the unified gravitational field
The Gauss-Newton Quantum-Relativity
The
Quantum
Theory
of Relativity
(gravitational case)
GRq.
Part 3 of 3.
2) The unified gravitational quantum-time-field explanation.
We must take Einstein's mass energy equivalence relationship and pass the equation through the quantum-time coordinate-space transform. The transform replaces the classical c with +1i (or more strictly 1/-1i, but in this basic case, that more precise form makes no difference). As the units of inertial mass in kilograms cannot survive the transform, the units are forced into becoming energy in Joules. We will use the nomenclature mE , where mE
means the quantum particle energy in units of Joules that is tied down within the matter by strong and weak nuclear force binding.
This equation passes through the quantum-time coordinate-space transform, in other words, it passes out of "Einstein-mumbo-jumbo, Alice in Wonderland" fantasy-space into the harsh reality of quantum-time
coordinate-space to become:
At first glance the above formula seems to be insane because we all know very well that kinetic energy is positive. Fortunately, it turns out that there is not the slightest part of any of this that is insane. You can either just trust me for the moment that The Quantum Theory of Relativity (in the special case) confirms this result or if you are prepared to break your work-flow in reading through this tough paper, then here is a link to the proof of that.
Welcome to your new world of real-physics, welcome to the Quantum Theory of Relativity, or the Grand Unified Theory (GUT). I do hope that you did not find the mathematics of the GR into GRq
transformation process too irksome for you. I do hope that you do not find the resulting energy mass equivalence relationship too complex to understand, but that simple equation is all that there is.
Well done, Sir Isaac Newton.
Three hundred and thirty-two years ago, Newton published the Principia within which he explained that all the energy within a gravitational system is negative with respect to the mass being relatively stationery in gravitational free space. E0, the rest-energy of the mass, is expressed as Joules in free-space; our transformed matter energy equivalence formula tells us that this gravitational energy-hole relationship applies even to the tiniest particle of matter.
Now let us prove that Newton was correct. I will take a two-dimensional section of a universe exactly like our own but empty and place into that a 2-d section of a single proton of matter. Then I will integrate Einstein's field equations from infinite limits (i.e. ignoring Einstein's cosmological constant and Einstein's preconceived finite cosmological notion) down on to the "graviton" to determine its gravitational characteristics. My infinite limits integration reveals (in two-dimensional section) a perfect inverse exponential for the gravitational scale compression function.
For many years I was perplexed by finding a simple inverse exponential gravitational space-time scale compression function, where as its quantum-time derivative must yield an inverse square law. Well, my internal neurological integration "machine" is unable to perform this infinite limits integration in three dimensions. The original 2-d integration run took me about fifteen seconds in February 2015. Why not use a computer to perform this integration? There is a slight problem with computers and infinity, or even for that matter, with zero. Of course, it turns out that we must work in three dimensions.
The slope or the first derivative of the scale-compression function, which is the same functional shape as the scale-compression function in 2-d (read your Euler), yields the gravitational force field for a 2-d universe. In a three-dimensional universe, the force field turns up the inverse square law, just so long that is, that we are far enough away from the source of the gravitational field. In other words, once we observe the matter from more than a few nanometres appart from the matter, we can ignore the local curvature of the matter's space-time.
Leaping over my explanatory hurdle # 1.1)
My simple 2-d inverse exponential compression function explains that close to and within a matter field we must expect to find a compressed scale of local space and time. Light cannot "slow", the "speed" is always and everywhere just +1i. However, as the light passes through the transparent matter field it encounters a locally compressed scale of space and time. As the scale is compressed like this, there is more space within the transparent matter field than simple flat-space thinkers would expect there to be.
Leaping over my explanatory hurdle # 1.2)
Because I must explain that the proton charge face is actually an ideal tuned aerial for launching its gamma electromagnetic energy wave emission, I can reason that taking a rather naive side section view of the charge face to be the equivalent of a quarter wave dipole, I experience a nominal 250-times linear quantum-time scale compression at the proton rms charge face with respect to free-space. The quantum-time scale at the charge face occupies about 15.6 million times greater spatial volume than theorists have previously imagined. No wonder that no one spotted this for the last 100-years. No wonder that the nucleus of an atom seems so small to us.
The unified gravitational field.
Examination and thought about the infinite limits 2-d inverse exponential scale compression function leads me to two rather startling conclusions:
- The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and the molecular chemical binding energies are all simply gravitational. Although the concept of quantum-relativity-physics is useful in assisting quantum physicists, particle physicists, nano-scale technologists and theoretical chemists in their work, by far the most dramatic conclusion is nothing to do with that but in the field of cosmology.
- The curved nature of the deep space red shifting function is clearly the result of an entirely predictable and one can presume perpetual, universal exponential relative-scale-inflation. It seems that we must now return to our cosmological "drawing board"; which is just as well of course because super massive black-hole-stars have not simply formed by magic; these masive formations are merely the expected outcome of the impeccable logic of qr-physics (cosmology) qr-cosmology.
Conclusion.
By changing our metric of spatial displacements from the relativistically clumsy classical metre method into the simplicity of describing the displacements as we actually measure them as time displacements, we have explained how glass optics actually work. We have also unified three of the four fundamental forces of the universe into a single force called gravity.
It should be borne in mind that the formal definition of a metre is in fact 3.335 640 952 nanoseconds of light flight time. This has been stated in the past as the distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458 seconds, which is just an extremely clumsy way of stating 3.335 640 952
nanoseconds. So, in quantum-relativity-physics we are not really stating anything new at all, all we are doing is explaining that Albert Einstein had no proper business in retaining our relativistically clumsy classical concept of spatial displacement measurement in the first place.
Therefore, merely by changing the metrics of coordinate space from metres into quantum-time, we have shown how Einstein's General Theory
of Relativity
automatically becomes Einstein's:
Quantum
Theory
of Relativity
(gravitational case), the previously missing GUT.
* * *
go back to part 2 of 3
go back to part 1 of 3
go on to chapter-two; how bad language in pure mathematics stung Einstein.
return to chapter-one: The Last Tango of the Finite Graviton.
jump forward to chapter-five: The Quantum Theory of Relativity, SR(q)
* * *
Footnotes to part 3
Footnote 1) is merely a repeat of footnote 5) from part 1
1) We deeply regret to inform you that your dear friend "cosmology" passed away in the night.
Our existing orthodox cosmology is found, under The Quantum Theory
of Relativity, to lack any kind of respectability at all, that becomes abandoned and is instantly replaced by the vastly more credible and exciting qr-cosmology. The subject of qr-cosmology flows naturally from The Quantum Theory of Relativity, but actually qr-cosmology was discovered first and The Quantum Theory of Relativity only emerged from that revised understanding of the Cosmos. At this time, one is perhaps between two and fifty years from reaching a study of the subject of qr-cosmology and one will only ever get there at all, if one starts with the basics, for example; understanding how one's own eye lenses perform their job. In order to breakthrough into at least properly understanding how one's own eye lenses work, one will first need to become immersed in The Quantum Theory of Relativity. Do not even think about cosmology at all again, until one is well-grounded in The Quantum Theory
of Relativity.
2) Qr-cosmology and Mass-Compaction-Mechanics.
The subject of Mass Compaction Mechanics
requires a thorough prior grounding in and an adoption of qr-cosmology. As there are not yet even any students of qr-cosmology,
I am not about to update, reprint or republish the the book "Mass Compaction Mechanics"
any time soon. All I discovered by publishing the book "Mass Compaction Mechanics" in 2013 was just how fanatically attached astrophysicists were to their deeply flawed existing cosmological narrative. They would rather protect their abysmal and dysfunctional cosmological model than understand the primary universal mass concentration mechanism.
In future, this Mass Compaction Mechanics work will only be shared with serious people and is no longer to be made publicly available because the very long time sequences (>>10^50 years), the thermal modelling of the incredible and invisible dark-star disk
upon nebula cloud interference impact and the BEC (hyper-cold) cloud-disk gravitational and tidal condensation mechanics that are involved in this work are just far too complex for most reader's minds to cope with. It is like trying to explain how an automatic gearbox works to a composer of classical music, except that the artist might actually want to know, whereas my theoretical astrophysicists definitely do not want to know.
So, to summarize the current astrophysical position; not only are we quite unable to explain how the glass lenses in our telescopes work, but we are also quite unable to explain the gravitational condensation mechanics for a single massive body in the entire cosmos. The only parallel that I can find to today's abysmal teaching of theoretical astrophysics, is with all of those astronomers who were still teaching their hopeless geocentric dogma, long after my dear (posthumous) colleague Galileo had pointed out the obvious facts of the matter.
