An embracing Graviton Theory of Everything (GToE) is possible. (Slide presentation at slide show.) This theory will reconcile General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. It will explain Dark Energy and Dark Matter. It will explain how gravity works at great distance, and inside Planck dimension distances. It will point us toward the multiverse. It will transform certain ideas, such as the aether implied in General Relativity. It will build upon scientific experiments already undertaken.
In 2009, in a personal email to me, a renowned astrophysicist said: "Ideas are a dime a dozen. What matters most are testable predictions of unknown phenomena derived from those ideas."
I agree, up to the point where we quit looking for truth due to the limits of our ability to directly look, and to previous limitations of our directed imagination. Direct testable predictions, such as what helped validate hypothesized General Relativity, are just not possible within the realm of individual gravitons. However, indirect data from multiple experiments based on the hypothesis of flows of gravitons (in the larger dimensions that we can examine), can give some support to the graviton thesis.
If the concept of "meaningless" were strictly applied to science, then we would all retreat to metaphysics. In the early 20th century philosophy flirted with the rigid school of Positivism, which used the concept of meaninglessness, a version of scientific agnosticism. That school faded and fractured when its thesis was shown to be meaningless, a self-contradiction.
The 2014 Cosmos follows the scientific spirit, but violates its own strict standards when the narrator pilots an imaginary space ship inside the event horizon of a supermassive black hole. Such an experiment could never be done in physical fact as a testable prediction, only done as a "thought experiment." The results of such experiments cannot be verified or replicated. Nevertheless, there is a place for reasonable thought experiments within a reasonable thesis.
How can we build a ToE (Theory of Everything) based on gravitons? It's easy, because numerous experiments have already been done with emergent manifestations of many gravitons, in the guise of Relativity. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. We only need to understand the wheel for what it is. We can fortify our understanding by checking for weaknesses and contradictions within generally accepted science.
The final GToE thesis can never be perfectly hard science, but it will be far better than the "castles in the air" constructed on only three of the four parts of the standard particle theory, and with General Relativity fighting Quantum Mechanics. The GToE embraces all of these dissonances with an elegance directed by the Law of Parsimony. For that reason we can honestly and fairly articulate an improved view of the total universe in all four dimensions AS IF we have the full ability to directly measure individual gravitons.
The four dimensions of General Relativity are length, width, height, and time. In contrast, string theorists have twisted and contorted their theories with eleven or more dimensions to make their math work. Hundreds of mathematical theorists have worked on string theory, producing zero evidence that would satisfy strict standards of evidence.
Nevertheless, much of what they have discussed is important. Primarily, string theory says it can deal with quantum events in the Planck dimension (below 10-35 meters). They hypothesize that so-called primary particles, such as quarks, are themselves populated by many strings that determine, by their different vibrations, what the larger particles become. Here is a good idea for building a concept of gravitons; but we don't need more than four dimensions.
With enough dimensions, as many as 10500 possible universes could be hypothetically generated in M-theory, only a few of which would be favorable to forming life such as ours. That's crazy. We can elegantly explain things with a GToE of only four dimensions in our one universe, and likely similar universes adjacent to ours.
Only fairly recently have humans been able to study cells with light microscopes; and very recently with electron microscopes, down to the atomic level at 10-10 meters, but not yet down to the atomic core level of 10-14 meters. As small as these are, they are huge compared to gravitons which also have mass, and which exist individually at about the 10-37 dimension. This means there can be trillions of gravitons composing what we have considered as individual particles, such as quarks, and the Higgs boson. How can some thing composed of trillions of dynamic, interacting components really be a "primary" particle of physics, except on a secondary, emergent level?
Consider neutrinos, three versions of a fundamental particle that was once considered to be the only such particle without any mass. In 1998 we learned from the Super-Kamiokande detector that they have a very small mass.
Although neutrinos can zip through the Earth easily, they are still not the best candidate for Dark Matter, though they may be a component of some of it. The reason is because neutrinos, though very small at 10-24 meters, and in fact the smallest particle larger than the Planck dimension at 10-35 meters, are still much larger than gravitons, or circular strings with mass.
Gravitons are in the range of 10-37 meters, which means 10 trillion gravitons could compose one neutrino! Given that about 65 billion solar neutrinos per second pass through every square centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the Sun in the region of the Earth, and that each one of these has about one hundred trillion gravitons, you can get an idea of what is passing through our bodies, just from neutrinos.
We can act as if the classical particles are fundamental. That is primarily done by the emerged three so-called primary forces in the Standard Model of particle physics. On scales much larger than single gravitons these dialectically emergent forces operate as scientifically measured on larger, emerged particles full of fundamental gravitons. This is an exquisite example of "having your cake and eating it too."
Our knowledge of larger particles' behavior is a way to bracket our imperfect knowledge of their ultimate constituents. When I say bracket, I am referring to multiple perspectives that together point to something primary that cannot be individually measured, but which is most eloquently explained for all perspectives. A simple analogy is the parable of the six blind Sufis meeting an elephant for the first time: Each Sufi touches one part, and thinks elephant equals that part. Nevertheless, the combined wisdom of all six incomplete perspectives leads to a fairly correct composite perspective.
Each human body has about one trillion cells, plus untold billions of bacteria and viruses. These cells are hierarchically arranged as tissues, organs, organ systems, and individual humans. Individual humans exist in layered systems of families, groups, communities, civilizations, and as members of the biosphere. Our Earth likewise belongs to a hierarchy of cosmic systems. Each level is an emergent from previous levels, and thus displays dialectical differences.
Beneath it all are the many, many trillions of gravitons composing each cell and its atomic constituents. Therefore, are we just an aggregate of gravitons? Yes and no. Yes, if you just count numbers. No, if you count interacting emergent forms existing within layers of systems. We are, in the final analysis, emerged beings, not just individual gravitons.
Consider now the very large dimensions, which are the dialectical sum of all the very small. It has been estimated there are 1080 hydrogen atoms in the observable universe. Baryonic atoms represent only a very small percentage of all that's in the observable universe.
Consider too that gravitons and their manifestations represent most of the rest, experienced by us as Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Taking everything into account, there are approximately 10104 gravitons, bound and free, inside our local universe at any one time. We don't need to know their exact number in the total volume of visible and invisible to get a good idea of how swarms of things work separately and together in a GToE. If you throw in a number of interacting local universes, as part of an even larger multiverse, the number of gravitons could exceed 10107 gravitons.
On the spectrum from the very small to the very large, we stand in the middle as it were. Each average human is almost two meters tall. We can, through our natural powers, and through our equipment-amplified powers, see part of the way down to the smallest, and part of the way up to the largest. Both extremes are unseeable directly, but what we can see does point the way.
You could say that it is meaningless to try to see less or more than we can. However, Carl Sagan said in the original Cosmos: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." For example, just because you can't naturally see, and don't believe in, bacteria and viruses, doesn't mean they don't exist and profoundly affect you. His is a true statement even with our best instruments. Science gives the ship of life we ride in a rudder, even if we don't know the ship's ultimate destination.
The concept of push gravity was first expressed in 1690 by Nicholas Fatio, and correctly put together as a coherent theory in 1748 by Georges Le Sage. Fatio's idea was known to Newton, who had published his seminal work just three years earlier, without indicating just what gravity is. Newton discounted Fatio's idea because Fatio did not find the key. That key was discovered by Le Sage.
In 1748, Georges Le Sage improved on Fatio's idea by coming up with nearly the same theory that I thought I had discovered this year. Le Sage's idea has been called push gravity or shadow gravity. His idea of gravity as a force of relative propulsion from "ultra-mundane corpuscles," not attraction, had a mixed history. By the early 20th century it was essentially discarded by serious gravity theorists. That happened after Henri Poincare determined that Le Sage's concept of ball-like hyperluminal corpuscles would destroy the Earth in less than one second.
Nevertheless, updating Le Sage's theory now by replacing those extremely tiny billiard balls allows the push model to remain vital as part of a graviton universe, especially since General Relativity Gravity has its own fatal problems.
Gravity has been the great mystery, because it seems to operate independently of the other three so-called fundamental forces. Science enjoys building very eloquent "castles in the sky" without the foundation of gravity, the only true fundamental force out of which the others appear to emerge. Modern physics is thus a form of metaphysics. Ultimately, even with the GToE, all human knowledge in any form, scientific and otherwise, will remain somewhat metaphysical. This is because the lesser can never know all about the greater, except through induction and deduction, both equally fallible when it comes to comprehending dimensions of reality beyond direct measurement.
We can HONESTLY ACT AS IF we know enough about ultimate reality to make it through our everyday world. It is only when we think we know more than we can know, that we then move from intellectual honesty to intellectual dishonesty. Many of the discords and wars in human history are based on this simple error.
As for the foundation of our physical and energetic existence, we need to get a grip on gravity's force at a distance. Isaac Newton best expressed it as (essentially) mass times mass, divided by the square of the distance between the respective centers of mass. Interestingly, the formula for gravity is like Newton's formula for acceleration, F=ma, where acceleration substitutes for gravity.
Newton's idea was that gravity, though weak, operates at great distances in a straight line. It operates instantaneously. We can appreciate Newton's speed-of-force error, since his idea of space was very local. Indeed, it has only been since the early 20th century that so-called spiral nebulae were proven to be distant galaxies.
Ideas of subatomic particles, of curved space, of black holes, dark matter, and dark energy have all challenged the eloquence of early classical views of the cosmos. Physicists have been unable to reconcile General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics within all dimensions, so that now there is a de facto understanding that GR can deal with the big stuff, and QM can explain the smallest stuff. Bottom line: no ToE. Of course, that's the proper outcome when you are using incomplete hypotheses.
The mystery and romance of apparently attractive force at a distance is its paradox. How can any object at a distance attract another, when there is no conceivable attractive force emanating from every body, even from our own bodies? It's like each body with mass has a built-in "tractor beam" extending out in all directions. That's psychedelic. What's really going on is this:
We experience as gravitational attraction the net summation of omnidirectional pressures from equally powerful flows of free gravitons.
The reason "gravity" has apparent direction is because massive bodies typically block out or deflect a number of gravitons that would otherwise directly head toward us, and would otherwise tend to equally push us away from precisely the direction of the so-called attractive body. The more dense these "gravity bodies" are, the more gravitons they intercept or deflect.
When there is a "lower pressure" area in one direction, all the other directions push us toward that weaker direction as a net product of force vectors. Gravity is not attraction, but relative repulsion. Thus the gravity paradox is resolved.
Remember that most bodies are nearly all space. Only bodies with extreme mass per unit volume such as white dwarfs, neutron stars, and cores of black holes can block or deflect enough gravitons flowing directly toward another nearby body to strongly amplify the net adjacent force of gravity. Furthermore, the greater the mass, the more distant its perceptible gravitational force can be felt.
Gravity is virtually measured by mass times mass, divided by the square of the distance between the centers of both mass bodies. Extremely dense bodies tend to be very small; whereas less dense bodies can have mass equal to dense bodies, but exhibit much less gravitational "attraction" at their surface, because their radii are much greater. It's all there in Newton's formula for gravity.
Newton's precise formulation of the general law of gravity is thus: F=Gm1m2/r2. The constant of gravitation "G" gives a measure of the strength of the gravitational force, and its smallness indicates that gravity is weak. G=6.67 x 10-11 newton-meter2 -kilogram-2. Note the negative eleventh power. When I say gravity is virtually whatever, I am essentially negating the effect of G for simplicity. So, insert a 1 for the G in that case.
For example: A person with the weight of 150 pounds standing on Earth would weigh just over twice that much (355 pounds) at the top of Jupiter's clouded surface (assuming the person could actually stand there), even though giant Jupiter is many times more massive than Earth. This is because Jupiter has a much greater radius, somewhat offsetting its greater mass in the formula. In contrast, standing on the surface (this is a thought experiment) of a white dwarf star that is the diameter of Earth, but has the mass of our Sun, would make us weigh about 195 million pounds, due to the much shorter radius relative to our Sun (where we would weigh slightly over 4,000 pounds as a thought experiment).
Two other interesting examples: (1) If we could position ourselves at the mass center of Earth (thought experiment), we would weigh nothing. That is because in every direction mass blocking effects would be equal. (2) A corollary of the above would be floating in outer space far from any massive body. We would appear to be weightless, when in fact the free gravitons coursing through our bodies from all directions would be the same as on Earth. Because there is no blocking mass in deep space near enough to "lower the pressure" in one direction, all pressing forces are almost equal, and we feel we are weightless.
The real power of General Relativity versus other concepts of relativity, such as Galileo and Newton's, was to introduce the idea that space itself is curved. In this way gravity is not needed to explain gravity. Massive bodies are said to produce large dimples in the fabric of space; and less massive bodies produce smaller dimples. As photons and other objects enter each dimple, they change direction as the slope of the dimple deepens closer to the body. This effect is often illustrated by a heavy ball on a stretched sheet.
Einstein accompanied his idea with precise predictions about these curves. These predictions proved to be very accurate, and he became famous thereby. However, the same successful math for curved space could be used to model flows of gravitons within a more elegant theory. What we think we have been measuring may not actually be what we have been measuring.
When I was in school I marched up to my geometry teacher and told her I had discovered that Euclidean geometry does not exist by its own rules. I said points have by definition zero dimensions, just a place in fixed (pre-relativity) space. Euclidean lines are defined as infinite points strung together, either straight or curved. However, any number, even infinity, is zero when multiplied by zero. Therefore, there can be no Euclidean lines. If such lines cannot exist, then Euclidean two dimensional geometric forms and spaces do not exist. My teacher's smiling response: "I know, but we're going to teach Euclid anyway."
Consider a three dimensional object resting on a sheet of space, or brane. It is hard to visualize these three dimensional sheet dimples, but easy to see what is going on when we think of omnidirectional and equal graviton flows in a four-dimensional universe. By the way, from where does perpendicular "gravity" come to put dimples into sheets?
Throughout human intellectual history the idea of an aether (sometimes called an ether) has been prominent. Things were believed to travel within this aether. There was no empty space. During the 19th century much attention was paid to the aether, and it was generally discredited. Einstein's General Relativity essentially resurrected it, and Einstein in 1916 referred to his idea of space as an aether. However, the GToE does not require such a highly problematical structural concept to explain gravity.
Let us now compare General Relativity Space vs. Graviton Space: Not only was calculus basically invented by Newton, it allows for the idea of infinity, already in Euclid. With infinity we can have smooth curves, which would appeal to Plato, the idealist philosopher, who envisioned perfect forms in the sky.
Einstein in the early 20th century did not know of things smaller than atoms; nor did he have any idea of how something such as graviton flows could actually be gravity, with apparent attractive force at a distance.
Using calculus, Einstein's curved gravity wells are devoid of gravitons, and have mathematically ideal smoothness. In contrast, graviton space is ALMOST smooth, but not quite, admitting quantum effects on the smallest scales. Therefore, graviton space is a more accurate description of what exists in all dimensions.
I have long been fascinated by the limits of what is. Is there great emptiness beyond our universe, and then there is God? Is God within all that is, or equal to it? Did God make it and "go away," as the Deists would have it? Did God make everything, and then die? Or do God and Heaven eternally exist as close as our breath, but in a dimension we cannot access while alive? Or is there no separate God? Are we becoming a god for soon-to-emerge computer life forms, comphumans, and they our "gods" thereafter?
Wow! There are so many choices, and nowhere for sure to go. Any of these ideas could be logical and not self-contradictory. The only working solution is to make a hypothetical choice that fits in with our lives, and to act as if we know; and then honestly confess that we finite creatures don't have the ability to verifiably, independently know the absolute. If we elect to believe in a benevolent God doing everything for us, that choice is as intellectually honest as atheism. Just admit that we cannot know everything, and that we seek the comfort of having some model that "makes sense" for us, and supports our everyday existence.
For simplicity we will just look at what somehow appears to be a ping-pong world of worlds. It is of interest that the graviton model of gravity may support the idea of multiverses. We already have some hints of universes beyond ours, and before ours. After all, where did all that "stuff" come from to start off the Big Bang? If we say God, then the next question is where did God come from, and so forth. It is easier to conceive of ancient trans-universal flows of gravitons randomly assembling enough matter/energy around one point to lead to a critical mass much more energetic than the critical mass of a hydrogen bomb, or even a supernova.
Because massive, intense flows of gravitons are flowing toward us from all directions, we must be within these flows coming from all directions. Such swarming implies that gravitons keep flowing everywhere within and between all adjacent universes. There would not be just one adjacent universe, but several or many. What we live in would be like one bubble among others in a cosmic bubble bath.
Dark Matter is therefore mostly an accumulation of fairly stagnant gravitons more dense than elsewhere in space, and held together by their own blocking matter. Dark Matter tends to collect in mutually attractive clouds, and strongly affects the fate of baryonic matter structures such as galaxies. Dark Matter exists universe-wide as a matrix upon which galactic clusters are constructed. Dark Matter can gravitationally affect baryonic matter because, at the bottom, they are the same thing.
Free floating gravitons can affect each other, and can combine to form what we have thought of as elementary particles. Those composite particles, now with trillions of gravitons each, can eject electromagnetic particles in waves according to different energy frequencies. Photons also combine with particles. The universe of gravitons follows the Yin/Yang model, or the equivalence of energy and matter. This is a very elegant and dynamic way of seeing the true four dimensions, one of which is time, which is all we need to explain the graviton foundation of everything.
Dark Energy is free gravitons flowing within true space. My earlier discussion of floating "gravity free" in deep space described a time-limited illusion. In contrast, when we see time in terms of billions of years, then very slight gravitational gradients at great distances can have accumulating effects. For example, there is a Great Attractor of clusters of superclusters of galaxies and their dark matter within our visible universe. Given enough time the Milky Way will get pushed there, along with our local Virgo supercluster.
The idea of Dark Energy emerging within the Milky Way, and then increasing and accelerating over time seems like the appearance of a previously unknown force. It is instead the net manifestation of graviton flows pushing our matter toward specific areas beyond our own Big Bang universe. In essence, increasingly proximal universal masses arranged around our universal bubble block more gravitons flowing at us from their direction. Each proximal area of mass is a deepening "low pressure" zone. This is how assumed Dark Energy appears to be an accelerating force mysteriously generated from within the Milky Way.
Short of invoking an omnipotent and omniscient deity, it is an error to assume that everything previously existing in our universal space magically reached our Big Bang point of ignition at precisely the same time. It is better to envision "enough" mass and energy reaching that critical inner region. As for most of the rest that did not make it on time, it now likely populates much of our universe in the form of Dark Matter structures around which our visible universe has been organized.
When this mixing process is complete after many billions of years, our universe will be absorbed into multiple other universes, and other universes will take up our space. Elements from our late universe will populate other universes. Likewise, our own galaxy's mass will attract some mass from proximal universes. Think of a permanent bubble bath with no external dimensions. Its great give-and-take complexity is also a great simplicity.
In other words, both Dark Matter clouds and Dark Energy flows are just gravitons either stable or mobile, and not currently bound within baryonic matter. In this way, the GToE accounts for 100% of the universe, not just four percent of it. No aether required.
Quantum mechanics can easily be absorbed into the GToE, which operates at all dimensional levels. We can start with the Uncertainty Principle, an idea most clearly articulated in 1927 by Werner Heisenberg. We cannot even in principle know all about a quantum system. For example, we can know the momentum of an electron, but not its position. Or, we can know the position of an electron, but not its momentum.
Out of this and similar ideas have sprung endless, unprovable string theories with numerous dimensions; but also a lot of science which is still being developed today. Indeed, for the last decades of his life Einstein's incomplete quest for a General Unified Theory was left on the sidelines of physics.
It is possible to speak of jumpy quantum mechanics versus the smoother relativity. However, it is also possible to speak of these observed phenomena as being variants of the same thing, viewed differently. There is no way we can directly observe a single graviton, which might be described as a vibrating circular string. It requires some clever math to explain how gravitons individually and collectively work inside larger particles, but quantum physicists have so far done a good job. In the GToE, vibrating gravitons are three-dimensional, not two-dimensional.
Electromagnetism is stronger than gravity at the atomic level; but the graviton level is much, much smaller than atoms. Gravity dominates both on the very smallest and largest dimensions because matter is mostly electrically neutral. Both electroweak, and gauge theories of the strong force are emergent derivatives of a primary level of matter and energy defined by gravitons, and expressed by quarks. Furthermore, weakly interacting massive particles, WIMPs, have been proposed as the source of dark matter; but within the GToE they could only be a source, not the source.
Quantum physics, as expressed through string theory, has recently been dealt a double blow, such that supersymmetry itself is now in doubt. That would be good if we could only kill off the loopy idea of eleven or more dimensions of the physical world, as in M-theory. Those double blows are the failure of the giant Large Hadron Collider to locate much in the way of antiparticles, which casts doubt on supersymmetry. What the LHC has not found may be more important than what it has found. There was supposedly a vast mirror world of oppositely charged particles, but they now appear to not be. Secondly, scientists at Harvard and Yale recently discovered that electrons have few if any oppositely charged companions. Together, these recent experiments could indirectly support a simpler theory, which the GToE supplies.
Gravitons can transform themselves from highly kinetic, rapidly vibrating, circular stringlike entities, to less vibrating entities that are repositories of potential energy expressed as matter. This is the level from which the (female, inwardly moving) Yin, and the (male, outwardly moving) Yang emerge. Gravitons can transform individually, but more often transform in waves within larger elementary particles. The back and forth of energy and matter is so furious and far reaching, in all dimensions, that it is hardly possible to imagine if we look too closely at what really is going on. Here is an example of how much energy is really available within humble matter:
Science is very familiar with Special Relativity's E=mc2. That very important formula expresses the equivalency of matter and energy. It also illustrates the inertial/mass element within the so-called massless photons. However, this is just a specific example of a more basic formula, which goes this way: E=mc2/t.
Einstein's version describes the fastest acceleration to terminal velocity within natural individual frames of reference in a vacuum. In his version of the formula, insert the number 1 for t, which is the time for vacuum acceleration to terminal velocity for a photon. The vacuum speed of light ("c") is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second, which is about 186,000 miles per second. Photons do not achieve terminal velocity/momentum instantaneously, nor can anything else with mass. Instantaneous, zero time acceleration of any mass requires infinite force, which is impossible.
Mass has inertia, even very small masses such as photons. Photons emerge from their sources, and can be reabsorbed elsewhere. The terminal speed they exhibit reflects (1) their tiny inertial mass, and (2) the speed and time of the force that is releasing them. If photon mass were zero, then it would not take much energy to bring them to any hyperluminal speed, but we would still need a hyperluminal accelerating force that may have only existed at the very beginning.
During the Big Bang itself, and specifically in the short period of Inflation (not to be confused with the current "Dark Energy" inflationary era), energy quanta were released from hot, highly compressed gravitons with ultra-high frequencies much faster than thereafter. This release was of nearly pure energy before photon quanta appeared. It is estimated that starting the Big Bang's transformation from Yin (inward moving) to Yang (outward moving) happened during the first 10-43 seconds in the Planck era. The period of first Inflation occurred from 10-35 to 10-33 seconds.
The first nearly pure energy was unformed, not granular. Being unformed, energy quanta with extremely high frequencies could rapidly string out from their source, then snap loose, budding off new vibrating gravitons of high energy, but not yet photons. As universal temperatures cooled, photons with lower frequencies appeared.
Current Big Bang primordial Inflation theory is used to explain the linear nature of the observed universe (vs. concave or convex). It also provides one explanation for the multiverse. Recent results achieved at the South Pole tend to support the current thesis, as that instrument detected what its scientists describe as the earliest gravity waves affecting the very fabric of spacetime. The problem is, there are other explanations for this phenomenon, and the jury is out, but not for long.
There is a difference between the current flavor of primordial inflation, and the GToE flavor:
The current flavor mixes GR and quantum theories to where the primordial inflation creates waves in the spacetime continuum. That occurs from nearly everything that existed before our Big Bang compressing precisely and concurrentlty into a singularity, and then expanding outward with speed and force sufficient to level out whatever was left out there pre-BB into a linear universe, and also to set up the multiverse.
The GToE flavor envisions a more modest primordial inflation from a near-singularity. This model does not require the dubious complexity of a spacetime ether continuum. The linear nature of our observable universe comes from the very fact that graviton gravity is explainable between matter in our universe and adjacent universes, which were already there within absolute space. Furthermore, residual matter, primarily dark matter and dark matter lattices, is not obliterated by a supreme and singular inflation, so it helps form what we know of our observable universe. The multiverse is demonstrated not from a magical explosion, but from the normal effects of graviton gravity. I am sure that Newton would have approved of this elegant model; and Einstein himself would have come around to this idea -- if both greats had had access to all the big-science data available today.
When we look at historical events on the smallest scale (and then on the largest scale) through the lens of scientific thought experiments, there is no experimenter effect, just the beauty of pure physics in action.
BOTTOM LINE: We don't need a separate quantum world for the small, and a General Relativity world for the tall, because we have an elegant graviton world to embrace it all. We have a Graviton Theory of Everything.