General relativity is wrong. GR is based upon a toy model of spacetime as an abstract Riemannian geometry. GR is unaware of nature’s foundation of Euclidean space and time permeated by energy carrying immutable point charges. We can rehabilitate GR with the concept of Absolute Relativity with the following corrections :
- AR is rebased into Euclidean space and time.
- AR is based on geometrical, physically immutable, point charges.
- In the context of AR, the quantum of energy is split into its causal constituents, the electrino and positrino point charges (at -e/6 and +e/6 respectively).
- AR deals properly with the high energy limit per point charge and the associated density limits and electromagnetic configuration.
- AR is enhanced with the understanding that Euclidean space is permeated by emergent assembly structures whose characteristics vary with their energy, as well as the energy of local structures, tapering with distance. These physical characteristics implement Einstein’s spacetime geometry.
- AR includes mathematical bridges between Euclidean coordinates in space and time and Riemannian coordinates in spacetime aether.
Fermion particles, have energy cores with a DeBroglie wavelength, and they ‘redshift’ energy to the spacetime aether. What is the mechanism? Do their energy cores leak energy or pay a toll? Dense standard matter such as is found in a planet or star or galaxy energizes the spacetime aether in and around them. The aether is rather passive — it is mostly doing the Einstein stretchy-curvy behaviour, so in some cases the energized aether is left behind as a wake. Astrophysicists call it dark matter.
We also need to sleuth out the redshift mechanism for photons. Is redshift more about factors local to the Noether core than it is distance? How does that work? What is the mechanism? Is it quantized or continuous? I’ll guess continuous phaseshift. Does redshift vary with the energy or energy gradient of the aether? We also know that redshift energizes the aether. Perhaps dipole energy leakage as frequency phase shift? Is it statistical and quantized? Alas, these are open questions as we reframe from the massive errors in LCDM.
I recently commented on this Quanta article and video.
The science on the topic of black hole jets will proceed much faster if you correct two mistakes in physics history.
- Michelson-Morley didn’t eliminate the aether and it has nothing to do with the experiment. Nature is a trickster and the particles of standard matter and aether are emergent designs that make the architecture extremely difficult to detect.
- Pick up the point charge from the physics discard pile. There are two types, equal and opposite, the electrino at -e/6 charge and the positrino at +e/6 charge. Now here is the fix : give the point charges asymptotic safety at a radius near the Planck length. It’s still a point charge, but no other point charge can get any closer than the radius of immutability. And a sphere of immutability bridges perfectly into the patchwork quilt of mathematics called the standard model.
Think about the implications for singularities and black holes. Is immutability what prevents the UV disaster from occurring in nature? Yes, I believe so. Think about the theoretical infinities that require renormalization and awkward substitution with observations. Immutability of point charges is the magic key that unlocks the secrets of nature and the universe.
Imagine a stream of Planck energy point charges being jetted from a Planck core state. What are the first type of structures to emerge? The orbiting electrino : positrino dipole, of course. Every standard matter particle has at least one of these dipoles (Gen III fermions for example) and as many as nine dipoles (Neutron, Proton) with a common form being three coupled dipoles at different energy scales — like a gyroscopic dynamo. I call it the Noether energy conservation engine. Besides all these Noether engines, there are personality point charges and in combination with the Noether cores they do all the things we know and love in the standard model.
In mathematics, a manifold is a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space near each point. Two-dimensional manifolds are also called surfaces. Examples include the sphere and the torus, which can be embedded (formed without self-intersections) in three dimensional real space.
The concept of a manifold is central to many parts of geometry and modern mathematical physics because it allows complicated structures to be described and understood in terms of the simpler local topological properties of Euclidean space. Manifolds naturally arise as solution sets of systems of equations and as graphs of functions.
Manifolds can be equipped with additional structure. One important class of manifolds is the class of differentiable manifolds; this differentiable structure allows calculus to be done on manifolds. A Riemannian metric on a manifold allows distances and angles to be measured. Symplectic manifolds serve as the phase spaces in the Hamiltonian formalism of classical mechanics, while four-dimensional Lorentzian manifolds model spacetime in general relativity.Wikipedia
Did you know that manifolds locally resemble local Euclidean space? One might think that would be helpful for NPQG since space and time are Euclidean. Furthermore, local is important since in the point charge universe everything emerges from local events and reactions, often trailing off at 1/r2. However, as we approach the scale of point charges, there are localities of events where the individual influence of point charges becomes apparent.
MIT has made available a 2020 course on general relativity. I watched a few lectures to assess the degree to which NPQG can be linked to GR and how to rehabilitate GR into AR, absolute relativity. I think this will be a difficult task because spacetime is a collection of structures, probably very tired and massy photons and neutrinos. Or more specifically Noether engines and anti-engines. My conclusion is that the math of GR will need to be recast in entirely new terms for the point charge era.
Here is the first lecture. General relativity mathematics is quite a few orders of magnitude above nature or otherwise the individual influence of each electrino and positrino would come in to play distinctly from the sea of electrinos and positrinos and the assembly structures they form. I wonder what are the scale limits of the tests of general relativity? I’m not sure if astrophysical tests would be relevant because they are dealing with the aggregate effect of enormous numbers of point charge structures composing spacetime aether.
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California
Here is the differential analysis of Lecture 1 : Quantum General Relativity vs. MIT GR-1