Quantum General Relativity vs. MIT GR-1

This post is an attempt to connect NPQG to Albert Einstein’s General Relativity via a differential analysis to a GR course 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 Einstein’s general relativity shares the mathematics of the electrino:positrino dipole. 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.

What I don’t know about general relativity, and the reason I thought I’d analyze this courseware, are 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?
      • Seriously, 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:
YouTube Playlist:…

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.

Special RelativityNPQG Immutable Point Charges
Doesn’t involve acceleration.Noether cores have orbiting point charges which are experiencing radial acceleration.
Abstract rods and clocks distinct from spacetime geometry.Functionality of rods and clocks physically implemented by Noether cores in spacetime aether.
Orthogonal rods define a coordinate system.Within each Noether core, at relatively low energy, the three dipoles are ~orthogonal to each other.

I suspect that as energy is gained, the planes of orbit tilt towards orthoginality with the line of travel.
The tick marks on the rods are equally spaced.

The clocks tick uniformly.
In constant energy spacetime aether with no other standard model structures, all aether particles would have roughly the same radius and frequency, with some statistical variation due to the exact h-bar angular momentum of the Noether cores.

In the vicinity of standard model particles the aether would of course have higher energy due to the pulsing of mass energy.
Speed of light is the same to all observers.This is an artifact of how an electrino : positrino dipole functions. It maintains a relationship of frequency and radius (clock and ruler) such that the speed of electromagnetic fields is perceived to be the same as observed from within any energy aether.

NPQG also introduces the Euclidean observer, who sees things quite differently, including a variable speed of light. (Note that this is simply the outcome of the permittivity and permeability of space at any time.
Clock are synchronized via an imaginary apparatus involving photons and reflection.

This is all ideal and abstract with no physical understanding of anything, including the photon, reflection, or the aether.
Noether core frequency (the clock) is determined by energy stored in the Noether core. In the environment for special relativity, all aether is at the same energy, therefore they are all abstractly synchronized to the same clock frequency (although I would expect small statistical variations).
Units of length and time are related by photon speed, but otherwise arbitrary.I’ve wondered if it would be helpful to define the units of length and time in terms of the Planck limits and the formula for the speed of light as a function or permittivity and permeability. I would think this would lead to the standard Planck equations.
Abstracted Lorentz transformation. Lorentz transformation an outcome of one observers more contracted and dilated Noether engines. Derivation needed.

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 base nature of point charges to Einstein’s abstract expression of general relativity.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California

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:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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