Dark Energy or a Simple Mistake: Do We Understand How Non-Unique the Einstein Tensor Actually Is? by Jeff Baugher

Sergey,

I will reply on your thread.

Regards,

Jeff

Jeff,

In accordance with the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my Essay), nuons are similar at the level of star to the white dwarfs, and nucleons to neutron stars and magnetar. Nuons are the result of evolution of cosmic substance under action of strong gravitation at the level of elementary particles. In Standard Model there is muons that almost the same as nuons. But the difference is their origin: muons are born in decays of pions and strong interactions of particles and unstable or have charge and magnetic moment. But the nuons are stable, they are result of natural evolution of matter and have no charge. In the absence of charge it is difficult to detect them. At LHC or similar collider we see muons. To check the idea of nuons: they are the supposed reason of dark matter, of redshift of remote galaxies, of microwave background, of attenuation of light spectra of supernova star and so on.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

Jeff,

I really enjoyed your essay! Certainly if we find "dark energy" to be the dominant effect, it is more natural to "correct a repulsive force at small scales" than to "correct an attractive force at large scales," and the historical fact that we discovered "dark energy" relatively late should not deter us from this. However, I have a couple of questions.

1. Your 5th foundational question on page 2 involves the idea of curvature going to zero as matter content goes to zero, which is indeed a convincing point. However, I don't understand how repulsive gravity with a negative "cosmological constant" achieves this any more than attractive gravity with a positive "cosmological constant;" it seems that the difference is between positive curvature and negative curvature.

2. One argument for attractive gravity is based on the idea that gravity ought to be a "local effect." In other words, it is harder to think of objects at great distances "exerting greater and greater forces on each other" than to think of gravity as a local attractive "force" that simply dies out with distance and is overwhelmed by dark energy, whatever it is. What is your view on this?

3. Does dark matter factor into this in any obvious way?

If you want to know more about the motivation for these questions, you might look at my essay

On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics

Basically, I am interested in the reasons for scale-dependence of the various interactions. Take care,

Ben Dribus

Hi Ben,

Thanks so much for the questions! I will attempt to return the favor in your thread but I am afraid that my questions may not be as pertinent as I am unfamiliar with some of the terminology in your essay. Will do my best though.

As for your questions here;

1. It may be that understanding positive curvature doesn't necessarily mean attractive gravity is a bit counter intuitive. Perhaps I should have prefaced this statement. My assumption is that, simply due to symmetry, the full equation should be able to work equally well with Guv or Omega guv-Luv, they both would give the same positive curvature. Curvature increases positively as Guv increases from zero, or as Luv decreases from the value of Omega guv.

The fascinating thing is though, the approximation to a Newtonian field gradient does not produce the exact same field equation. A symmetry breaking of classical gauge theory if you will. Without a quantitative analysis, it is plausible that this difference would only be detectable at larger radii. It also appears that to approximate this effect with only Guv one would have to add in a very tiny multiple of the metric (dark energy).

So what the 5th point probably should state is that if Guv and Omega guv-Luv are both suitable for the EFE, but only Guv requires an extra multiple of the metric that also breaks the condition of zero curvature with no matter, then Omega guv-Luv should take precedence over Guv-Lambda guv.

What this also means is that positive curvature can be equated to either attractive gravity or repulsive. Guv and Luv should result in very different field magnitudes of Phi. The Newtonian gravitational force, however, only depends on the spatial gradient of this field. The gradient vectors of Phi from Guv and Luv are of opposing directions of course, but vectors from Guv and -Luv are equivalent. What is even more interesting is how a constant multiple of the metric becomes a very tiny gradient vector opposing this.

Here is a small thought experiment and I apologize for the lack of mathematical rigor but it should show you what I mean. Take two vectors A and B, of equal large magnitude but they are placed tip to tip opposing each other. Their vector sum is a point, or a vector of zero magnitude. Now subtract from this sum a vector C pointing left that is smaller than either A or B. The total equivalence of all three vectors is a vector D that is of equal magnitude of C but pointing to the right. Occams Razor states that the simplest answer is only D, but the physical reality may be closer to A, B and C. Parsimony also requires that we choose the simplest anti-derivative to produce Newtonian gravity, and that we choose the simplest tensor for the Einstein field equation. Similarly, as vector D increases, you are increasing an attractive force, as vector C increases, you are decreasing a repulsion.

If I can parallel transport D on a curved surface, can I not also do the same for the sum of A, B and C? My guess is probably not and that we have missed something in manifold theory, although I am a long way from deriving this.

2. (Sorry 1 was so long!) My argument is that gravity is causal. The simplest way to understand what I mean is to state how I think gravity works. I think that matter at a point reduces the available field energy in a sphere surrounding it. The symmetry of the matter also depends on the symmetry of the reduced field energy. (this is not energy in the regular definition of matter-energy, more of a curvature potential) If another point within this sphere of reduced field energy also contains matter, it too reduces the available energy within a certain radius. The matter of these two points interfere with the symmetry of each, and both seeking symmetry (related to principle of least action) is manifested in a force where to tend to move together. The equations for the Newtonian approximation, however, seem to show that if clumps of matter were to spread far enough apart (past the constant within the EFE) then it would result in a purely linear repulsion. This would seem to fit a theory where the accelerating expansion only occurs after enough average distance between clumps of matter but it seems counter to our understanding of "expansion of space".

3. For Dark Matter, suppose that Omega guv can vary within a region not centered on baryonic matter. I suspect that this would add a stress energy tensor to the field equation. Since this tensor did not result from the exact point that matter is located, then the only way we would be able to detect it is through gravitational effects of matter passing through this region. I am a long way from deriving a set of christoffel symbols to account for this though.

Regards,

Jeff

Hello Mr.Baugher,

thanks:) I am a Jedi and proud of being . We fight Darth Vador in fact.And Yoda is my master, my mentor.

I have not a website, I just share my theory on this platfrom mainly because I beleive it is a seious platform of sciences. I beleive that FQXi has a pure responsability for our sciences. They must be universal in fact.If not their system will not on the rational road. FqxI isd young and of course this kind of platform is going to attract several persons loving monney and opulences. They must sort the pseudos ! Because the sciences are so important for our earth. The sciences have the solutions, the business , it, is an under sciences ! Are we going to pay our air soon ?

Mr Tegmark and Mr Aguirre have a responsability for this earth.They must think about the sortings of members.Just for their credibility in fact.Fqxi is a wonderful platform.This platform must be helped for its good road on the entropical arrow of times.

Regards

After conversations on here, it may be useful to have a simple graphical understanding of how positive curvature can produce either attractive or repulsive gravity. Simple sketch picture is attached. Only one of these naturally produces a dark energy effect.Attachment #1: Attractive_or_Repulsive.jpg

Jeff

Excellent. We give very different proofs of very similar things.

(This is a reposed reply from my blog).

I turned from maths to ontological construction testing for the reason you give. Ken Wharton also exposes our foolhardy reliance on maths.

You might test this model; The axial anisotropic CMB flow is a scaled up version of a quasar jet. The CMB anisotropy itself has been resolved by computer into a helix, which precisely matches the quasar model, as the outflow jets from AGN's.

I have shown that AGN's are part of a galactic recycling process, re-ionizing all the dead stars and planetary matter to re-start the process with an open spiral on a perpendicuar axis. The common 'Kinetic decoupling' (perpedicular halo rotation) is thereby also finally explained along with other effects. Take a look at Centurus A (NASA HST) for a scale model of the universe.

Expansion is thus not accelerating but mainly reducing, except from the other end of the axis to the 'great attractor' (nonsense of course) in the direction of Leo. I've determined galaxies recycle every ~10-12Gyrs (a massive quasar peak is at z=1.7) so our 2nd iteration of the Milky Way is in middle age. A better analysis of the CMB anisotropy might constrain the same factor for our universe. (There may then be infinitely many numerically as well as temporally). If you're interested I'll link you to a past paper (new one in review).

Last technical point; I've found algerbaic vector apace cannot model motion as it's based on geometry where motion is an invalid concept, but I do know that to get a 'plus' sign hit; ampersand hash 43 semicolon. Like this;

Peter

Hi Jeff,

In your sketch you say that the repulsive Cosmological term makes no mathematical sense. It's kind of funny, I look at the Cosmological term differently. In my view, anything that doesn't make sense is treated as an intrinsic characteristic. Dark energy is said to be the explanation of why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

"The only way I know to do this is to invert the equation so that instead of solid "particles" moving within a void, the stress energy tensor describes waves moving within a solid. "

A solid is something that I can whack with a hammer. I don't think a solid is the right characteristic for empty space.

Technically it would be closer to a perfect fluid but that too has different connotations to different people. When people hear "fluid" they think of a water, but if I were to state that it was an elastic medium then they might think of rubber. A good qualitative description is difficult to give someone, so I just assume the best is to think of inverting the concept of what a particle is "made of" and what empty space is made of. What it would come down to is that if the hammer were to be made of waves, it apparently could normally only hit other waves.

Last post was me, woops.

If I am talking about aether waves and you are talking about a fluid, then perhaps we can meet in the middle and talk about waves of a fluid medium. I approached the problem by defining a set of waves that obey,

[math]c = \lambda f[/math]

The largest possible wavelength is the size of the universe, which yields the smallest possible frequency; the smallest size is the Planck length, which yields the largest possible frequency. These waves can be energized as a particle or just a photon or photons. Or these waves can be un-energized, have no energy, and just be the background of space(-time).

I treated gravity as an image of energy. Energy, and components of the stress energy tensor, are excitations of aether waves (or fluid medium waves?). Gravity is an image that is produced by mass and energy. Gravity manifests as acceleration fields; acceleration fields are frequency shifts at each frequency. This produces time dilation.

Jason,

We could very much meet in the middle. I see and understand why you are attempting it the way you are doing, but for me the main question that I also ask is how can General Relativity and Newtonian gravity produce such accurate answers if there is something conceptually incorrect about them? For me, this requires very much understanding the limits of what derivatives can tell us in any equation that relies on calculus. It sounds a bit silly at first, but it is the only logical conclusion of not only why predictions are accurate (but only to certain scales), but also how we can still use what we know now.

So my point is that if I want to solve some of the paradoxes, it is probably more fruitful to take the path less traveled. I worry if the solution involved the well known routes, it would have been figured out previously by others that know those arguments very well.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

"how can General Relativity and Newtonian gravity produce such accurate answers if there is something conceptually incorrect about them? "

What do you think is conceptually wrong with these equations? In my opinion, the only thing wrong with them is that they abandoned the medium.

Jason,

There is a concept called unimodular relativity, which basically states the cosmological constant is a constant of integration. General Relativity requires that this constant be zero, and states that if matter is made up of particles in an empty void (which is why the constant is zero), the presence of the particles curves the coordinate system. Rewriting them would state that matter is actually a wave that reduces the "vacuum energy" medium (the constant is actually extremely large), and the curvature is of the medium.

Should work fine either way.So it isn't that they just abandoned the medium, if two of the terms are changed then the medium becomes rather obvious. All the same predictions as GR but we should be able to also calculate the radius of when gravity becomes repulsive.

The other nice thing is that since the waves are actually made up of the quantum vacuum, it gives a physical understanding of why the probabilities of all path lengths need to be considered. In a real sense, the particle is made up of all path lengths (since it is a wave in the medium).

Jeff

Jeff,

Long before general relativity came along, we were experiencing gravity as an acceleration field. Since Newtonian gravity has been absorbed into the Einstein equations, Ricci curvature is how we describe the curvature of space-time, and consequently gravity. Given that we agree upon the (possible) existence of a fluid aether medium of some kind, then it is now possible to talk about manipulating gravity.

Mass and energy are the only known phenomena that can curve space-time; although the Cosmological constant and expansion of the universe are thrown in there just to further perplex us (ha ha).

I think that we both sort of agree that the vacuum of space, and in fact space-time itself, is made of waves. I would argue that it's made of wave-amplitudes. In the simplest sense, the wave-amplitude of a photon is

[math]\psi = A_0 e^{i\omega t}[/math]

Here is where it gets tricky. If wave-functions really are some kind of fibers in the "weave of space-time", then how do we write the wave-function of a photon for a curvature of space-time (which is an acceleration field)? I've heard that it's incredibly difficult even for the best mathematical physicists. So I use gravitational redshift as a place-holder until something better comes along.

I've already said that space-time is made of a whole range of frequencies, each with its own wave-function (math) or aether wave (ontology).

Question: is it possible to create a curvature in space-time (even just a tiny curvature), by generating a repeating frequency sweep at a high enough sweep rate? Gotta go!

Hi Jeff,

I have an antenna and I just ordered a very accurace scale and a 100.000g weight. I'm going to use an arbitrary waveform generator to emit a 1GHz to 2GHz frequency sweep 1000 times per second. Gravity causes gravitional redshift. This experiment will check to see if it works in reverse. By "work in reverse", I want to see if my frequency sweeps will induce a very tiny curvature in space-time. If it does, then I can measure it using my scale.

The idea is that the emitted frequency sweep has the same wave-function appearance that a gravitational redshift would have. I'm still a few weeks out from performing the experiment. Also, I'm using a WiFi antenna, which I bought for $2. If the experiment doesn't work, I'll assume that I need a better antenna.

Jason,

I am not an experimentalist in this, but off the top of my head I would think you would need at least some type of world class vibration isolation techniques just for starters. Don't you think what you are attempting to detect is going to be swamped by several orders of magnitude of noise? Do you have rough calculations on how sensitive something like this would need to be?

Regards,

Jeff

Jeff,

For a scale that can measure a test weight with an accuracy of 100.000 grams, then I hope to be able to measure a change in the weight. If I measure 100.003 or higher, or if I measure 99.997 or lower, then I will be very excited. The results will need to be verified of course. 100.003/100.000 =1.00003; this would indicate a slight increase in the total gravitational acceleration of 30 ppm.

As for noise, there probably will be some. I need to see something above the noise threshold. Noise might be caused by airflow or vibration. Given the funds I have, this is the experiment I can afford to perform. I am grateful to my boss for allowing me to use their

http://www.tek.com/signal-generator/awg7000-arbitrary-waveform-generator

I won't know how much vibration isolation I will need until I try to perform the experiment.

I am sure I could get a more measureable effect if I had a better antenna. But I really don't understand how do shop for the right one.

Right now, I do not have any calculations of how strong the effect will be. I can't rely upon conservation of energy. In effect, I'm trying to create a very tiny curvature in space-time by emitting a repeated frequency sweep.

Jeff

Appendix 4 Solution of cosmological constant problem

Theory: Cosmological constant is 10^94 g/sm^3

Practice: Cosmological constant is 10^-28 g/sm^3

Planck constant h=10^-28 g x sm^2/sec in 2D space embedding in 3D space

Only right value is experimental value.

See my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413#addPost

Jeff

You asked for the links I referred, initial ones below, (this posted on my blog but now so many entries I think we're as lost here as theoretical physics is!) Rob McEachern's brilliant analysis is also consistent with the basis of my analysis method, but I think you've read it.

You'll have to allow for the fact that the ontological construction termed the 'Discrete Field' model has continued to come on by leaps and bounds over the last year. The resolutions of anomalies are like a flood from a breached dyke. This means the papers are far from up to date. (The latest ones are currently either in review or accepted but not yet published).

The first short read may be last years essay. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

Then the helical CMBR asymmetry one posted on vixra. http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

A 2010 one on aberration was http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

There are more but all older still.

Do point out any obvious updates needed!

Thanks

Peter

Jeff,

You say,

"Although the possibility of this error raises more questions than can possibly be answered in an essay, we maintain that little progress can be made until it is understood that General Relativity does not trump its own foundations."

I'm not sure about your meaning when you say that GR does not trump its own foundations -- foundations referring to "space-time?"

My essay discusses gravity but with emphasis on empirical evidence.

Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on it.

Jim

Jeff,

For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.

Jim

Jeff,

This is in response to your post on my essay site regarding my new zero's relation to the stress energy tensor Guv. You said "Where I see this relating to your concept is that while a stress energy tensor for Guv may become zero or 'nothing', if the two tensors of the right half become equal, the sum may become zero but that certainly does not imply it is "empty". This would very much seem to fit the full void of 'sunya'."

I see it the same way. Space may be empty of matter, but that doesn't necessarily mean nothing is there. My new zero makes explicit the possibility of something potentially being there.

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Hi James,

My meaning concerning foundations involves understanding the Einstein field equations through unimodular gravity. This idea, originally proposed by Einstein, is thought to be equivalent to GR, but views the cosmological constant as a constant of integration. It would appear that despite this, the ramifications have never been considered if one does this before defining the Einstein tensor as the stress energy tensor of matter. The derivation of GR requires curvature to go to zero (Ruv=0)with no matter or energy present, but the presence of a cosmological constant means that we must ignore this requirement. Using a unimodular approach, and prior to defining the Einstein tensor, this requirement can still be enforced and end up with a constant of integration in the equations. It would seem that the value of this constant is large but would appear small to us due to the simultaneous change in our understanding of the Einstein tensor. This change should pass down through the weak field equations, but the main way we would notice is that gravity would appear to become repulsive after a certain radius.

Jeff

Dark energy/Dark matter 3:1 is mistake

Right answer Dark matter/dark energy 3:1

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Mr. Baugher,

very interesting and insightful essay. I am especially intrigued by this explanation you posted a few days ago and its conclusion:

" The derivation of GR requires curvature to go to zero (Ruv=0)with no matter or energy present, but the presence of a cosmological constant means that we must ignore this requirement. Using a unimodular approach, and prior to defining the Einstein tensor, this requirement can still be enforced and end up with a constant of integration in the equations. It would seem that the value of this constant is large but would appear small to us due to the simultaneous change in our understanding of the Einstein tensor. This change should pass down through the weak field equations, but the main way we would notice is that gravity would appear to become repulsive after a certain radius. "

Is there a way to ruffly estimate this radius? I have a visual approach to physics and understand GR as if it describes the curvature of a 3D hypersurface of a hypersphere, similar to a 2D surface of water in the ocean, with the troughs of the waves corresponding to attractive gravity and the crests, repulsive. To paraphrase the saying, my geometrical approach (in 4D) states that "what curves in must eventually curve out", which implies that the repulsive aspect of gravity manifests itself in intergalactic voids, thus explaining why they are empty. In this regard, I would very much appreciate your feedback on my essay ( fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1547 )

I wish I could follow the technical aspect of your essay, but intuitively I feel that yours is one the most important essays in this contest.

I had some more questions being asked so made up this Powerpoint to help relay the idea. This was quickly done so let me know if you catch any mistakes.Attachment #1: Poisson_equation_and_metaphysics.pptx

Ms. Vasilyeva,

Thank you for the kind words on my essay. I have put a powerpoint up top to help explain it also which includes the equation you are asking about.

I have read your very interesting essay and will comment on your page so that others can chime in also.

Thanks

Jeff

The article is truly informative. However very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie's solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early October 2012 and the second was in Shanghai a week or so ago. On both occasions El Naschie presented a revision of Einstein's theory leading to an equation very similar to that of Einstein's namely Energy equals mass x the square of the speed of the light. However unlike Einstein's equation, the result is divided by 22. His explanation of 22 is as follows: As in the old string theory of strong interaction, space time of relativity should have been considered 26 dimensional. Taking 4 only is what Einstein did and that is how he got his famous result. Nevertheless Einstein ignored 22 dimensions. This is a scaling factor following Nottale's theory as argued by El Naschie. Even in simpler terms, he reasons that Einstein knew only one elementary messenger particle namely the photon. He knew nothing about the other 11 messenger particles of the standard model which were not known in 1905. Adding 11 super partners it turned out that Einstein did not know about an additional 22 elementary particles. These are the particles needed to explain the missing dark energy. In this way El Naschie was able to show that 95.5% of the energy of the Universe is missing. Alternatively this energy was never there to start with because space time is a fractal and although it looks puffed up it boils down to very little similar to cotton candy. In addition the compactified 22 dimensions are the cause for the negative pressure which increases the acceleration of the Universe's expansion. He claims to have tested his theory using 25 different methods including Witten's M-Theory and reached the same result. Even more importantly this result agrees completely with observation. In other words mathematics and physics have been substantiated by measurement which led last year to the award of the Nobel Prize to the 3 team who obtained this incredible measurement and data. Click on this link to get more info re the above (under news) http://www.msel-naschie.com/ and also http://mohamed-elnaschie.blogspot.com/.

Einstein's equation mc square is a relativistic equation. When you regard the entire energy of the cosmos you are dealing with an extreme case. The point with an extreme case is that partial theories fail. For instance when you want to know the origin of all forces then you are in the realm of unification and therefore in the realm of quantum gravity. When you ask about quantum gravity then you had better use a theory which combines relativity and quantum mechanics or else you will get the wrong answer or no answer at all. The situation is similar in the case of the missing energy of the cosmos, dubbed dark energy. To find quantitatively the right answer you cannot use E = mc square. You need a theory which combines E = mc square with relativity. We did it before within Schrodinger's equation when Dirac derived his equation combining Schrodinger with relativity. The same is true for quantum field theory. However E = mc square is something else. It needed the inclusion of quantum mechanics in a major way. The only person who was able to do that, whether we like it or not, is an Egyptian. Except for racial prejudice, we cannot judge a theory being right or wrong based on the nationality of the scientist otherwise we will end up back in the Middle Ages using Well's time machine. It is bad enough that Egypt as a whole seems to be moving towards the Middle Ages nowadays. Mohamed El Naschie, a professor of engineering, fused, to use his terminology, Hardy's quantum entanglement with Einstein's famous formula. To be able to do that Hardy's golden mean to the power of 5 had to be divided by 2 because it is originally due to the entanglement of two particles while Einstein's formula is there for one particle only. Intersection leads to the multiplication of Einstein's equation with half of Hardy's famous value. The result is exactly as Einstein predicted when we see it qualitatively. However to get the correct exact quantitative result you have to divide by 22.18033989 which is almost 22. If this is right, and I believe it is right, then the new quantum relativity equation of Mohamed El Naschie predicts only 4.5% of what Einstein's original equation predicted. In other words the 95.5% missing dark energy may well be a missing quantum gravity factor equal roughly to 1 divided by 22. This is amazing. It is amazing mainly because cosmological measurements say that this simple formula, almost as elegant as Einstein's original formula, must be correct. The measurement of dark energy goes back to the work of Perlmutter,Schmidt and Reiss and these three scientists may have without knowing, given us the definite experimental proof that Einstein's relativity and Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac theories are true and when combined together, are absolutely true. The three scientists deserve the Nobel Prize threefold because they assured us of the entire rationality and solidness of our modern methods of investigation which is detached from any prejudice, including racial and religious prejudice. They confirmed the correct philosophy upon which the age of enlightenment, renaissance and separation of church and state is based. Moving in the other direction would be catastrophic.

Farsy

You do not need all this complication. That equation is just the end conclusion. The fault lies at the outset. He conflated existence and observation of existence, so c, as in observational light, is non-existent. Having deemed light reality to be reality, he then used c as time, which is a constant, because he calibrated distance in x=vt with the duration elapsed if light travelled it. In simple terms: he shifted the actual time differential which is in the receipt of light to existence, and substituted observational light with time.

Paul