## Mapping General Relativity

This post is an attempt to connect NPQG to Albert Einstein’s General Relativity via a differential analysis to a GR lecture from the pinnacle of physics universities, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT. At this point in my thought experiments and creative ideation I’m certain that the mathematics of the electrino:positrino dipole leads at at all but the highest energy scale to Einstein’s general relativity. These dipoles and especially the 3D Generation I Noether engine, are the implementation of spacetime, which is an aether. Noether engines are a core architectural building block of all standard model particles.

I’m curious about general relativity and have questions of the following ilk:

• Does GR cover the geometrical territory into Generation II fermions and then Generation III fermions?
• If so, exactly how does GR deal with those dipoles decaying? That is a rhetorical question, because although I don’t understand GR math, I am certain it is a continuous math.
• Why did Einstein not put a limit on scale?
• The Planck scale was known.
• Why did Einstein choose a continuous geometry?
• Why allow dimensions to continuously drop to zero?
• Why not define the minimums and maximums or at least the possibility of limits based upon a physical implementation?
• When the concept of singularity became popular, why didn’t physicists explain this is simply a matter of whether you put a limit or not?
• Why allow all the wormhole nonsense?
• That would reframe the problem into two options :
• Without a limit, i.e. run to zero (or infinity) you get
• singularities,
• UV catastrophe,
• renormalization,
• (I think there are more!)
• With a limit
• everything is behaved and mundane.
• It seems to me that most sensible and intelligent beings would recognize that the boring mundane stable option is probably the one nature implements.
• Does general relativity truly capture and describe nature’s mechanism for implementation of the Lorentz transformation?
• Nature fills space with dipole based structures that change frequency and radius (hence wavelength) with energy.
• How can we map Noether energy conservation engine’s behaviour directly to GR? We would need to put the Noether cores in an ideal environment as to approximate continuous mathematics.
• The bottom line appears to be that the task is to understand precisely and mathematically how a Noether core in a bath of initially constant energy spacetime aether implements the Lorentz transformation.
• My trepidation is that the energy of relative mass is distributed throughout the aether and this would influence the imaginary photons reaching the observer.

We always need to connect to our priors whether it is to refute, affirm, or build upon them. NPQG is in the rather odd position, approaching from the Planck extremes of doing all three : refuting, affirming, and building upon. There are a lot of incorrect ideas in the annals of physics journals that can be dismissed in light of the point charge universe. There are a lot of brilliant theories that somehow had the insight to theoretically model behaviours of the point charge universe without knowing that point charges were the root cause. Building a root cause/effect bridge to those theories is one way for NPQG to demonstrate the connection to the theories of GR or QM that are abstracted above point charge scale reality.

Onward to the differential analysis of Lecture #1.

MIT OpenCourseWare
General Relativity, Spring 2020 Instructor: Scott Hughes
View the complete course: https://ocw.mit.edu/8-962S20

Introduction & Review :
The geometric viewpoint on physics.
Lorentz transformations and Lorentz-invariant intervals.
The 4-vector; basis vectors and vector components.
Introduction to component notation.
The inner product between two 4-vectors, and the metric tensor.

YouTube description as of May 29, 2021.

Spacetime is a manifold of events endowed with a metric.

A manifold is a set of points with well-understood conectedness properties. It is a topological concept that connects regions of events.

An event is when and where something happens labeled with coordinates in spacetime. The event exists independent of these labels.

A metric is a notion of distance between events in the manifold. Geometry of an object is encoded in a metric. Without this a manifold has no notion of distance encoded in it. In Einstein’s general relativity, the metric is employed to encode gravity.

Quotes are derived from the lecture by Scott Hughes, possibly wordsmithed for brevity.

General relativity is an abstracted approach to the task of modeling gravity. NPQG takes the perspective of the point charge era, where there is an aether of relatively low energy point charge structures that interacts with ‘massy’ point charge structures. I can see how the manifold would be a helpful concept since that could possibly be used to describe the energy and energy gradient of the aether. I’ll need more clarity on the taxonomy of the ‘somethings that can happen‘ in an event.

The metric is sort of bizarre in a way, because instead of a Euclidean distance expressed in 3D space and 1D time, the metric Einstein has in mind appears to be some Riemannian measure of distance in a medium (spacetime) that can dilate and contract. That means that to determine any distance will require integrating over a path through spacetime, right? How does one integrate over some roiling collection of low energy aether structures? The answer is that you don’t. So we can already see that GR is defined at a level of abstraction where individual point charges are not evident in the description of gravity.

Furthermore, there is apparently no treatment of the permittivity and permeability of spacetime, which are in turn determined by electric and magnetic field intensity.

Special Relativity (SR) : Simplest theory of spacetime.

Corresponds to general relativity in the no gravity limit.

It’s often said the special relativity doesn’t involve acceleration. That is false. Every structure, including aether particles, is based on Noether energy cores containing spinning dipoles. Orbiting point charges most definitely experience radial acceleration and the centrifugal force. That said, mass is emergent, so while orbiting point charges have kinetic energy and electromagnetic energy, more insight is required to understand how mass is implemented before the duality becomes evident. Let’s keep an eye on this issue and see how this is related to relativity.

A key notion in SR is the “Inertial Reference Frame.”

Imagine a lattice of clocks and measuring rods that allow us to label (assign) coordinates to any event in spacetime.

The lattice moves freely through spacetime. There are no forces acting upon it. It does not rotate.

Measuring rods are orthogonal to each other and define a coordinate system.

Clocks tick uniformly.

Clocks synchronized using the “Einstein synchronization procedure,” which takes advantage of the fact that the speed of light is the same to all observers, no matter what inertial reference frame they might be in.

Choose the base unit of length to be the distance a photon travels in your basic unit of time.

Well, this sure is interesting. So in relativity, the lattice of clocks and rulers is imaginary and distinct from spacetime. In the point charge universe, the Noether energy cores in every particle structure, including the aether, implement rulers and clocks.

Displacement in spacetime between events P and Q is a function of the deltas in time, and the three dimensions of space and is represented as a four vector.

Independent observers O and O’ will record different four vectors to represent the displacment between P and Q.

The Lorentz transformation relates the components of the two representations.

The abstract foundation for general relativity uses the Lorentz transformation, but without a full understanding of how it comes about physically. Observers O and O’ have a velocity difference between them. Relativity is confusing, but the observer that is moving through the aether at the higher velocity has a Noether engine with a contracted ruler (reduced radius) and a dilated clock (faster frequency). Clearly there is a need to derive the Lorentz transformation from this perspective rather than the derivations that are divorced from base nature.

Here’s the differential analysis for this lecture, in a table format for easy comparison.

This was a good first class of this course. The instructor, Dr. Scott Hughes, is articulate, thorough, and easy to understand. We’ve seen that there may be some challenges in linking the discrete nature of point charges to Einstein’s abstract expression of general relativity as a continuous geometry.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California