I wrote this for the comment bleacher section on the blog episode Bias All the Way Down by Dr. Stacy McGaugh on the blog Triton Station.
Why is it so eerily quiet here? You may still be doubting an aether based on orbiting electrino-positrino point charges. Consider that all standard matter particles are composed of an energy core made from one to three orbiting dipoles and a group of personality charges. The electrino-positrino dipole carries the main responsibility for storing and transacting energy in quanta of h-bar angular momentum. My intuition tells me that because general relativity is so very, very, accurate and precise, that the geometry of spacetime aether particles must match almost exactly to GR. Therefore, I believe the basic orbiting electrino-positrino dipole is a dominant element in the implementation of the spacetime geometry that Albert and Mileva Einstein discovered in flashes of genius and brillance impossible to describe.
The creativity of the Einstein’s enabled spacetime and gravity to be described in precise geometrical terms that are still observed by experiment a century later. However, the theory of general relativity has no physical basis. That scary tensor has no physical basis! Still, it works, and that was absolutely amazing physics and mathematics from Albert and Mileva Einstein and their other unacknowledged collaborators.
This is is why nature is such a trickster. Consider that the cosmological scales the Einstein’s were contemplating at the time were unknown and controversial. However, even at the scale of a galaxy the number of spacetime particles on any dimensions — linear, area, or volume density would be so enormous as to enable the collective behaviour to be described with a continuous geometry with no classical bounds. Well of course! We always encounter theories that carry us through several orders of magnitude until we find a discrepancy.
Who knew that nature would conspire to make all particles based upon energy cores consisting of orbiting electrino-positrino point charges? That means that nature, the ultimate trickster, has superimposed structure at every level — based on orbiting immutable point charges at 10^44 different energy levels per spin 1/2 dipole and their interaction in couplets and triplets and then decorated this dynamo with charge layers and other exotic point charge structure geometries, few of which are stable for long periods of absolute time. That is one reason we are here. The electrino and positrino are immutable and hence stable for all future absolute time. Emergence of structure and dynamical systems determine the stability and change in the future. The beauty of how nature implements the universe based upon equal and opposite point charges is the sheer scale of some 60 or so orders of magnitude in density from the most dense Planck core to aethereal spacetime. And then, for all we know the universe may go on forever in 3D Euclidean space and absolute time.
Was this the first major lost in math error in physics? A continuous geometry with no classical bounds? The Einstein’s did leading edge work on brownian motion of particles.Why on earth did the Einstein’s give their integrals bounds at 0 and infinity? The Einstein’s described their theory in academic papers with continuous mathematics with no lower nor upper bounds, no finely grained steps, and no physical implementation! This particular decision point in science, calls out for study from physics historians as to how this error was introduced.
Furthermore, when the quantum was discovered, why was the solution not obvious at that point? I hope that physics historians will closely trace the causality of each incorrect decision and missed opportunity. Where was Planck during this period? Why wasn’t it entirely obvious to him! Is it possible that some one, duo, or group knew the solution? It just seems so entirely obvious in retrospect. How did physics get this far off track? How did the absolutely amazing scientists of the time NOT see the solution? We also need historians to revisit the historical treatment of De Broglie, Bohm, Hoyle, Narlikar and more.
We know there are big problems at the energy endpoints of general relativity. At the lower end of energy it appears that the density of point charges and the energy carried by point charges leads to a steady state with a 2.7 Kelvin black body spectrum of deep space. I am vaguely aware that that there are voids in the cosmos that may dip below 2.7K and this makes sense to me. We also will need to factor in the energy contribution from redshifting energy cores. We need to rethink how spacetime aether absorbs and carries energy. I think it is both discrete and continuous. D/C and A/C. A/C from adjacent matter in spherically radiating standing waves operating as floating grounds emanating from the higher energy orbiting point charges in standard matter particles. Fermions are easiest to illustrate with generation + dipoles = 4. Photons geometry seems to be a pair of closely spaced planar counter-rotating generation I energy cores. I wonder what happens to the interior dipoles when a photon loses the outermost. A generation II or III photon probably packs quite a wallop. I presume it sails on through because, like the neutrino, it is so small and maneuverable that it flys right by.
Since all that matters for convective gravity is the energy level and energy gradient of the spacetime aether — we really need to understand all the contributions to the energy of the aether as well as generation and consumption of aether. It occurs to me that each radiating event type generates a distribution pattern throughout space and time. At the larger scales of galaxy proper vs. intergalactic spacetime there is a change of cumulative pattern, isn’t there? The accumulated A/C radiation from matter-energy is fading as the inverse of distance squared. Overlaying this A/C energy component are discrete transactions that we call redshift, when an energy core deposits decrements of h-bar angular momentum as a toll. How does that work? What is the shape of that redshift toll curve based on spacetime aether energy and gradient? Wow, isn’t that a fascinating idea? Redshift is discrete, right? The quantum?
I believe I have solved the highest energy and density extreme, the phase change to the Planck core. I’m thinking a Planck core surface shields all the interior energy carried by the immutable point charges. This means that as the core grows, the internal energy no longer presents a mass. Compare the count of point charges in the surface layer area of a Planck core to the point charges inside the sphere or oblate spheroid. Consider FCC or HCP packing. Consider maximum energy configuration of point charges each at Planck energy. That’s probably a big deal for galaxy dynamics, especially considering that at some future point that core may figure out how to breach (the jets?) and now some of that internal shielded energy is going to go back on the books as mass above and below the plane of the galaxy (some will be recaptured, some won’t).
I like to imagine that Stacy’s followers include a significant population of professional astrophysicists, cosmologists, and astronomers who read the blog and comments but don’t join in the repartee because of concern over academic career risk. From all indications, it is difficult to be creative in your fields and be taken seriously at the same time. This is one of several flaws or vulernabilities of the scientific method, especially when the erected edifice is based on incorrect foundational interpretations. Those interpretations hold up most of the structure of the theory and narrative. All the sub-theories that have been decorated on that narrative structure will come falling down, yet most can be re-assembled properly and better than ever in a much more sensible way. We also need some ideas that were incorrectly discarded. There is really nothing new. Progress is made by finding a better combination of ideas. The scientific method does not have sub-methods for correcting major false steps that become professionally accepted to the degree of orthodoxy.
I don’t understand the E8 ideas of Lisi, but to me it represents our current knowledge of the events and phase diagrams for electrino and positrino point charge structures. It makes sense that it would be representable geometrically. However me must remember the couplings that would distort the picture. If you think a nested triplet of orbiting dipoles at different energies is fascinating, consider that protons and neutrons each have three of those triplet dynamos. Now considering that any orbiting dipole will precess in a magnetic field, and all these dipoles are generating some fairly large magnetic fields at their scales, no wonder the wave equations look complicated. I sure hope it will be much easier to model knowing the substructure below the standard model.
Gee, I guess I sort of brainstormed intensely there, but what I really wanted to say was that if you still doubt a spacetime aether, consider that all that is required for a stretchy curvy aether of nearly non-interacting permeating particles that influence both space and time is that the permittivity and permeability of space must vary with electric and magnetic field strength. Think about it. Why do you call it gravitational lensing when you could just simply say refraction like you would say for any other photon penetrating a medium? This aether we perceive throughout the universe is simply an overlay on a 3D Euclidean space.
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California
Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity 