I was listening to a 2019 podcast interview of Steven Weinberg from “The Universe Speaks in Numbers” podcast. The discussion delves into one of my favourite topics — where is nature continuous vs. discrete? The answer is that it depends on the concept. Structures may contain a mix of continuous and discrete behaviours.
When I started to learn general relativity a lot of the books on general relativity that I was reading, tried to explain it in terms of the mathematics of curved spacetime. That’s not the underlying physical principle. There is an underlying physical principle — the equivalence of gravity and inertia. This concept can then be formulated in terms of curved spacetime, but you can not defend, for example, the appearance of the curvature tensor in Einstein’s equations, by saying that’s what determines the curvature of spacetime. It has to be defended on other grounds, for example the equivalence of gravity and inertia.Steven Weinberg
I particularly enjoy this quote and find it to be quite fantastic, since I can tie this discussion of the equivalence principle, the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, directly into the NPQG implementation. In both cases the particle presents the same mass. Why? First, we need to disprove the equivalence principle on a technicality. We’ll circle around to why the equivalence principle is still crucially important.
Clearly gravitation around an orb such as earth vs. inertia in the middle of outer space are two different cases at a macro level at least! Technically they are different as well. In the ideal gravitational case the particle is equidistant to the center of gravity and the aether energy gradient is constantly adapting yet focused radially on the CoG. In the inertial case, the particle is traversing through spacetime aether. There is no CoG of spacetime aether and Earth’s matter. There is just an (ideally) parallel source of force and the spacetime footprint of the waves in the point charge aether. In both cases there is an energy level and an energy gradient of spacetime locally (which may include the whole of earth in one case, and the vicinity of the elevator car in free space in the other. The equivalence principle appears to say that it is (nearly) the same energy level and gradient and it is most definitely not. Now we can go beyond the equivalence principle and understand why it is useful and explaining this history and the differential will provide a tremendous amount of insight for future students of physics.
It seems to be that mass and inertia have to do with the orientation of the three dipoles in each Noether core at the first order, then the geometry of the personality point charges at a second order. Photons are bosons, so reasonably planar (offset bi-planar), which leads to a very low mass or inertia and hence photons sail right through the aether. As more energy is expressed as mass inertia and becomes apparent energy the dipole planes become less aligned. A good example is the neutrino which is unable to shield its energy and therefore presents an oscillating mass as the orbits of the planar dipoles shift. Higher apparent energy must involve the dipole planes moving towards orthogonal. So then what is happening with the photon? Remember the photon is made of a coupling of a neutrino and an anti-neutrino or at least a personality layer that behaves like an anti-neutrino. Overall it is 6/6 but in reality it is (3/3/)(3/3). The neutrinos are counter-rotating, hence the perception of the electromagnetic wave. The photon orientation is somehow such that there is virtually no cost to it’s travel. There is very little inertia but it has energy. Is it some magic configuration that works out due to emergence? It seems to span quite a wide energy range. So when the photon redshifts down to super low energy, what happens then? Is there another case where at super low energy the wings unfold again?
The aether has a floating continuous energy level accumulated based on the r.m.s. of all impinging mass waves through the aether itself. Still I wonder if there are more mechanisms, perhaps at different scales that are non-scattering energy reducing transactions. We also have to remember that the aether may be the source of the W, Z, and H bosons as well. What exactly is the configuration and mix of the aether?
It is ironic that the NPQG point charge era universe is best understood (so far) as an analog implementation in Euclidean space and time with two equal and opposite charged and immutable point charges. Position, velocity, kinetic energy, and electromagnetic energy are all continuous and classical at this level of nature.
There are several ways to model immutability, but the end result is that no point charge can penetrate within a certain radius of another point charge. I suggest a formula based on the permittivity and permeability, which are in turn driven by point charge interactions. But even permittivity and permeability may be emergent concepts. Is it really the case that space provides the limitaiton or is it an effect of the field of one point charge acting on another point charge? We must address all geometries, symmetries, and asymmetries. Perhaps we can add immutability with a maximum field to point charge interaction. That would be better I think than to assign the implementation of the limit to space itself, which would cause a turtles all the way down concern.
Now, here is the fascinating next step in emergence : The basis of nature is both analog and binary, or discrete in a sense.We have exactly two equal and opposite point charge types which ultimately lead to information and the bit in some emergent structure or engineered circuit. Hence we arrive at minus and plus, and zero and one. We also have emergent structures with harmonic behaviour that exchange energy in h-bar quanta. I suppose we may consider these concepts as basic and fundamental as well. So the answer is both and all!
J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts