Is it quantized or continuous? Does redshift vary with the energy or energy gradient of the aether? We also know that redshift energizes the aether. Perhaps dipole energy leakage? Perhaps it is statistical and quantized?
Alas, this is an open question as we reframe from the massive errors in LCDM. I recently commented on this Quanta article and video. The science on the topic of black hole jets will proceed much faster if you correct two mistakes in physics history. Think about the implications for singularities and black holes. Is immutability what prevents the UV disaster from occurring in nature? Yes, I believe so. Think about the theoretical infinities that require renormalization and awkward substitution with observations.
Immutability of point charges is the magic key that unlocks the secrets of nature and the universe. Imagine a stream of Planck energy point charges being jetted from a Planck core state. What are the first type of structures to emerge? The orbiting electrino : positrino dipole, of course. Every standard matter particle has at least one of these dipoles Gen III fermions for example and as many as nine dipoles Neutron, Proton with a common form being three coupled dipoles at different energy scales — like a gyroscopic dynamo.
I call it the Noether energy conservation engine. Besides all these Noether engines, there are personality point charges and in combination with the Noether cores they do all the things we know and love in the standard model.
In mathematics, a manifold is a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space near each point. Two-dimensional manifolds are also called surfaces. Examples include the sphere and the torus, which can be embedded formed without self-intersections in three dimensional real space. The concept of a manifold is central to many parts of geometry and modern mathematical physics because it allows complicated structures to be described and understood in terms of the simpler local topological properties of Euclidean space.
Manifolds naturally arise as solution sets of systems of equations and as graphs of functions. Manifolds can be equipped with additional structure. One important class of manifolds is the class of differentiable manifolds; this differentiable structure allows calculus to be done on manifolds.
A Riemannian metric on a manifold allows distances and angles to be measured. Symplectic manifolds serve as the phase spaces in the Hamiltonian formalism of classical mechanics, while four-dimensional Lorentzian manifolds model spacetime in general relativity.
Did you know that manifolds locally resemble local Euclidean space? However, as we approach the scale of point charges, there are localities of events where the individual influence of point charges becomes apparent.
MIT has made available a course on general relativity. I think this will be a difficult task because spacetime is a collection of structures, probably very tired and massy photons and neutrinos. Or more specifically Noether engines and anti-engines. Here is the first lecture. General relativity mathematics is quite a few orders of magnitude above nature or otherwise the individual influence of each electrino and positrino would come in to play distinctly from the sea of electrinos and positrinos and the structures they form.
I wonder what are the scale limits of the tests of general relativity? So that is the challenge to myself. There is no timeline. I may get bored, because it is both mentally taxing, tedious, and annoying to invest time and effort linking to a wrong theory, even one that is in tremendous alignment with observations.
However, that may be what it takes to reach the next levels of insight on my own. Here is the differential analysis of Lecture 1 : Quantum General Relativity vs.
MIT GR 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. It is of course a trivial truth that no scientific theory ever is gonna be true.
All physical theories we can at most hope to come up with are incomplete models of reality that model reality well enough that they can stand experimental test.
To date, more then years after General Relativity was developed, GR still stands the test, because it matches observation. The problem with your theory however is that it is not even wrong, because you only make qualitative descriptions from that hypothetical model, without any possibility of doing actual calculations, in order to make prediction that can be tested.
All you say is that scientist and mathematicians should just adopt your model of physical reality, and then figure out all current phyical theories based on your physical model. I can think physicists have better things to do then to serve the demands of an individual outsider of the physics community.
Why would they go for that? Who would fund them? What is in your theory that makes better physical theories possible? All they have is your ideas that fundamental physical reality is consisting of this classical charged point particles, but there is nothing actually in your theory that proofs that that is the case. Only wishful thinking. To rewrite all of phyics based on your very vague description of underlying physical reality would be years and years of work for hundred of physicists, and what will come out of it?
It might be incompatible with the physical reality as we observe it, without any possibility of repairing it, and we would loose years of hard work of talented physicists. In fact we have already an example of that, in the form of String theory, which to date has not made any prediction that can be tested. And as a hint, I would recommend you to start with atomic theory, how and why that developed from a classical theory to a quantum theory, since your idea of classical point particles orbiting each other to form a stable particle has the same problem as the classical atomic theory of that time: it would not be stable.
The electron as a classical charged point particle would radiate away energy and would fall into the nucleus. Still, other popular interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the many-worlds interpretation , manage to keep the classical, deterministic notion of time alive. These theories cast quantum events as playing out a predetermined reality.
Many-worlds, for instance, said each quantum measurement splits the world into multiple branches that realize every possible outcome, all of which were set in advance. Instead of trying to make quantum mechanics a deterministic theory, he hopes to provide a common, indeterministic language for both classical and quantum physics. But the approach departs from standard quantum mechanics in an important way.
In quantum mechanics, information can be shuffled or scrambled, but never created or destroyed. Yet if the digits of numbers defining the state of the universe grow over time as Gisin proposes, then new information is coming into being. This new way of thinking about information may suggest a resolution to the black-hole information paradox , which asks what happens to information swallowed by black holes.
Hence the paradox. If a different formulation of quantum mechanics in terms of intuitionist math allows information to be created by quantum measurements, perhaps it also lets information be destroyed. Jonathan Oppenheim , a theoretical physicist at University College London, believes information is indeed lost in black holes.
Along with supporting the idea of creative and possibly destructive time, intuitionist math also offers a novel interpretation of our conscious experience of time. Recall that in this framework, the continuum is sticky, impossible to cut in two. In standard physics, based on standard math, time is a continuous parameter that can take any value on the number line.
And infinite numbers get truncated inside black holes. Popescu objects to the idea that digits of real numbers count as information. Going forward, he hopes to find a way of reformulating relativity and quantum mechanics in terms of finite, fuzzy intuitionist mathematics, as he did with classical mechanics, potentially bringing the theories closer.
He has some ideas about how to approach the quantum side. That's because it is fundamentally incompatible with the other big beast in the physics zoo: Quantum theory. The quantum world is notoriously weird. Single particles can be in two places at once, for example.
Only by making an observation do we force it to 'choose'. Before an observation we can only assign probabilities to the likely outcomes. He imagined a cat in a sealed box accompanied by a vial of poison attached to a hammer. The hammer is hooked up to a device that measures the quantum state of a particle. Whether or not the hammer smashes the vial and kills the cat hinges on that measurement, but quantum physics says that until such a measurement is made, the particle is simultaneously in both states, which means the vial is both broken and unbroken and the cat is alive and dead.
Such a picture cannot be reconciled with a smooth, continuous fabric of space-time. According to Einstein, space-time is warped by matter and energy, but quantum physics says matter and energy exist in multiple states simultaneously — they can be both here and over there.
It's kind of embarrassing," she said. Try and use general relativity and quantum theory together, and it doesn't work. One is the highest probability possible — it means an outcome is certain.
You can't be more certain than certain. Equally, calculations sometimes give you the answer infinity, which has no real physical meaning. The two theories are therefore mathematically inconsistent. So, like many monarchs throughout history, physicists are seeking a marriage between rival factions to secure peace. They're searching for a theory of quantum gravity — the ultimate diplomatic exercise in getting these two rivals to share the throne.
This has seen theorists turn to some outlandish possibilities. Arguably the most famous is string theory. It's the idea that sub-atomic particles such as electrons and quarks are made from tiny vibrating strings. Farther out still, the force strength drops off in proportion to the mass of the vector field. So far, his theory seems to be able to explain many observed properties of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and other observations.
Few astrophysicists doubt that black holes exist: We know of a large number of very massive, very dense objects in the cosmos, for which the black hole hypothesis is the only one that fits. The shadow is created as light orbits close to, but not quite in the event horizon; the EHT would see it as a faint ring with a dark interior.
GR makes very specific predictions about the shape and size of that ring—which was a dramatic visual effect in the movie Interstellar. The ultimate arbiter of a theory, after all, is nature.
0コメント