Hi Q-reeus
Thanks. I have read your latest references, and all the previous ones except the arxiv paper. It just shows me how little I know yet.
Can I have a stab at the weak and strong field cases:
Say UA is the set of gravitons exchanged between the rest of the universe [ie other than A and B] and A.
Say UB is similarly defined
and AB is the set of gravitons exchanged between A and B.
In my model the QCD-like gravitions between quarks are similar in nature to the gluons except they have spin 2 [and also some weak isospin].
In your ref
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/ ... -2-sequel/
M < M0
which I interpret as UA + UB < UA +UB +AB, by counting gravitons available for each measurement (although I did not really follow how to make the measurement in practice for the RHS.)
In my model the gravitons can emit gravitons just as gluons can emit gluons, hence a small fraction of the AB will emit to the rest of the universe and will be called say UAB.
The equation can be modified but it should be true that UA + UB + UAB < UA +UB +AB.
I know less about BHs than about GR but here goes:
Let B be the BH.
The equation becomes UA + UB + UAB < UA +UB +AB just as before.
If A gets closer to B then the set AB will get bigger at the expense of UA. UAB could also diminish.
So the RHS gets bigger and the LHS gets smaller, which does not threaten the integrity of the inequality.
Still not sure what this means wrt GR and Yilmaz, but I will have to defer thinking about that until I know more.
Your ref:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/ ... gravitate/
says that spin 2 implies "attraction only" forces.
I will need to pursue that as, if true, that would mean than my gravitons, which are spin 2 of course, would all cause attraction. If true, that would skewer my dark energy model, but leave dark matter intact. It would be be a good thing for my graviton model as having repulsive gravity is out on a limb (though at the moment I quite like the idea of repulsion and am dubious of that reported spin 2 effect).
My approach wrt fields is quite different to QM in a few ways. BTW at the moment I am only 7/10 of the way through Susskind's QFT course.
1. In my model there is no spontaneous emission (eg of photons by an electron). I mean that there is no unexplainable, pure chance emission. An electron emits a photon when something in the vacuum hits the electron, or vice versa. The something could be a 1/4 higgs particle, and when the photon hits an appropriate other electron the 1/4 higgs is is returned to the vacuum.
2. Standard theory does not conserve weak isospin whereas in my model it is conserved in interactions. In point 1 above , the higgs has only weak isospin, + or - 1/2 value, so if I include the higgs in the interactions, then I can conserve weak isospin by using the higgs as the hidden conveyor of the 'missing' weak isospin.
There is a lot to field theory which I do not know yet, and some that I have not yet made up my mind about.
From Susskind's lectures I have heard about virtual e- and e+ pairs of particles being created from the vacuum and swiftly annihilated back to the vacuum around say an electron. (From memory.. ) The pair can align so that the + is nearer to the electron than the - and so they act to screen the electron charge. The nearer this occurs to the electron the stronger the effect and ultimately the electron needs an infinite (bare) charge to still appear to be a -1 charge after strong screening. That does not really seem to be a static field. Given a dynamic vacuum, I am not sure that one can have a static field. Is it not dynamic equilibrium?
With QED one can stop light entering the apparatus but one can't screen like that for gravitation forces. If one could screen gravitationally then one could take inequality UA + UB + UAB < UA +UB +AB
and remove all terms involving U leaving 0< AB
This would be similar to a static case where little gravitational exchange was occurring. The inequality is still not invalidated ,though unfortunately one cannot really screen out the U terms. I think I am saying that I am not sure what the existence of a static QED field says about my model. The main areas where I think I differ from standard are my points 1 and 2 above.