the quantum theory of relativity
The Gauss-Newton Quantum-Relativity
Chapter five.
The
Quantum
theory
of
Relativity
(in the special case),
SRqr.
reconciling Einstein's inverted-energy SR-nonsense by applying the qr principal to his own General Theory.
A general update and clarification on the 1905 - 1915 General Theory work of Albert Einstein.
Briefing notes
on General Relativity, part 5 of 8 ; BMJC Bieżanek, 18th Feb 2018; revision status 9.1.5, 12th July 2020. Why is the Gauss-Newton Quantum-Relativity not mentioned in the science museum?
Our general experience with life shows us that kinetic energy is real positive energy. Even a cat knows that kinetic energy will result in a positive strike, that is why a cat can get stuck up a tall tree and need rescuing by the fire brigade, a cat's intuitive understanding of gravity is almost perfect. Now, with The Quantum
theory
of Relativity
(in the gravitational case) or GRqr
, we find that the tried and tested mass energy equivalence relationship:
needs to be adjusted into our new and vastly more rigorous definition of spatial separation that we call quantum-time, because we find that by employing the space-less (no space, all time) Null-Lorentz-Transform that I call the quantum-time coordinate-space transform, c becomes +1i, (more strictly 1/-1i, but that makes no difference) and so:
Where
mE just means the quantum particle energy that is tied down in the matter by nuclear forces.
The nuclear forces are clearly both gravitational. (I refer us here to my vizualization of this obvious possibility.) Of course, this incipient theory of everything or Grand Unified Theory (GUT), presents us with a bit of a snag because we know that kinetic energy is direct (positive), but now we find that matter (the so-called "mass") is made up of many gravitational energy holes. In order to understand this, we need The Quantum Theory of Relativity (in the special case) SRqr. Although SRqr
is much easier to understand than GRqr, it is a very hard sell on its own, because Einstein's traditional version of special relativity (SR) seems to work out just fine as it stands. It is only once we have the GRqr
that we are forced to think again.
In simple Newtonian reckoning, the energy of any matter lying at rest within any gravitational system is inverse (negative) with respect to the matter (mass) being relatively stationery in gravitational free-space. Newton's understanding of gravity
turns out to have been correct at a much deeper level than has ever been understood before quantum-relativity came onto the scene. For the most recent 115-years, we have lived with an insane contradiction in terms of simple basic Newtonian classical mechanics. The subject of SRqr
only seems tough for us because it is drawing us out of thinking that is actually insane and one naturally clings to the comfortable familiarity of living with Einstein's insane version of the special theory of relativity, i.e. the comfortable lunatic asylum that one was indoctrinated into by about age-13 (please see my footnote 7 for a discussion of this issue of age at SR indoctrination).
The Quantum Theory of Relativity (in the special case) or SRqr
, explains to us that what occurs when relative kinetic energy is turned into other observable forms of energy by collision, is the collapse of a relative scale optical illusion. All of those SR equations that Einstein came up with relate to the special relativity optical illusion. If you recall, Einstein explained the clock and scale dilation in the case of relative motion. Those scale dilations are an optical illusion. There is no real difference in the scale of two objects in relative motion, there just seems to be (please refer to my footnote 1).
In the case of a gravitational field, there is a real difference in the scale between two points at differing gravitational field depths. Any massive body within a gravitational field exhibits more deeply inverse
(negative) gravitational scale-energy
with respect to what its inverse (negative) gravitational scale-energy would be at G0
lying in absolute gravitational free-space. For instance; as the Earth-Moon binary orbits the Sun (more strictly speaking the system barycentre) in elliptical orbit, the pair are cyclically exchanging inverse gravitational scale-energy for direct relative kinetic energy. Was it Watt who described less inverse (negative) gravitational scale energy as direct (positive) potential energy? That was a rather amusing little dodge, useable, but hypnotic and wrong.
By some false logic, that I have always failed to understand, Einstein managed to fantasize that the apparent scale dilation that could theoretically be observed with very high rates of relative motion, would be more than simply an optical illusion. In 1915, Einstein showed with his General Theory that there was no such article as a metre. The great mystery to me was always why he did not return to his special relativity again, once he had shown that the metre was nothing but a classical fantasy. Einstein's GR shows how the relativistically invariant units of space are time, that is the light time of flight. We even manage to incorporate this understanding into our very definition of the metre and yet does the penny drop? No, not at all;
By some false logic, that I have always failed to understand, Einstein managed to fantasize that the apparent scale dilation that could theoretically be observed with very high rates of relative motion, would be more than simply an optical illusion. In 1915, Einstein showed with his General Theory that there was no such article as a metre. The great mystery to me was always why he did not return to his special relativity again, once he had shown that the metre was nothing but a classical fantasy. Einstein's GR shows how the relativistically invariant units of space are time, that is the light time of flight. We even manage to incorporate this understanding into our very definition of the metre and yet does the penny drop? No, not at all;
“It is not my job to even think about this subject at all, because I was assured as a child that it was far too hard for me. Therefore, I was later forced to simply 'shut up and calculate', even though what I was being taught seemed to me at the time to be like nothing but a load of utter tripe”.
(it was indeed)
So, let us now refigure Einstein's SR equation for kinetic energy on a special relativity diagram drawn in the first time-derivative of quantum-time coordinate space. To put this into more sensible engineering language, I now show a relative apparent clock rates diagram. Please note that the only thing that changes between my 1964 result and Einstein's 1905 result, is the polarity of the specific relative kinetic energy factor.
In 1964, the solution shown in my diagram below did take me 2-minutes to get right on the blackboard (footnote 6), but this understanding seemed trivial to me. Einstein required the wrong sign because he thought that "the-speed-of-light"
was a direct (what you call "real") number and that therefore matter must consist of positive energy with respect to free-space, the opposite is true. The nuclear forces are simply our old friend gravity acting upon stupendously tiny scales, but Newton had explained the exact same fact, over 200-years before anybody had even thought of any nuclear forces.
click on the sketch to see this with the proper Gaussian space-time language
The above diagram shows R-clock apparent rate-space using my FNN theory (like your complex numerical plane), only in the R to Q relative motion axis using the inverted quantum-time coordinate-space (QtCS) naming or neurolinguistical convention. If that axis does not involve the Q-R collision, then the relative scale illusion collapse calculation shown is meaningless. In other words, the very concept of relative kinetic energy has no real meaning unless there is a collision. In general physics and engineering work, the car's tires or the aircraft's wings for instance, are in constant collisions, so in general physics work, relative kinetic energy tends to be meaningful all of the time.
Without wishing to sound too pedantic, I am merely reminding us that there is no such article as absolute kinetic energy. Even the concept of absolute rest energy implied by the term E0
has no real meaning because no such absolute reference platform exists.
Because the collapse in the scale dilation illusion function yields an inverted (negative) relativistic impulse and mass consists of inverted (negative) energy with respect to free space, we get a double inversion (a double negative) and so kinetic energy is positive, of course.
I have just explained free particle kinetic energy in quantum space-time.
Relative particle energy is the real substance, the appearance of relative motion must simply tag along for the ride.
* * *
Footnotes to chapter 5
footnote 1: (not a part of this paper)
For new students of quantum-relativity; introductory notes for SRqr.
What does Einstein imagine as his tram draws away from the Bern town clock?
As Einstein's tram draws away from the Bern town clock at say 10 m/s, Einstein notices that the clock appears to slow down by a theoretical 33 parts per billion. Einstein then notices that should his tram approach the speed of light; the Bern town clock would appear to approach a clock rate stasis. Einstein then fantasizes that as he draws away from it, the Bern town clock appears to enter a reduced scale of space and time, what Einstein imagines is of course; "a load of old cobblers". If he had imagined instead an approach to the Bern town clock instead of moving away from it, then the exact opposite apparent clock-scale dilation effect would have occurred. Then he needed to realize that the scale of time at the Bern town clock does not flip from being fast to being slow, just because he passed it.
As Einstein's tram draws away from the Bern town clock at say 10 m/s, Einstein notices that the clock appears to slow down by a theoretical 33 parts per billion. Einstein then notices that should his tram approach the speed of light; the Bern town clock would appear to approach a clock rate stasis. Einstein then fantasizes that as he draws away from it, the Bern town clock appears to enter a reduced scale of space and time, what Einstein imagines is of course; "a load of old cobblers". If he had imagined instead an approach to the Bern town clock instead of moving away from it, then the exact opposite apparent clock-scale dilation effect would have occurred. Then he needed to realize that the scale of time at the Bern town clock does not flip from being fast to being slow, just because he passed it.
This impossible young dreamer, with utterly no knowledge of or ability with the simple Gaussian higher arithmetic (so-called "complex" plane arithmetic) required to solve this pathetic little puzzle, was imagining nothing more than an optical illusion. The scale of the space-time at the Bern town clock actually remains exactly the same as his own for his entire notional ultra-high relative kinetic energy transit of the clock. His relative kinetic energy with respect to the Bern town clock flips from positive to negative as his ultra-high energy "tram" fails to scatter the Bern town clock upon his high relative kinetic energy imaginary apparent transit of it.
Yes, young Albert Einstein did indeed require out of the box imagination, however, it would have helped him greatly to have had the merest smattering of higher arithmetic before he tried to create the apparently "impossible" solution. In simple basic higher arithmetic, the correct solution for relativity in the special case is utterly trivial. Einstein was about twenty years old as he started to ponder this issue of relativity. I can report from my own experience that he was starting out about ten years too late in his life to have a cat in hell's chance of success. By the time that he started to work on this, his mind was already plunging deep into the abyss of old age with its rigid patterns of thought. So, I say "young" Albert Einstein with my tongue most firmly in my cheek, he started when he was already "far past it". Nine years old is that magic time in one's life when not only does one know nothing, but one is still knows that one knows nothing. Once one knows something, should that something that one "knows" be nonsense (the metre), then "good night nurse".
An Acoustic Analogy.
To quickly understand the above mentioned apparent clock rate dilation polarity flip, use simple sound waves as an analogy. Imagine that there is a very noisy 1980 vintage F1 racing car, stationary beside the grass glider field runway with its engine being test-run on a 1-megawatt dyno at full chat, that is at 400kW at 11,000 rpm. Then swoop past this stationary car at 90 feet above the runway while crackin' out in your glider hazarding 20 knots over your 155 knot VNE at 175 knots TAS, and then listen to the sound that you hear. Now repeat this, but close your eyes this time and you are back at the Brands Hatch trackside, sitting in the sun on the grass at Pilgrim's Drop hearing Alan Jones scream past you at 190mph, Sunday 13th July 1980. Sound waves in atmosphere only form a very limited analogy for light in free-space, but my two takeaways from this are: 1) it makes no difference if I approach the car or the car approaches me, I hear (i.e., observe) the same thing. 2) As the car and I come towards each other, the "clock" of the car (i.e., its engine tone or its acoustic scale) only appears to run fast (hot acoustic scale) in approach and slow (cold acoustic scale) in retreat. The sound of a car passing is a crude audio illusion analogy for the optical illusion of relativity (in the special case).
To quickly understand the above mentioned apparent clock rate dilation polarity flip, use simple sound waves as an analogy. Imagine that there is a very noisy 1980 vintage F1 racing car, stationary beside the grass glider field runway with its engine being test-run on a 1-megawatt dyno at full chat, that is at 400kW at 11,000 rpm. Then swoop past this stationary car at 90 feet above the runway while crackin' out in your glider hazarding 20 knots over your 155 knot VNE at 175 knots TAS, and then listen to the sound that you hear. Now repeat this, but close your eyes this time and you are back at the Brands Hatch trackside, sitting in the sun on the grass at Pilgrim's Drop hearing Alan Jones scream past you at 190mph, Sunday 13th July 1980. Sound waves in atmosphere only form a very limited analogy for light in free-space, but my two takeaways from this are: 1) it makes no difference if I approach the car or the car approaches me, I hear (i.e., observe) the same thing. 2) As the car and I come towards each other, the "clock" of the car (i.e., its engine tone or its acoustic scale) only appears to run fast (hot acoustic scale) in approach and slow (cold acoustic scale) in retreat. The sound of a car passing is a crude audio illusion analogy for the optical illusion of relativity (in the special case).
The author would never approach his VNE to closer than 10 knots, so he could never quite do it like this. 175 knots at 90 feet makes 1200 feet at 60 knots, this is not dangerous from an energy reserve point of view, but would the wings stay on with full water ballast? Somebody else can try it.
VNE
stands for the design structural (air) Velocity Never Exceed
(even in zero turbulence with zero induced acceleration).
F1 car sounds with some great doppler tone (i.e., relative apparent clock rate and relative acoustic scale) plunges.
Footnote 1) - continued, optional at this stage, footnote 1, part 2 of 4 parts.
Relative kinetic energy can be either direct (positive) or inverse (negative).
Where any aspect of quantum-relativity sounds strange to us, we should restate what we are saying into what I call the "proper-Gaussian-terminology" and see if what we are saying then sounds more sensible to us. Within the entire subject of quantum-relativity, the 1831 Gaussian numerical terminology always and everywhere turns out to be the superior numerical language. So, let me strike the "negative" word here and replace that with Gauss' inverse suggestion. When we do this we must also strike the "positive" word and replace that with Gauss' direct suggestion. So, in order to read this in an easier to understand form, I will place the contra-Gaussian term in brackets as an aid to our understanding.
Where any aspect of quantum-relativity sounds strange to us, we should restate what we are saying into what I call the "proper-Gaussian-terminology" and see if what we are saying then sounds more sensible to us. Within the entire subject of quantum-relativity, the 1831 Gaussian numerical terminology always and everywhere turns out to be the superior numerical language. So, let me strike the "negative" word here and replace that with Gauss' inverse suggestion. When we do this we must also strike the "positive" word and replace that with Gauss' direct suggestion. So, in order to read this in an easier to understand form, I will place the contra-Gaussian term in brackets as an aid to our understanding.
To quickly grasp the concept of inverse (negative) relative kinetic energy, imagine that you are floating in absolute intergalactic free-space in your space ship when your unmanned supply drone narrowly misses impacting your ship and continues away from you at a small apparent relative velocity. The drone now exhibits inverse (negative) relative kinetic energy with respect to you because it is moving away from you. If it had hit you while still coming towards you, your ship would have been damaged by the direct (postive) relative kinetic energy in its approach. Now that it has missed you, the probability of collision has fallen to zero because the relative kinetic energy has flipped to the inverse (the negative).
Now, imagine that you start to add a force to the drone using a remote-controlled thruster. The drone now accelerates in the direction towards you. It has inverse (negative) relative kinetic energy with respect to you and the effect of the thruster is to reduce that inverse (negative) relative kinetic energy all the way down to zero, at which point the drone has zero relative kinetic energy with respect to you. You simply leave the thruster running and the drone builds direct (positive) relative kinetic energy with respect to you as it starts to approach you again. Then, paying far greater attention this time, you must now carefully dock your supply drone.
Footnote 1) continued, optional at this stage, footnote 1, part 3 of 4 parts.
Newtonian Classical Mechanics and the
Optical Illusion of Relativity
(in the special case).
In Newtonian classical mechanics, we would use an Earth frame of reference and count all kinetic energy with respect to the Earth platform. But in absolute free-space there is no such convenient frame of absolute reference that we can use except for either our own ship or the drone. It does not matter which one of the two that we use, the specific relative kinetic energy factor will be the same from either reference platform.
In Newtonian classical mechanics we simply ignore the fact that we do not know what space is, we simply pretend that that is not a problem and measure space in Earth-surface-metres. In "reality", we must refuse to pretend to know what space is, all that we know is that all apparent relative velocities must be thought of in terms of relative kinetic energy.
In thinking about the optical illusions
drawn by the relativity effect in the special case, there is no such article as absolute kinetic energy, only relative kinetic energy and that can be inverse (negative) or direct (positive). The relative kinetic energy of any massive object is direct (positive) with respect to the observer when coming towards the observer and inverse (negative) with respect to the observer when going away from the observer.
Quite how everybody else copes without the concept of inverse relative kinetic energy has rather escaped me, ever since about 1959, that is now passing 62-years back into my past. I am never confused at all, but I must live on a planet where everybody else is more full of confusion than a ripe chicken egg is full of meat. The Universe is about energy, time, charge and gravity.
Classical mechanics employs such concepts as mass and distance to build up some concoction of pretended salience within which energy is derived from those man-made concepts and comes last. In other words, in classical mechanics, the energy of the Universe comes last and daft man-made classical concepts come first, that is quite frankly an utterly impotent intellectual approach towards understanding relativistic illusions
in the special case.
Footnote 1) - continued, optional at this stage, footnote 1, part 4 of 4 parts.
Much more advanced and most definitely optional;
What is Kinetic Energy?
Later on, as one comes to a greater understanding of quantum-relativity, one will come to refer to kinetic energy as being the result of inverse energy (inertial mass) in motion through direct free space, so even the above-mentioned terminology will change to an even deeper understanding and we will replace the "kinetic" word with the Gaussian "lateral" word and so the additional total relative energy of matter in relative motion becomes a lateral extension of the (inverse) energy in the matter. But I will never use such highly advanced terminology before others actually ask me for an improved understanding of quantum-relativity. As I am now seventy-one years old, for obvious reasons, I will shortly be departing this station, what is called "dying" in one's existing rather comical way of describing things. So, it now seems highly unlikely that this improvement could ever actually occur for us, but stranger things have happened at sea. Maybe the last-ditch attack's, last pathetic stringbag's, silly little torpedo actually hits and jams the KMS Bismark's port rudder post just while she is going hard a starbord after all; maybe miniscule young David's tiny stone whacks into Goliath on his sweet spot after all? So, one never can know about the future of course.
Footnote 2)
Why is the Gauss-Newton Quantum-Relativity not mentioned in the science museum?
Footnote 3)
Einstein contradicted Newton, Euler, Gauss, Maxwell and Bohr within one erroneous (nonsense version) special relativity theory, and we all just sat there in a stupor and swallowed it, not for a few years, but for 115-years, 5 dumb generations.
Einstein's tiny mistake with the inverted energy logic of his version of the special theory of relativity, grew into the greatest cock-up in the history of all scientific and mathematical history. An almost utterly untrained young dreamer of only moderate intelligence and with no respect for mathematics at all, working all on his own in perfect isolation, is quite entitled to make the odd mistake here and there, but what on earth is peer review for?
Over 200-years before Einstein was even born, Newton had already explained that all gravitational energy was negative with respect to the mass being relatively stationery in free-space. Einstein's big problem was that he did not even understand the foundational gravitational energy-mechanics properly in the first place, everybody else's problem seems to be that they also never understood Newton properly either, and of course nobody (except for Maxwell and myself) had taken Gauss seriously when he said that if Euler's identity was not immediately obvious to one, then one was no kind of mathematician at all.
If ever one fully absorbs quantum-relativity, then the most obvious fact that will be left standing inside one's Universe will be Euler's identity. To get up to speed quickly with this, just rename i as the rotational operator and realize that the entire complex plane is an imaginary device that is hypnotically less helpful than it appears to be. Stop thinking of +1i(1)
as the square root of minus one because that is just a trivial consequence of i being the rotational operator in the first place. Then adopt the 1831 Gaussian nomenclature for the four discrete axis quadrants of the complex plane and one is then a long way towards undoing 190-years of arithmetical number-naming-convention mind-abuse. The so-called "number zero" is only a number in kindergarten (child) counting, the "grown ups" need to take far more care than they do, or just decide to become market gardeners after all, and leave all number theory work to the followers after Gauss.
Footnote 4)
The "master of Pythagoras" misses his destiny.
When Einstein was only just turned 12-years old, he produced the best and simplest proof of Pythagoras theorem that anybody has ever seen. This is proof enough that Einstein was a real genius, because this proof was missed by Hero of Alexandria, Cardano, Newton, Euler, Gauss and Laplace (along with many millions of others of course). Well, possibly, or perhaps they all noticed the proof but thought that it was just far too obvious and trivial to even report, who knows? I suspect that they all missed it. So, let me describe the young Einstein as the "master of Pythagoras".
Now, study Einstein's proof of Pythagoras, here is a quick description, this entire topic is extremely embarrassing and you will not find any such quick explanation elsewhere on the web. Then consider my special relativity diagram shown above. Our genius "master of Pythagoras" does not even notice the two right triangles of special relativity, even though the diagram in my proof looks identical to the diagram that one needs to explain Einstein's proof of Pythagoras.
The world of what goes on inside the individual human mind is not just strange, it is stranger than all of our wildest dreams. It is in properly demonstrating that strangeness, explaining a working model of it and showing the indidual how to abtain total mastery over it, that is the author's only true passion. The entirety of quantum-relativity is merely a case study demonstrating the power of the author's working model of his own pathetic little mind, which is most certainly not one jot more powerful than your own.
Footnote 5) Space-time inversions in QtCS
(QtCS means quantum-time coordinate-space)
The inversion referred to in the inverted version of the diagram is caused by our habit, acquired from classical mechanics only, not from natural thought, of regarding history as existing within an entirely artificial Newtonian dummy variable that we call real time. In the non-inverted (or classical) form of quantum-time coordinate-space, we refer to history as "imaginary times past" and refer to the spatial displacement as the true time displacement, rather than the lateral-time (imaginary-time) displacement inferred within the nuerolinguistically inverted diagram.
This distinction is very important if one wants to solve for the mystery of time. If one wishes to retain the mystery of time, then one must use the inverted notational form. In reality, history no longer exists and the passage of time is merely a mirage created by inertia and clock motion upon the event-horizon of time-now. These clocks measure something, but it is not positive time progression because that does not actually happen. The clocks actually just measure the depth of their history, and that did actually happen. Look at anything in nature, for instance Galactic self-orbit, an atomic charge shell or a rabbit running in a line and tell me in what way does it not form an energy-conserving clock?
Footnote 6)
What top-class 13-year-old mathematics students thought about SR in 1964.
In general playground debate about the special theory of relativity, after our teacher (Mr. Williams) had introduced us to SR; the universal conclusion was that Einstein's special theory of relativity was just typical "mad-scientist" thinking. All eight of my fellow students each came up with a joke proving Einstein's ideas to be nonsense and just plain silly. Well, none of them, including Mr. Williams, could understand my complex plane apparent clock-rates explanation (of Einstein's misunderstanding), so I just binned the issue but decided to give theoretical physics a very wide berth indeed. Before Williams explained Einstein's SR to us, my intention had been to read theoretical physics at Cambridge. I decided to just pass on that bright idea; I will not be taught nonsense by lunatics, thank you very much. I left that school as soon as the law allowed me to. On my 16th birthday I just walked away from nonsense forever. I did get a first in electrical and electronic engineering in 1973, but was never knowingly guilty of actually attending any classes.
Footnote 7) At what age were you indoctrinated into Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity?
Age-13 was in 1964 in the super-stream (of five ability streams) for mathematics in a high end specialist technical grammar school; that was mathematical education focussed upon students in the top 0.1% of mathematical ability. My son tells me that in the meantime there has been a bit of grade-inflation, so maybe that was age-18 in the year 2000, but the educational grade-inflation has been exploding exponentially since then. Perhaps they no longer even try to teach the Special Theory to low-graded generalist physicists at all? Bill Gates now lends financial support to an organization that declares the entire subject of mathematics to be (racial?) discrimination. A serious insult to the many black mathematicians and physicists who have helped me so much. Thank you Neil deGrasse Tyson, just for one example.
While the back to front nonsense of Einstein's special theory was just a bit of a joke, his general theory was invaluable. However, I had far more inspiration from the hints provided by the mathematician Charles Lutwidge Dodgson and his artist friend Sir John Tenniel. Shown is Tenniel's brilliant rendition of Lewis Carrol's (i.e. Dodgson's) White Rabbit.
