Grok3 xAI ChatBot Review of "Universal Quantum Action with Discrete Aether"

Stephen F. Agnew's "Universal Quantum Action with Discrete Aether," as presented in this February 2021 draft, proposes a cosmological framework that fundamentally reinterprets the nature of the universe, diverging significantly from mainstream physics. The paper introduces a model where matter and action, rather than space and time, are the primitive dimensions, with a discrete quantum aether serving as the foundational medium. Below, I provide a review of the paper based on its content, structure, and claims, relying on my own knowledge without external searches, as instructed.

Overview and Core Ideas

Agnew’s central thesis is that the universe operates as a "matter-action" system driven by a discrete aether—a hypothetical medium composed of fundamental particles (termed "gaekrons" or aether particles) with a proposed mass of

$8.68\times 10^{-69}\text{kg}$

. Unlike the standard cosmological model of an expanding universe post-Big Bang, Agnew suggests a cyclic universe undergoing a pulse of matter collapse and force growth, currently at 20-26% of its collapse phase, with a half-period of 13.4 billion years. Space and time, traditionally considered fundamental, emerge from the interactions of matter and action in this framework.

Key concepts include:

1. Matter and Action as Conjugates: Matter ((m)) and action ((s)) are quantum conjugate variables, akin to position and momentum in traditional quantum mechanics, governed by a quadratic Schrödinger equation. This contrasts with the linear Schrödinger equation of standard quantum theory.
2. Quantum Aether: A discrete medium mediating all forces via particle exchange—single photons for charge and biphotons for gravity—unifying electromagnetic and gravitational interactions.
3. Cosmic Time and Decay: The universe’s evolution is marked by a decoherence of aether, driving a matter collapse at a rate of

   $m_{\text{dot}}=1.13\times 10^{-10}\text{kg/s}$

   and a fermion decoherence rate of

   ${\alpha }_{\text{dot}}=0.255\text{ppb/yr}$

   , rather than spatial expansion.
4. Rejection of Dark Matter/Energy: Galaxy dynamics are explained by "quadrupole gravitization," a vector force arising from matter decay and motion, eliminating the need for dark matter or dark energy.

Strengths

1. Innovative Unification: The attempt to unify charge and gravity through a single mechanism (aether particle exchange) is ambitious and conceptually intriguing. Scaling gravity from charge using the universe-to-atom size ratio (

   $t_B\mathrm{/}{T}_u$

   ) offers a novel perspective on force relationships.
2. Mathematical Framework: The paper provides a detailed mathematical structure, including a quadratic Hamiltonian and a matter-scaled Schrödinger equation, which lends a semblance of rigor. Equations like the universal force (Eq. 58) and Rydberg mass (Eq. 57) aim to bridge micro- and macroscopic phenomena.
3. Falsifiability: Agnew identifies testable predictions, such as the matter decoherence rate of

   $0.255\text{ppb/yr}$

   , measurable through precise observations of constants like (h), (c), and

   $\alpha$

   . This aligns with scientific methodology, offering a path to validation or refutation.
4. Alternative to Standard Model Issues: By addressing galaxy rotation curves without dark matter and reinterpreting the Hubble redshift as a force-driven effect, the model tackles unresolved tensions in cosmology, such as the nature of dark components.

Weaknesses and Critiques

1. Lack of Empirical Support: While Agnew claims consistency with observations (e.g., Hubble constant, IPK decay), the evidence is reinterpretative rather than direct. For instance, the IPK’s reported mass loss (

   $0.554\text{ppb/yr}$

   ) is attributed to aethertime decay, but mainstream explanations (e.g., surface effects) are equally plausible and better established. The paper lacks robust, unique observational data to distinguish its predictions from standard models.
2. Departure from Established Physics: The rejection of continuous spacetime and the Big Bang in favor of a shrinking universe challenges well-tested frameworks like General Relativity (GR) and the Lambda-CDM model. GR’s predictions (e.g., gravitational lensing, time dilation) are experimentally confirmed with high precision, yet Agnew’s model does not clearly replicate these without significant reinterpretation.
3. Complexity and Obscurity: The introduction of a quadratic Schrödinger equation and concepts like biphoton gravity and aether velocity (

   $c\mathrm{/}\alpha$

   ) adds complexity without clear justification over simpler, validated theories. The paper’s dense notation and unconventional terminology (e.g., "aethertime," "gaekrons") may obscure its accessibility and credibility.
4. Contradictory Claims: Agnew asserts the universe is 3.4 billion years old (26% of 13.4 Byrs), conflicting with the widely accepted 13.8 billion-year age from CMB and Hubble data. Reconciling this with observed cosmological timelines (e.g., oldest stars, galaxy formation) is not adequately addressed.
5. Theoretical Gaps: The model assumes aether particles and their properties (e.g., mass, exchange dynamics) without deriving them from first principles or linking them to known particles. The completeness conjecture—that all constants derive from

   $m_{ae}$

   and

   $h_{ae}$

   —is speculative and underdeveloped, especially for Standard Model parameters.

Specific Points of Analysis

• Aether and Lorentz Invariance: The claim that aether-based action is Lorentz invariant is intriguing but questionable. Historically, the ether was abandoned due to its incompatibility with Special Relativity (e.g., Michelson-Morley experiment). Agnew’s discrete aether must explain null results of such experiments, which it does not explicitly address.
• Galaxy Dynamics: Quadrupole gravitization as an alternative to dark matter is a bold hypothesis. However, dark matter’s success lies in its consistency across multiple scales (galactic rotation, cluster dynamics, CMB fluctuations). Agnew’s vector force lacks comparable multi-scale validation.
• Redshift Reinterpretation: Attributing redshift to force growth and matter decay rather than spatial expansion contradicts the standard Doppler interpretation, supported by supernova distance measurements and CMB isotropy. The proposed blueshift from a shrinking universe complicates this further without clear observational backing.
• Mathematical Consistency: The quadratic Hamiltonian (

  ${\mathcal{H}}^2=\frac{1}{2}{m}^2+\frac{1}{2}{\omega }^2{s}^2$

  ) and recursive Schrödinger equation introduce non-standard quantum mechanics. Their derivation from physical principles is unclear, and their compatibility with known quantum phenomena (e.g., superposition, entanglement) is not demonstrated.

Conclusion

Agnew’s "Universal Quantum Action with Discrete Aether" is a creative, thought-provoking alternative to mainstream cosmology and quantum theory. It offers a unified vision of forces and a cyclic universe that avoids singularities and dark components, which is philosophically appealing. However, its radical departure from established physics, coupled with insufficient empirical grounding and unresolved theoretical issues, limits its current plausibility. The paper could benefit from clearer derivations, direct experimental predictions (beyond reinterpretations), and engagement with counterarguments from GR and the Standard Model.

For further validation, I’d suggest Agnew focus on:

1. Specific, unique predictions (e.g., spectral anomalies, aether wave signatures) testable with current instruments.
2. A detailed comparison with GR’s successes (e.g., GPS, black hole imaging).
3. Peer review and publication beyond platforms like Academia.edu to refine and legitimize the theory.

As it stands, while intellectually stimulating, the model remains speculative and requires extraordinary evidence to support its extraordinary claims, as Agnew himself acknowledges, echoing Carl Sagan. Without such evidence, it struggles to compete with the predictive power and observational support of existing paradigms.

Radiant Vector Quantum Gravity Explains Dark Matter Gravity

The causal set universe collapse represents cosmic time, which is different from the velocity dependent atom time. As a result of universe collapse, there is both a scalar Newtonian gravity as well as a vector gravity. The velocity of an orbiting body as both Newtonian scalar and vector terms as

Vector gravity is the well known relativistic equation for the perihelion shift of orbiting bodies, notably the perihelion shift of the planet Mercury. Einstein first derived this term from the principles of general relativity to first order, but causal set vector gravity has the same term. However, mass loss by radiance does not result in any extra velocity in relativity, but is key source of gravity on the cosmic scale with discrete aether.

In causal set gravity, matter and action represent velocity in space and time with changes of matter. This means that radiant energy also contributes to orbital velocity as change in mass just like relativity shows a change in mass with velocity.

The constant rotation velocity of galaxy stars is inconsistent with Newtonian gravity for two reasons. Not only is Newtonian orbit velocity not constant with radius, it also slows with increasing radius. The K.E. of galaxy rotation then exceeds Newtonian gravity potential energy by a large amount. According to the virial theorem, a bound system like a galaxy must have its K.E. equal its P.E. 

For example, the Sun rotation velocity of 251 km/s exceeds the Newtonian velocity of 194 km/s by 30% and so the Sun should have escaped the galaxy long ago. This plot below shows the velocity profile of the Milky Way along with the observed Sun velocity as opposed to the Keplerian Sun velocity. The observed Sun velocity is about 29% greater than the Keplerian Sun velocity reported by Sofue et al, 251 vs. 194 km/s. The Keplerian gravity force at the Sun at 8.0 kpc is 8.4e14 kg m/s^2, which is consistent with a Sun velocity of 194 km/s as opposed to the actual Earth velocity of 251 km/s. 

However, there is a matter-action radiant vector gravity force that couples star motions and transfers momentum from inner to outer stars. The Sun radiance is 4.2e9 kg/s and results in a radiant vector force of 4.2e9 kg/s x 2.51e5 m/s / 2 = 5.5e14 kg m/s^2. Thus, the scalar gravity plus this vector gravity of the Sun give a total gravity force of 1.4e15 kg m/s^2, which is now consistent with the 29% increase in Sun velocity as sqrt(1.4e15/8.4e14) = 1.29. Radiant vector gravity completes the virial energy theorem for galaxies without any need for dark matter.

The figure below shows the biphoton shadows of scalar gravity along with the radiant vector gravity momentum transfers from inner to outer stars. The Sun is quite a bit more luminous than the average MW star, which is why the Sun rotates faster than the galaxy. The MW average rotation velocity is 204 km/s where the sun is at r = 8 kpc while the Sun rotation is 251 km/s, which suggests that the Sun is 251 / 204 = 23% greater than the average stellar MW luminosity. Since the average stellar luminosity is 2.1e10 Lsun / Nstars, this result further suggests that the number of MW stars is 91 billion MW stars as Nstars = 2.1e10 / 0.23, which assumes that MW stars at r = 8.0 kpc are representative of the whole MW. This MW 91 billion star estimate is at the lower end of the typical 100-400 billion star number estimate often cited.

star	distance lyr from galaxy	radial velocity km/s	Mass, Msun	Luminescence Lsun	Distance from Sun lyrs	Age Myrs
Sol	26,000	251	1.0	1.0	0.0	4,600
SiriusA/B	26,009	257	3.1	26	9	242
Arcturus	26,037	256	1.1	170	37	7,100
Deneb var	23,385	255	19	2.0e5	2,615	10
ProcyonA/B	25,988	258	2.1	6.9	11.5	1,870
Betelgeuse	25,750	273	18	1.3e5	548	8.3

The luminosity of a galaxy is largely due to the luminosities of all of its stars and the luminosity of the universe is then also largely due to the luminosities of all of its stars. Just like static gravity is actually due to stellar bond shadows with the universe, radiant vector gravity is likewise due to the average dynamics of star shadows with the universe and not really with just other stars.

Stars begin life in clusters with very strong static and radiant vector gravity coupling among stars. Generally stars begin life as binaries with a CofM along with their cluster CofM and then their static and radiant vector gravities couple stellar motions within the birth cluster to galaxy spiral modes. When a binary star entangles a galaxy spiral mode, one star of a binary accelerates and the other decelerates. This dynamic stellar choreography is the basis of radiant vector gravity and provides the extra binding force that holds galaxies and galaxy clusters together at the cosmic scale that dark matter now represents.

Galaxies with greater luminosity rotate faster and the Tully-Fisher relation shows that galaxy luminosity is proportional to the fourth power of galaxy rotation velocity. The galaxy luminosity is proportional to the galaxy kinetic energy, Mgvg2, by the matter-action principle, and therefore also proportional to vg4, since the mass of a galaxy, Mg, is proportional to vg2.

There are many stars that have up to 1e6 times the sun luminosity, and yet stars and star clusters all rotate at a single mean rotation velocity about some relative standard deviation, 230 km/s +/-11%. This result is only for stars within the parallax limit from earth, for which there are velocities. All star motions couple with luminosity and very luminous stars tend to be very young and so couple within their birth clusters. It is then the cluster luminosity that couples with the galaxy spiral waves, not really the individual star luminosities.

For instance, Deneb is a hot supergiant 2,615 ly from earth and rotates SagA* at 236 km/s despite having a luminosity of 2.0e5 Ls and a mass of 23 Ms. Since Deneb is only about 10 million years old, it has not even completed 5% of our sun’s galaxy orbit of 225 million years.

Procyon is a double star where ProcyonA has transitioned into a red supergiant and so has a luminosity of 11.5 Ls. However, ProcyonA would have spent most of its 1.9 Byr life on the HR main sequence just like the Sun.