The Last Tango of the Finite Graviton.
The Gauss-Newton Quantum-Relativity
Chapter one.
The Last Tango of the Finite Graviton.
A general update and clarification on the 1905 - 1915 General Theory work of Albert Einstein.
Briefing notes on General Relativity, part 1 of 8 ; BMJC Bieżanek, 18th Feb 2018; revision status 12.4.3, 13th July 2020.If you have already read and understood my work published since this was written, then I will explain, rather than excuse, some of my apparently primitive thinking expressed in this article. You need to understand that quantum-relativity was unbuttoned (decoded) backwards. So where one reads what I wrote two years ago, it can sound a trifle naive. However, I am not going to update this piece, as it helps to explain how I got to the end of this simple matter of quantum-relativity. If quantum physicists smile at my understanding of quantum physics, then please bear in mind that I have hardly read the subject at all. I never had a problem with quantum physics and trust the observations, logic and working models of basic quantum physics, however crazy they might seem to other folk. If quantum physicists had found quantum-relativity easy, then we would need to explain why Bohr did not put Einstein in his place in 1922. Quantum physicists do not work on relativity, but I do and I hardly needed any quantum physics at all to do it.
Something obvious and tiny is stupidly wrong with our theoretical understanding of the Universe because we cannot form a unified "picture" of the Universe from Einstein's General Theory. Physicists really want to form a Grand Unified Theory (GUT); we spent over 10-billion Euros on the LHC to try and discover the fundamental structure of the Universe. In order to celebrate the centennial of Sir Arthur Eddington's famous observation on the 29th May 1919 at Príncipe, I am finally ready to publish the missing information that is required to complete Einstein's excellent General Theory and mathematically transform that into our missing theory of everything; no big matter smashing machines were required, just a little "Euler" with a smattering of "Gauss".
Einstein reviewing Eddington's historic photographic plates with him.
You are about to read the easy, entry-level route into the study of my work.
Prior to reading chapter-1 here, there is an a more advanced explanation of a brand-new concept for theoretical physics called quantum-time. The same principle is explained within this much easier to follow chapter also, so that foundation learning is not mandated for reading this first chapter of the strongest evolution of my book "The Last Tango of the Finite Graviton"
last printed in hard copy in 2017. Since 2018 I have stopped printing hard copy books because I am learning my own material too quickly for that to make sense. One has to write it and then understand it a bit better later, as soon as one better understands what one has just written, one immediately wants to write it all over again, it gets too expensive and nobody reads my work in any case, so I gave up making that mistake in 2018. Clicking on the above image links that more advanced introduction to quantum-time and The General Quantum Theory of Relativity
into your browser window.
Classical or inverted quantum-time coordinate-space?
Note for readers who already understand the distinction between the classical and the inverted QtCS forms of notation, this chapter is written using the language of inverted quantum-time coordinate space and the existence of the more exacting classical form is only mentioned in footnote 2.
Einstein's General Theory actually forms a complete description of the shape of universal space-time and yet so far nobody has been able to make much sense out of that. The simple missing link in our understanding is explained within this chapter. What we have been missing is so trivial and so obvious, that once one recognises it, the mind is repelled from understanding how we failed to understand all this in the first place. The General Theory only seems to be tough to understand; while in fact, absent a simple coordinate-space transformation that is required, it is exactly as Einstein put it himself; "unfathomable". People generally struggle with new coordinate-space transforms and so within this paper I will explain everything using simple layman's language, with only a tiny irreducible minimum of mathematics.
Admitting to not understanding the General Theory is a bit like confessing to sexual impotence; it is just not something that a person does. One should chill out; if one does not understand GR, then one is in very good company indeed because Einstein confessed to its being completely unfathomable to him. After reading this paper, one should end up understanding just why Einstein found his own theory unfathomable. People who have claimed to understand the General Theory better than Albert Einstein did, do not even understand Einstein's bafflement (footnote 1), let alone his theory.
It has been known since the early twentieth century and the first days of the General Theory, that the theory seems to break down in close proximity to matter. For the last 100-years we have been looking at this "relativity near to matter" issue "inside out"; Einstein's General Theory actually works out perfectly everywhere. The General Theory only appears to fail while we retain the use of classical metrics within a subject where classical metrics are just not rigorous enough to cope with the underlying reality. In other words, classical metrics are only really suitable for use within classical mechanics and should not be retained for work upon relativity and quantum physics.
It turns out that in the spatial displacement envelope extending from about 5-nanometres above any atomic nucleus and out to about 100-million light years from the observer, the distortions that arise from our retention of classical measurement units do not result in significant errors, except in the case of so-called "black-hole-stars" and so-called "neutron-stars".
It turns out that in the spatial displacement envelope extending from about 5-nanometres above any atomic nucleus and out to about 100-million light years from the observer, the distortions that arise from our retention of classical measurement units do not result in significant errors, except in the case of so-called "black-hole-stars" and so-called "neutron-stars".
Now, as far as I am concerned, what goes wrong with our understanding beyond 100-million light years away from us is about as relevant to my view of the real world about me as are the thoughts of the spring-lambs bleating so endearingly for their mothers outside of my bedroom window. However, I am very interested in what goes on with the shape of space-time beneath 5-nanometres above my own nuclei because my own brain cells are all made of quantum energy packets that "sing" their tiny harmonic "songs" deep within that fantastic microcosm. Einstein did very well for us indeed, but for some reason he made a needless mistake in retaining classical metrics, after he had shown that classical mechanics and the associated classical metrics were basically almost total nonsense within the subjects of relativity and quantum physics.
Let us start by assuming that the General Theory is absolutely correct. The theory was developed from considering pure logic and it certainly works out just fine in large vacuum spaces; why does it appear to break down in “tight” places close to matter? If we stick to our core hypothesis that there is nothing wrong with the General Theory, then the theory itself tells us why it does not seem to work properly in close proximity to matter. The General Theory is telling us quite firmly that we do not understand the space-time in close proximity to matter. Because light appears to slow in air (or glass etc), the General Theory is in effect telling us that the space-time close to atomic nuclei is gravitationally compressed. For instance; it is telling us that there is ever so slightly more space-time packed into one bar of air (compared to vacuum) than we imagine that there is.
Let us start by assuming that the General Theory is absolutely correct. The theory was developed from considering pure logic and it certainly works out just fine in large vacuum spaces; why does it appear to break down in “tight” places close to matter? If we stick to our core hypothesis that there is nothing wrong with the General Theory, then the theory itself tells us why it does not seem to work properly in close proximity to matter. The General Theory is telling us quite firmly that we do not understand the space-time in close proximity to matter. Because light appears to slow in air (or glass etc), the General Theory is in effect telling us that the space-time close to atomic nuclei is gravitationally compressed. For instance; it is telling us that there is ever so slightly more space-time packed into one bar of air (compared to vacuum) than we imagine that there is.
The high places of the Himalaya, not exactly one's ideal site for a new quantum physics laboratory, but wait, please hear me out.
Gravity is an effect that we feel from a sloping space-time-scale compression field. The local absolute depth of gravitational space-time-field scale-compression is irrelevant and locally unobservable; it is the sloping nature of the gravitational scale-compression field that leads to what we experience as the acceleration and tidal forces of gravity.
Unmasking the special relativity optical illusion (requires strong mathematical ability).
What happens to a body as it free-falls deeper and shallower within a gravitational field, in elliptical orbit for instance, is that it exchanges gravitational scale-energy for kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is very real and the gravitational scale change is also very real. General Relativity is much easier to understand than Special Relativity because it is all about reality. Special Relativity only appears to be about reality but actually it is all about highly compelling theoretical optical illusions. Ordinary people can be fooled by an optical illusion that one can actually see, but it took Albert Einstein to be fooled by an optical illusion that he could not even see. Please stick to re-learning General Relativity first by studying this article; then later upgrade by re-learning your understanding of Special Relativity with my SR article in my chapter 5.
As Einstein stressed, unlearning material that has been wrongly taught is very tough. Einstein then went straight ahead and taught us about Special Relativity quite wrongly. Einstein never told us that he had got to the bottom of the matter; in fact, he told us quite the opposite. We decided that he had got to the bottom of the matter; we must not lay any blame upon Einstein for this. I could have got nowhere without all of his wonderful help. Better late than never; please keep your mind in top gear. GR and later SR are about to make a whole lot more sense to you than they used to do.
If you wish to ignore my advice and study the new corrected version of Special Relativity first, then you can use this link. As this step was too hard for Einstein, my advice to you must be not to even try and jump ahead of Einstein too quickly at this point in your quantum-relativity
discovery process. If this step was too hard for Albert Einstein, then it is almost certainly too hard for you too.
Once having seen through an illusion, the mind cannot go back to not seeing through it. Click on the above image to read a discussion of this topic. (currently this link is author-confidential)
One can do a thought experiment by taking perfectly matched standard metre reference rods into various laboratories and measuring the length at a range of space-time absolute scale compression factors within the Earth's gravitational field.
Let us just imagine that we have two air-conditioned and pressurized laboratories; one is placed at the summit of Mount Everest and the other identical laboratory is built upon the shore of the Dead Sea. The altitude difference between the two laboratories is 9,268 metres, the gravitational field in the upper lab is a hardly-noticeable 0.29% weaker than that experienced within the lower laboratory, not much to go on, but it will have to do.
Now, the General Theory predicts that in our upper laboratory the atomic (and all other non-gravitational) clocks will be observed to run fast compared to the clocks in the lower laboratory. Let us imagine that the upper laboratory can signal its atomic clock-ticks (say 100-times per second) to the lower laboratory using an invariant dedicated fibre-optic system. After a suitably long clock-tick integration period has elapsed, workers in the lower laboratory confirm the General Theory; the atomic, quartz and balance wheel clocks in the upper laboratory are indeed all running fast, exactly as predicted by Albert Einstein. To actually detect the change in a high precision balance wheel chronometer, one would need a "perfect" pair and a multi-millennial performance integration period, but please remember, this is only a thought experiment.
Let us just imagine that we have two air-conditioned and pressurized laboratories; one is placed at the summit of Mount Everest and the other identical laboratory is built upon the shore of the Dead Sea. The altitude difference between the two laboratories is 9,268 metres, the gravitational field in the upper lab is a hardly-noticeable 0.29% weaker than that experienced within the lower laboratory, not much to go on, but it will have to do.
Now, the General Theory predicts that in our upper laboratory the atomic (and all other non-gravitational) clocks will be observed to run fast compared to the clocks in the lower laboratory. Let us imagine that the upper laboratory can signal its atomic clock-ticks (say 100-times per second) to the lower laboratory using an invariant dedicated fibre-optic system. After a suitably long clock-tick integration period has elapsed, workers in the lower laboratory confirm the General Theory; the atomic, quartz and balance wheel clocks in the upper laboratory are indeed all running fast, exactly as predicted by Albert Einstein. To actually detect the change in a high precision balance wheel chronometer, one would need a "perfect" pair and a multi-millennial performance integration period, but please remember, this is only a thought experiment.
Someone else can work at 29,000 feet scraping the stratosphere and towering giddily above the Hilary Step, I bag this one.
The scale of space-time local to the upper laboratory is slightly expanded compared to the lower one. Now let us measure our metre rod in both laboratories; but how can we do this? We must perform this measurement in absolute vacuum conditions and at the identical calibrated reference equipment design temperatures. Imagine that we could perfectly place perfect mirrors at each end of our metre rod and measure it’s length from the free-quantum-time-of-flight by bouncing light-quanta along its length a large number of times and work out the length of the rod as a light-time-of-flight. Using our perfect metre rods and perfect atomic clocks as our references, all we will find is that the “speed-of-light”
(in vacuum) in both labs is exactly the same; 299,792,458 metres per second.
It is a small niggle, but I do not want the matter of the actual metre rod to be anywhere near the vacuum path between the two mirrors during the measurements because the matter of the metre rod will slightly pull the space-time in close proximity to its own body. So our vacuum chamber must be equipped with strong finely adjustable jacks that can set the mirror separation using the metre rod, but the actual reference metre rod is removed from the vacuum chamber for the tests. I have observed what looks to me like gravitational lensing in the vacuum space lying in close proximity to long metallic paths, so let us (only in our imaginations of course) be very careful with this small extra point. What I am saying here is that the gravitational purity of the vacuum is contaminated in terms of gravitational field by the close presence of any matter at all, not just gas molecules.
In practice we would also check the mirror separation with a laser source borrowed from the NPL, physical metre rods are notoriously cumbersome. The NPL with their international colleague bodies stopped using platinum-iridium standard bars with the 1960 krypton-86 wavelength standard and then in 1985 with their recent piece of almost perfect Monty Pythonesque "bureaucratic gobbledygook".
The above image was captured from the NPL's website in July 2019, to see what they now state, just click on the image. Just why the CIPM (the committee who define the SI) quoted the reciprocal of "the-speed-of-light" instead of just 3.335 640 952
nanoseconds must remain forever; "one of the greatest mysteries of all time". If they had actually wanted to create confusion, they could hardly have done it any better.
About six months after I first published the above neurolinguistic criticism of their simple and technically correct definition, the NPL changed what they state on their website into two paragraphs of self-justification. What they state now is a short essay explaining the problems of measuring very short time intervals. So, in effect, they must now realize that they are just very high precision measurement engineers and it is me that is doing the ground breaking physics work, even though I have engineering qualifications and presumably they studied physics. If there was nothing wrong with the physics they were taught, then they could explain why they must measure in vacuum, and of course they can't, all they know is that light "slows" in a gas, but they do not know why. I am busy explaining why. There is no argument between myself and the NPL, they do a very good job of doing what they do.
Our metre rod has not changed of course, so how could it possibly be “longer” in the upper laboratory? The length of the metre rod leads to exactly the same light-time-of-flight
along it in both laboratories. In both labs the metre rod is exactly the same “time”
long, in both cases it is 3.335 640 952
nanoseconds long. So the correct definition of what we call a metre of spatial displacement is not to be known in terms of classical metrics at all but as 3.335 640 952
nanoseconds; that is the correct relativistically robust description of what the "scientist"
Napoleon Bonaparte told us was a meter. But, what on earth kind of nanoseconds are these? Well in classical metrics we can say that they are light-nanoseconds. That is fine, just so long as one knows what light is, the trouble with that is that we definitely do not know what light is, that is what we should actually be trying to find out of course.
Einstein died only 8-years before I set to work upon relativity myself. He died when I was still only 5-years old, so unfortunately for both of us, I never actually got to write to him or meet with him. We should never forget Einstein's famous, but in fact generally ignored comment made c.a. 1953:
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the question: 'What are light quanta?': nowadays, every Tom Dick and Harry thinks that he knows it, but he is mistaken.
All he had to do was unlearn just a tiny bit more of the classics. He said that he had had to unlearn everything, well unfortunately for him he completely missed unlearning the classical concept of space and so he had certainly failed to unlearn everything. Saying to the self "I have unlearned everything" when one has failed to do so, becomes totally non-recoverable. At that point (by about 1904) he needed external help to recover himself. Still, it was a very brave try, close, but no cigar.
Now let the real intellectual "heavy cavalry" move in;
Carl Friedrich Gauss.
Unfortunately for theoretical physicists, Gauss died 32-years before Michelson and Morley proved just how wise Gauss was; but by then every mathematician had binned or given up on teaching the wise words of Gauss.
Can the mathematics of Gauss help us? They certainly can. Gauss would have said to us (in 1887, had he still been around at the time) "hang on a moment people, you just discovered a new universal constant, it is probably +1i, the speed-of-light"
is almost certainly 1/-1i, at least I will check that out for you". So, in 2019, merely 132-years late, let us try thinking like Gauss would have done. Let us try calling the length of the metre rod 3.335 640 952
i-nanoseconds and see what we might come up with. In 1831, Gauss actually chastised us for our mathematical language. In Gauss-speak,
there should be no such language as the "imaginary-second" but rather the "lateral-second". In fact, what is a metre but a man made contrivance invented by Napoleon Bonaparte for his own convenience and not for the convenience of quantum physics? Let us measure spatial separation in i-seconds or in the preferred language of Gauss, "lateral-seconds".
So one i-second (in vacuum) is that well known figure of 299,792,458 metres, except that we just redefined 299,792,458 metres of vacuum-space as being correctly stated as one i-second. We now have a new relativistically robust and highly realistic system of space-time measurement that involves only time and three orthogonal dimensions of i-time. Later, i-time might also become known as Gaussian-lateral-time. Within the new science of qr-physics, it can be called quantum-time. Gaussian-lateral-time, i-time and quantum-time are all alternative names for your new relativistically robust description of spatial displacement.
With vacuum-space and time in any gravitational field position whatsoever, all measured by the same mathematical stuff; "time"; we ought at some point to obtain a "Eureka moment" for our better understanding of the General Theory. Suddenly using the term "space-time"
no longer sounds like the speaker has gone quite stark raving mad because space and time all consist of the same basic fabric.
John Clauser in the early 1970s, about to change everything, except that most people just applauded and then politely pretended not to notice that everything had changed and just carried on as normal; thus creating a sort of "Wile E. Coyote moment"
for theoretical physics that has now endured for the last 47-years. Time to join the Road Runner?
Vindication of the correctness of my alternative relativistically-robust coordinate-space reference frame. (Clauser and Freedman, 1972)
Sorry about this, but this is where it starts getting technical. You will need to have a quick glance at this following sketch in order to follow my language beyond here. For instance, where I mention, in the text following on from this sketch, "quantum-time" or "history-time" you can glance back up at this sketch in order to see a definition. Please do not struggle to understand this quickly. It took me many years of thinking about it to draw this sketch correctly, so please do not beat yourself up about this, please just go with the flow here and relax. It was quite scary for me because I did not know if there was a light at the end of my many-year-long "dark tunnel", everything is fine, this is "fun stuff", this is "safe stuff".
Sorry about this, but this is where it starts getting technical. You will need to have a quick glance at this following sketch in order to follow my language beyond here. For instance, where I mention, in the text following on from this sketch, "quantum-time" or "history-time" you can glance back up at this sketch in order to see a definition. Please do not struggle to understand this quickly. It took me many years of thinking about it to draw this sketch correctly, so please do not beat yourself up about this, please just go with the flow here and relax. It was quite scary for me because I did not know if there was a light at the end of my many-year-long "dark tunnel", everything is fine, this is "fun stuff", this is "safe stuff".
In the above sketch, please notice that Quantum-Gravitational
time (machinery), or QG t(m), generates negative time. You only actually experience negative time too; well, if you have ever "touched" the future, then please write to me about it. In the meantime, what we call time is experienced as history moving backwards in time. So expecting me to explain how the illusion of time is generated for us, does require an understanding that all real-time is negative. Positive time does not exist, what exists is history. If we want to break out from a never ending series of Wile E. Coyote style disappointments in theoretical physics, then we need to start with something that is actually true about time, or to put that more bluntly, "positive time progression does not actually happen".
The quantum-time separation (spatial separation) of a pair of entangled quanta makes no difference to the entangled quanta's history-time. Both quanta still reside at the history-time of the emission and must remain within a sate of historic emitter entanglement, hence the instant action at a distance observed by Clauser and Freedman in 1972. Prior to the publication of Clauser and Freedman in 1972, my thoughts about relativity were merely a private but strongly held (pro-Bohr) personal opinion. All one must do to complete the views of Bohr is to assert a thesis of historic emitter entanglement, which assertion brings the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics into perfection or a state of logical completeness.
After Clauser and Freedman published in 1972, I knew that I was right and that Einstein's thinking was all completely wrong. I then waited for the following 35-years until 2007 in growing disbelief at the delay in the "penny drop moment" occurring to the professionals of theoretical physics. Since then It has taken me 12-years to learn to write upon this subject with sufficient authority and clarity to attempt this forced "penny drop moment" upon the professionals.
I am with Albert Einstein by the way, a complete outsider and an "amateur". Until 2007 I was in electronics design with my own electronic instrument design and production business. Before Einstein became famous, he was a junior patents clerk and he certainly did not own the Swiss Patents Office. Think of Einstein and myself as a team of two occurring in a time division cascade; we needed both of us to complete the job. I certainly would never have had the patience or even the interest to attempt the great breakthrough that Einstein achieved for us and obviously he could not quite complete the job, but I could.
The Matter! What on earth is the matter?
Within this new relativistically robust measurement system, the units of inertial mass must also change character. Mass is a classical concept, it has no place in relativity and quantum physics what so ever. As any quantum physicist can remind one, all matter consists of quantized lumps of energy. We must express inertial mass with its energy equivalent, so the units of inertial mass become Joules. But, what on earth kind of Joules are those? The “speed-of-light”
within our new relativistically robust (and entanglement-physics compliant) measurement system has become +1i, and +1i-squared is minus one. Now, the relationship (expressed in classical metrics) E0
= m(c)^2 is not just some daft theory of Albert Einstein's, but by now a well-known and scientifically verified fact.
The only problem with the technically correct expression E0 = m(c)^2 is that it is expressed in relativistically dysfunctional classical metrics. Let us express the mass as mE, where mE is the energy tied down in the mass; c-squared has become minus one and so the relativistically robust units of mass are anti-Joules, or to put that another way, matter is made of gravitational energy holes. The strong nuclear binding force must create a gravitational energy hole, and so clearly, the strong nuclear force, as a discrete force that is not just yet again our old friend gravity, must become discarded into the relativistically dysfunctional "Homer-Simpson-Science" waste paper basket.
The Standard Model of the Atom expressed in the space-time of qr-physics.
Note that within QtCS, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and the molecular chemical binding energy all collapse into the same explanation - gravity.
Above I show a perspective view of the space-time near a free proton. This diagram is very tough to follow because it attempts to describe the perfect infinite exponential shape of the event-horizon close to and even inside the proton. The simple exponential shape arises in the two dimensional section, in three dimensions the gravitational function evaluates to an inverse square law, as one must find of course.
Beneath the harmonic cavity resonance point, we can think of the exponential extension into the bottomless gravitational pit as representing the historic shape of the em-induced cavity. The em-clock-rates at the cavity harmonic resonance point inflate exponentially with a doubling time of 9.56 billion years as the space-time structure becomes older and builds historic depth. The 9.56 Ga comes from Loge
(1/2) x -13.8 Ga; while -13.8 Ga is the observed time-constant of the positive standing universal exponential scale inflation, a figure well-known as the universal apparent age in flat-time. 13.8 Ga was always ludicrously too little time, was it really only myself who worried about the utter absurdity of that tiny apparent age?
The entire universe is only three times older than Earth, excuse me, but I think not.
Sir Isaac Newton saves the day and winds my chapter up nicely.
Remember him?
Newton showed us that we live upon the surface of a gravitational energy hole that we call Earth. Now we just discovered that nucleonic matter bound up by the strong nuclear force also creates an energy hole. Newton virtually told us the answer; all matter is gravitational and all gravity creates an energy hole. From this information; can we calculate the effective "graviton" radius using the General Theory such that all of these ideas line up together properly? Yes we can; the "graviton" virtual effective radius turns out to be precisely zero, being the natural origin of the exponential gravitational function.
So perhaps we should rename our "graviton" as our "Universal mono-Gravitonal Singularity" (UmGS)? The prior assumption of an actual "graviton particle" of finite size that is actually present in the here and now, turns out to have been a mistake.
Now upon first exposure, all of this must seem to be extremely weird of course, but let us go back to the original problem of the General Theory seeming not to work within an optical light pipe. In a solid fibre-optic light pipe the “speed-of-light” seems to be about 207,000,000 meters per second. That is a very fine classical wave theory method of thinking about this issue. There is only one tiny little fly in all of this classical wave theory thinking and that is that we are measuring everything using relativistically dysfunctional classical metrics.
The correct way to look at the fibre-optic light pipe is that it is actually 44.9% longer than we think that it is. It is “longer” than we think that it is because the space-time-scales inside the light pipe are compressed by the intimate proximity of all of those gravitational pinholes back into the gravitational time-origin; that is the singular gravitational origin of time.
Hot chaotic rising air density variations are stirring up the shape of the space-time lying between the camera and the subject; they are turning what would have been a boring photo of a jet into a very pretty and surrealist image. This was all explained by Einstein, what a pity that he died without even noticing just how much it was that he had explained.
now perhaps study The General Quantum Theory of Relativity, GRq
or go on to chapter-two; how bad language in pure mathematics stung Einstein.
Footnotes to chapter one:
1) Einstein's bafflement; presumably the issue of matter scalability.
In the third paragraph of this chapter-1, I mentioned Einstein's bafflement. Of course it was impossible for me to raise this with Einstein himself, but I can only assume that any bafflement in my own mind would have been reflected his mind too, since we both think in much the same way. The only baffling problem that I came across in my musings upon the General Theory concerns the scalability of matter. It is all very well to think of space-time scales becoming compressed within a gravitational field, but how does my notional pre-1960 vintage platinum-iridium standard metre bar perform this trick? Well of course, we did not actually do the experiment, but we all know very well that it would have worked out just fine. We can see from my basic space-time matter model diagram shown above, that all matter will exhibit the property of infinite background gravitational field scalability. So all theoretical work performed upon so-called "black-hole-stars"
and so-called "neutron-stars"
has been nothing but a highly confusing waste of our time.
Return to referring text block.
2) The language of time.
Due to our long experience in classical mechanics with our “understanding” of the word "time", I am forced to retain the polarity of time on the complete 2-d number time-plane as it stands. If we were starting all over again with a clean sheet of paper, it would be much more elegant to describe spatial remove as true-time displacement and history as imaginary times-past. Our language about time has become captured by classical mechanics. I am confident that William Shakespeare would have liked my "imaginary times past" concept and once the time delay between places was explained to him, he would also have been happy with the concept of "true time displacement". So our very language about time has basically become unfit for purpose due to our long excursion into classical mechanics. This explains why the "i-time" units of quantum-time must seem so strange to us. Our language was not developed to properly describe nature; it was developed in "blissful ignorance"
of the true nature of space and time. Return to referring text block.
3) Cosmological Implications, the start of qr-cosmology.
In qr-physics and therefore with the associated qr-cosmology, we describe the deep space red shifting as being associated with observing quanta entangled with historic emitters of light energy lying at the surface of very distant stellar elements of a galaxy that was lying at a more compact universal scale-inflation than we experience at present. Within this view, thinking of the deep space red shifting as being the result of Doppler shift is regarded as absurd.
Within qr-cosmology we can be quietly confident that we are correct because we expect to observe exponential deepening of the red shift versus distance off function and require no so-called "dark-energy". Within qr-cosmology, we describe the so-called "dark-energy"
as being nothing but the result of laughable "flat-time-thinking", nothing other than mere "Einstein-mumbo-jumbo".
Retaining the metre led Einstein into expressing his strange and actually quite useful load of Einstein-mumbo-jumbo,
but then on to his expressing and fathering of a complete load of utter cosmological-claptrap.
Absent qr-cosmology and one is "all at sea"
to explain the nature and origin of dark-matter, the nature, origin and formation mechanics for black-hole stars and even the kindergarten-simple mechanics of the basic young star gravitational formation process. Absent qr-cosmology and one thinks that the entire Universe is only three times older than Earth, quite frankly pathetic. Absent qr-cosmology and one is left imagining that the CMB radiation was from some instant-creation v2.0
event, frankly ludicrous. The galactic core cross firing wave was a sort of creative destruction, creative indeed but not actually creative but stricly speaking, destructive. Absent qr-cosmology and one can very fairly be described as nothing but an ignorant-barbarian.
The universal age, as measured with the current clock, is indeed only 13.8 billion years, the clock and the scale inflate exponentially. My chapter six in this series of eight-chapter papers on the General Theory would have carried the details. Chapter six will not be published unless quite a few people ask me nicely enough. So, that publication will most likely never happen now, because I am now 71-years old, which is a great shame, but there it is. QR-cosmolgy is like the difference between flat-earth
land-lubber thinking and sailing to America or flying to the Moon, as I say, a very great shame indeed.
However, I will cast none of my "QR-cosmological-pearls"
before the "holy orthodoxy of the cosmological-swine". In any case, the desire to understand QR-cosmology is in fact completely absurd, but I will not have swine
confusing my grandchildren with their claptrap-cosmology, so I will just content myself with the better explaining of the nanosphere.
The author and son, Doctor (of mathematics) Daniel Campbell at the summit of Crib Goch on the Snowdon Ring, North Wales.
To contact me, please just click on the photo.
.
qr-physics
