine that nature emerges from a Euclidean 3D void space populated with immutable oppositely charged Planck spheres, which we call the electrino and the positrino. These are the only carriers of energy, in electromagnetic and kinetic form. They observe classical mechanics and Maxwell’s equations. Nature overlays Euclidean space (Map 1) with a lightly interacting Riemannian spacetime æther (Map 2). 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 is compatible with GR, QM, and Λ*CDM observations, *while providing a superior narrative that explains nature and the universe. **For *𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚* basics see: Idealized Neoclassical Model and the NPQG Glosssary.*

Einstein’s geometry of spacetime includes curvature which seems to serve as a geometric proxy for the shape shifting of spacetime æther particles as a function of local energy density. Since the energy of a spacetime æther particle determines its size, this behaviour leads right back to Einstein’s “curvy” spacetime.

GR-QM-*Λ*CDM era physics defines the “fine structure constant” as a scalar number that can be calculated from many other so called constants of nature. Unfortunately science doesn’t have a full understanding of fine structure and speed of light numbers because it is possible for them to be constants in spacetime æther while at the same time being variables in fundamental Euclidean space M_{1}.

The speed of light in the spacetime æther is not a constant from the perspective of fundamental Euclidean space M_{1}. This is because **c** is calculated by the square root of the reciprocal of permittivity times permeability which both vary in spacetime æther from the perspective of M_{1}.

However, from the perspective of spacetime æther geometry M_{2} the contraction or expansion of each spacetime particle is related to the frequency of that particle such that photon travel distance/time is always the familiar constant **c**.

This illuminates several challenges we must deal with in NPQG. We must always be clear which perspective geometry were are discussing, M_{1} Euclidean space and time or M_{2} Riemannian spacetime. Often we need to discuss both to get a clear understanding of nature. We’ll need to introduce a notational convention as well since otherwise it won’t be apparent which geometry we are using. For example see the use of c in the prior paragraph. Perhaps we need to introduce a notation like c_{M1} and c_{M2}?

There have been several media reports of measured variability of the fine structure number in 2020. Let’s take a look at those and then continue on with understanding the fine structure in the NPQG era.

This video is by Anton Petrov who makes excellent astrophysics videos on topics at the forefront of research and explains how those findings may impact the body of GR-QM-*Λ*CDM era understanding.

Let’s also review this article by David Nield, published April 28, 2020: New Tests Suggest a Fundamental Constant of Physics Isn’t The Same Across The Universe. Here is a quote (fair use).

The strength of electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles is calculated with the help of what’s known as the fine-structure constant.

However, the new readings – taken together with other readings from separate studies – point to tiny variations in this constant, which could have huge implications for how we understand everything around us.David Nield

The latest data also show the Universe may have previously hidden ‘north’ and ‘south’ bearings, a definitive direction upon which these variations in electromagnetism can be mapped.

This video is by Matt O’Dowd and the PBS Space Time team.

Matt asks rhetorically whether it would be possible for the speed of light c to change. The answer is that it can not change in spacetime æther because the fundamental physics of spacetime particles guarantee that c is a constant in the Euclidean geometry M_{2} of the spacetime æther no matter the energy of the æther******. However, a better question might be, could Earth find itself in higher energy spacetime æther in the future and the answer is yes, that is certainly possible if it comes in closer proximity to a massive celestial object. In that case we would still measure the M_{2} speed of light to be the same value we see as the constant 3 x 10^{8} m/s. However, if we were looking from the M_{1} fundamental Euclidean geometry of space and time we would see that c_{M1} had in fact changed.

Metric | M_{1} Euclidean Space and Time Geometry | M_{2} Riemannian Spacetime Geometry |

c — the speed of a photon in spacetime æther | c is not a constant when viewed from M_{1}. Given by the formula | c is a physical constant due to the relationship of spacetime contraction and dilation with local energy density. |

permittivity of spacetime æther | varies as a function of local electric field. | constant |

permeability of spacetime æther | varies as a function of local magnetic field. | constant |

— the fine structure | Must vary since depends on c, which varies in M_{1}. | My intuition says it must be a constant because we are only talking about electrinos and positrinos – there is no other free parameter. |

charge e/6 | e/6 is a constant. | e/6 is a constant. |

*J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : July 14, 2020 : v1*

****** Let’s plant a flag here and leave the door open to some higher order effect where the particular mix of particles in spacetime æther is related to the speed of light in the M_{1} and M_{2} geometry. If it turns out that the power spectrum of the CMB is due to the summation of the black body spectra of the decay of multiple particles according to their proportion, then I suppose it might be possible that large regions of the universe might have somewhat different compositions of spacetime æther.