Categories
Physics

General Relativity is Wrong

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Quanta

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/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.

MIT’s motto is “mens et manus,” or “mind and hand,” signifying the fusion of academic knowledge with practical purpose.
“MIT’s motto is “mens et manus,” or “mind and hand,” signifying the fusion of academic knowledge with practical purpose.” — mit.edu

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

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate: https://www.paypal.me/johnmarkmorris

https://johnmarkmorris.com
https://twitter.com/J_Mark_Morris
https://www.reddit.com/r/NPQG/
https://www.facebook.com/NPQG/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmarkmorris/

37 replies on “General Relativity is Wrong”

It is of course a trivial truth that no scientific theory ever is gonna be true. All physical theories we can at most hope to come up with are incomplete models of reality that model reality well enough that they can stand experimental test. To date, more then 100 years after General Relativity was developed, GR still stands the test, because it matches observation.
The problem with your theory however is that it is not even wrong, because you only make qualitative descriptions from that hypothetical model, without any possibility of doing actual calculations, in order to make prediction that can be tested. All you say is that scientist and mathematicians should just adopt your model of physical reality, and then figure out all current phyical theories based on your physical model. I can think physicists have better things to do then to serve the demands of an individual outsider of the physics community.
Why would they go for that? Who would fund them? What is in your theory that makes better physical theories possible? All they have is your ideas that fundamental physical reality is consisting of this (classical) charged point particles, but there is nothing actually in your theory that proofs that that is the case. Only wishful thinking. To rewrite all of phyics based on your (very vague) description of underlying physical reality would be years and years of work for hundred of physicists, and what will come out of it? It might be incompatible with the physical reality as we observe it, without any possibility of repairing it, and we would loose years of hard work of talented physicists. In fact we have already an example of that, in the form of String theory, which to date has not made any prediction that can be tested.
And as a hint, I would recommend you to start with atomic theory, how and why that developed from a classical theory to a quantum theory, since your idea of classical point particles orbiting each other to form a stable particle has the same problem as the classical atomic theory of that time: it would not be stable. The electron as a classical charged point particle would radiate away energy and would fall into the nucleus. Same with your tau particle. If at least you could pick up modern theories from that point, you maybe understand why we have adopted quantum mechanics instead of classical theories.

Thank you for such an interesting comment. I appreciate that you asked tough questions, but in a straight up way. This will be a long response, because you packed a lot in there! Some of your criticisms are valid in the sense that it’s not like I went into seclusion for a decade and came out with everything tied in a bow. Instead, my approach has been entirely in the open for the last four years as I tried to understand what the physicists were saying and then tackled the very difficult challenge of backing out interpretations I thought were wrong, at the same time as I tried to advance my conception of the point charge architecture. Needless to say, that has been and continues to be very difficult. I attempt to have logically consistent reasoning for why I would discard a GR/QM/LCDM interpretation and then a better explanation for how point charges could solve the problem. I tend to rely on math and physics intuition based on BSEE education, but it turns out, that may be sufficient for the basics. The reason is that I think physicists are approaching the problem in perhaps the hardest way possible because the physicists made a string of incorrect interpretations starting in the 1870’s and that has led to the current ‘crisis’ and long list of open questions and paradoxes. It looks to me like the point charge architecture will actually work with classical mechanics and Maxwell’s equations with adjustments to handle point charge immutability, the idea that no two point charges can ever get closer than a certain distance around the Planck scale. And yes, I agree with you that the proof will be in the mathematics, but only recently do I feel like the geometry of the standard model in point charges has crystallized in my mind enough to start getting into the math. We’ll see how that goes. I’d really much prefer to have academic or professional collaborators who can probably do this quite easily, because it should be straightforward for the simple stable cases. And that sort of addresses your point about string theory and LQG and so on. I think this is going to turn out to be such a parsimonious approach that it will actually free up a lot of physicists because investment in many lines of research will become obsolete. Not to worry though, because I think corporate and government investment will flow big time once they catch on. In terms of short term funding, I did offer to at least half a dozen professors that I would like to fund a post-doc for up to half a year. No takers though. Bottom line, my assessment is that it shouldn’t take a huge effort by professionals to get some traction out of the point charge theory, such as calculating masses. I think the quantum (h-bar specifically) is simply the increment of angular momentum in j-s that is required to increase or decrease the tau dipole frequency by one click (taking spin into account). What I think has happened is that the personality charges flying around the 4th ‘orbital’ in fermions has obscured the view into the structure inside of that. Of course we have gluons and flux tubes and to me those sound like what each of the Noether engine dipoles would generate. And yes, I need to explain how the geometry leads to color charge, but I think I am already starting to get vague ideas on how that might work. Still it makes sense (to me) that those high frequency dipoles would generate the strong force. Each proton has three quarks so that makes three Noether cores or nine dipoles. I need eight colors. I’m feeling good about tackling this. Also, I haven’t written this up yet, but it is starting to appear to me that there is a Noether core and an anti-Noether core. The anti-Noether core being the engine for anti-particles. It’s sort of like CP symmetry implemented physically. (Specifically, find the octant in 3D orientation where all three angular momentum vectors are positive and look towards the origin from within that octant, and then now realizing one angular momentum vector is long, one is medium magnitude, and one is short it becomes clear that there would be two ways for the Noether core to ‘spin’ (to be defined what exactly that means). The big angular momentum vector is rotating either towards the medium one or the small one along with those magnetic fields. Still a lot more to work out here, and this may not be the best understanding. When to cut and run and start doing the math? Now, or give it more time until something clicks and I have a better feel for it?

When we blow protons up in the colliders it seems to me like we will eventually be able to trace every single electrino and positrino in each collision, maybe not observationally, but through theory and simulation and the effects we can observe, such as the particle showers. In my world those particle showers are caused by releasing the energies in the gen II and III dipoles in the quarks and then those unstable super high frequency dipoles with their magnetic fields spraying all over the place reacting with the low energy Noether cores in the spacetime aether. Anyway, it’s a vision. Hopefully it is a powerful enough vision that either I or others can help advance it further into more and more connections and increasingly mathematical, testable, and predictive ones. Thanks again. This is fun.

Clearly, some self-agrandised “very stable genius” wrote this nonsense article. It’s just a mix of made-up words with real science terms used incorrectly and incoherently. Dear author, you are a dumbass, despite your inflated ego telling you otherwise. Either that, or this entire article is just computer generated word vomit.

The real question is why my Google feed thought this was a valid link to put in my recommended science feed. I read a lot of science articles, but this is some flat-Earth level horseshit.

As always I don’t know whether to cry or laugh at the tragedy of modern particle and astro physics. Your words are brutal, no doubt, and there was a time when they were wounding. Now, not so much. Who knows who is a bot and who has what intentions. Seriously now, a two particle, two free parameter model? It should be easy to disprove if my model can not recover from scientific review. Bring it on.

I’m looking in the internet, searching for the author’s formal education and published papers and haven’t found anything yet.
Until I see a paper seriously read and revised by real physicists with expertise in this topic, I won’t buy a single word of these hypotheses.

BSEE RPI, MS Comp Sci CMU, ~50 US patents. No journal will publish paradigm changing ideas from an unknown. Physicists won’t engage because they don’t realize the many priors they got wrong. Do what you think makes sense is my recommendation. Opportunity knocks.

I agreed with you. Papers, lectures, institutions he has worked,,books, etc.. Anyone can write pseudo Science.

I forgot to add that physicists went off track with incorrect interpretations in around 1870, 150 years ago, with Michelson-Morley and they have compounded that mistake time and again by piling on more incorrect interpretations. So if you are looking to physicists and their implementation of the scientific method you may be waiting a long time until they figure out nature.

With all due respect, this is complete quackery. This is the reason why physicists will not engage in such nonsense Being a physicist myself, after reading only a short bit, the pseudoscientific babble was pretty thick.

I get that it must sound crazy to you. But that is because you really haven’t engaged with my scientific dissection of how far off track are the interpretations of modern physics. Derailed in 1870s with Michelson-Morley and then really driven off the dilapidated bridge with Einstein’s amazing and distracting geometry. Why distracting? Because there is no physical implementation. This is what I offer you. If you will only open your mind to the possibility of incorrect priors then you might have a chance of understanding.

Point charges don’t exist, because it would require infinite energy to assemble them. In Electricity and Magnetism we learn how to compute the energy of various charge distributions and the energy to assemble a point charge is infinite. If you say that the radius of immutability fixes this, then I say that the E and M fields near our “point charges” no longer look like they come from point charges, and instead look like they come from tiny spheres. This would radically change how QED, our best quantum field theory, works in the first place. There are absolute statements about the universe that we know, things like Charge, Parity, and Time reversal symmetry, and your theory has to jive with those facts to be accepted.

Thanks for your comment Patrick. I found this on the Feynman lectures site, “Because the energy of the field varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance from the center, its volume integral is infinite. There is an infinite amount of energy in the field surrounding a point charge.” Note that this is based on the idea of the integral blowing up as radius goes to zero. In NPQG this doesn’t happen. I haven’t decided the best way to model it. One option is to say that from radius=0 to the immutability radius is undefined. Another option is to go with the maximum field idea which provides immutability in which case the field within the immutability sphere has constant magnitude. This could be implemented with a limit to permittivity and permeability.

You and your quantum theories are a bunch of cow pucks, that can’t be proven and have no real world application. Relativity has guided our exploration of the universe without any but MAYBE a small mathematical error. 100 years later it all seems pretty much right on. Fuck your imaginary theory. E still equals M C squared also.

Your response is extremely offensive yet it is important to include a sample of such responses for the historical record. Explain how mass is implemented please. I can, yet you only cite a magical formula.

Mark
You are on the right track I think. Dark matter is an effect created by space time being deformed. And no one knows how matter, which usually is largely empty, can deform space time and how. And to what microscopic level? Can spacetime be deformed at the quark scale for example? I think Einstein would be intrigued by your ideas

5000 years and 5000 physics laws and 5 million physical scientists and 50 billions data = all wrong. Well established U. Michigan Nuclear Engineering Department 1990. (PHD DISSERTATION)

How many physicists must get defensive before one will actually read the post and the claims made? You do realize that GR is already known to be wrong due to the singularity issue, right? Also the inability to reconcile GR with QM is considered a major failure of one or both theories. Here’s the deal : It is possible for a theory to be incredibly accurate and precise and still be wrong. GR has no physical implementation. I am giving you an implementation that pretty much leads to the solution of every major open problem as well as sorts out the tangled spaghetti narratives caused by physicists choosing incorrect interpretations starting with Michelson-Morley. Don’t be offended. Think.

GR is not wrong perse, it only has a limited scope of applications. GR alone does not describe all of reaility. GR + QM does, however these theories are not unified as of yet. Only in corner cases (the big bang, black holes) we need a combined, unified theory. This is an active field of research, like LQG and M/String theory.

I appreciate your comment, and I agree with the positive aspects of GR and its testability. I sometimes use provocative titles to attract more readers in hopes I will find collaborators. However, I try to tie the title back to what exactly I am saying. So here are my issues with GR. 1) there is no physical implementation (my point charge thought experiment appears to be on track to providing one that will match GR math), 2) it appeals to spacetime as a geometry as if that IS the implementation. I think this has really messed up physicists and mathematicians in the last 100 years, leading to all kinds of wild fantastical ideas about wormholes and mysteries about black holes and more. 3) as you mention, not unified with the rest of physics. My primitive understanding of LQG and M/String theory is that again they don’t have a physical implementation, but at least they are working at around the Planck scale. That is good. I am hopeful that there will be bridges from the point charge architecture to their work. In one of my other replies I went through the concept of Noether cores and this is very important. They look to me like they would link up very well to exactly what we need to explain spacetime as an aether that follows GR math. I have more issues with GR once I look at it from point charge architecture — such as GR doesn’t have an implementation for time, and also, we’re using photons, which are themselves point charge structures, traveling through tired Noether cores and acting like there is some kind of pure math for that. There isn’t. There is beautiful GR math which applies at large enough scales, but imagine what happens down among the point charges in extreme situations like around a black hole and lensing. I can imagine that geodesics are related to constant energy and energy gradients in the aether, and that photons are flying through that stuff all planar orthogonal to the direction of travel, and counter-orbiting. It would be really great to have a theory that started at that level and then worked its way up to GR. That’s what it would mean to find a solution that unified GR and QM and all the other Qxx, in my mind. Whether it is point charges or not, I would like a theory that does that.

“Did you know that manifolds are defined with local Euclidean space” No they are not. If you have to learn about manifolds, you have to learn differential geometry. To learn that you have to have a solid understanding of topology. To learn topology, you need to know real analysis first. If you know even elementary analysis, you won’t say such a wrong statement. I dare you to show this comment if you really think that you are right. Also the comment before this.

Thank you for the correction. I misquoted the wikipedia definition and it is now fixed. My point stands. Please note that I am writing about what is below GR, i.e., the physical implication. I fully understand that the spacetime aether has Riemannian behavior at applicable scales. What I am teaching you is that at the base level, if you could take away the point charge based aether, what would remain is Euclidean space and absolute time, neither of which is observable.

This is pure crackpot shit. Reading through your website, I understand that you don’t have the slightest idea what a manifold is, let alone GR(I have a masters in theoretical physics and I accidentally stumbled across this crackpot website. To people who see this comment, the entire article is some diarrhea of some words taken from maths and physics and he has no idea what he’s talking about. Quantum GR lmao.

I will allow this only for historical purposes as one more example of how offensive and bullying are many GR/QM/LCDM physicists. It is tragic that physicists are so far off track in their interpretations that they are incapable of recognizing the correct solution to nature. Two point charge flavors and two free parameters, yet no physicist has engaged with that idea. I think administrators may need to clean house and dismiss the credentialed particle and astro physicists in order to get a clean start.

It is interesting that all you experts over the centuries have always been proven wrong. At this time, QM is as real as GR. But their intersect may show how and why spacetime reacts to matter for example. No one has a clue how that happens. And and least Mark offers up and idea so that singularities disappear. We all know that when experts offer up infinity, their theories a wrong.

I think historians and philosophers will re-examine the scientific method after the point charge paradigm change in physics and cosmology. There ought to be big bold red warnings in the scientific method definition that say when your field has ample unknowns, lots of major open problems that are confusing and difficult, and progress has stalled for decades — that it is time to fork off significant resources expressly charged with revisiting priors and being creative. In hindsight the woo in all the GR/QM/LCDM physics teachings will stand out like neon flashing lights. Thanks Renato for your positive comment! I hope that more people get involved with the ideas around immutable point charges and their implications. It is a fascinating new universe to think about and things get a LOT more interesting because research and technology will move at light speed once they have the blueprints to nature.

Only local measurements can be deduced with Euclid geometry. Another instance where Einstein was spot on as he describes this quite well with the Equivalence Principle. A sphere as a whole cannot exist in Euclidian geometry, only a collection of manifolds that are mere abstractions. Show me the Euclid geometry that allows for convergence of parallels. It doesn’t exist. Spacetime must be Riemannian, even if it’s flat

Spacetime is implemented with structures formed from point charges. I believe you may be missing my point that Einstein described the behavior of the spacetime aether but did not understand how it is implemented with point charges in Euclidean space and time.

I tire of sensationized articles “Einstein was wrong” etc. These theories have provided insight into the very nature of our universe. They may be incomplete just as Newtonian equations are, but please stop with the tearing down of beautiful mathematics and physics to get clicks.

Finally someone with half a brain. Thank you. Now go on to explain that nothing can claim to be the thing that precedes it. Invariant symmetry never changes, but stays the same even if translated. Since all things in our awareness and reality are translational symmetry, the invariance is the preexistent. This implies that evolution cannot claim to be the mechanism giving us live, the universe and consciousness. It’s not Space / Time. It’s Mind / Space Time. Consciousness is invariant. E in Latin means ‘out of.’ Volution is defined as circling a center. In other words, translation. Evolution is indeed change over time and expression of something else that precedes it–Invariance. The same yesterday, today and tomorrow. It’s not some accident we exist. It’s by design, with evolution as the basis for change and translation of the original mind that designed it all. What say you professor?

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