General relativity is wrong. GR is based upon a toy model of spacetime as an abstract Riemannian geometry which does not model nature’s foundation of Euclidean space and time permeated by energy carrying immutable point charges. We can rehabilitate GR with the concept of Quantum General Relativity which has the following corrections :

- QGR is rebased into Euclidean space and time.
- QGR is based on geometrical, physically immutable, quanta of charge.
- In the context of QGR, the quantum is redefined and reframed as the electrino and positrino point charges (at -e/6 and +e/6 respectively).
- QGR deals properly with the fixed high energy limit per charge quantum and the associated density limits and electromagnetic configuration.
- QGR is enhanced with the understanding that Euclidean space is permeated by structures that have characteristics that vary with
**their energy**, as well as the energy of local structures, tapering with distance. These physical characteristics implement Einstein’s spacetime geometry. - QGR 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 spacetime. 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 time local to the Noether core, meaning dipole orbits, than it is distance? How does that work? What is the mechanism? Is it quantized or continuous? Does redshift vary with the energy or energy gradient of the aether? We also know that redshift energizes the aether. Perhaps dipole energy leakage (?) and then a transition? Perhaps it is statistical and quantized? Alas, this is an open question 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 immutability 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.

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.Wikipedia

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.

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/r^2. 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’m thinking about diving in and seeing the degree to which NPQG can be linked to GR and how to rehabilitate GR into QGR. 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.

Here is the first lecture. I’ll start a blog series to discuss each lecture and there are twenty-three episodes! *Hmm, 23, MJ’s number, maybe it is a sign?!* Well, that is quite ambitious, and we’ll see how far I get with the math and having relevant comments to make. 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 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.

So that is the challenge to myself. There is no timeline. I may get bored, because it is both mentally taxing, tedious, and annoying to invest time and effort linking to a wrong theory, even one that is in tremendous alignment with observations. However, that may be what it takes to reach the next levels of insight on my own. As always, I pine for the day when professional physicists and cosmologists get on board and say **“Thank-you Mark! We’ll take it from here. We’ve got this.”**

*J Mark Morris : San Diego : California*

Here is the differential analysis of Lecture 1 : Quantum General Relativity vs. MIT GR-1