New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Postby Q-reeus » Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:45 pm

(Below is a very slightly edited clone of an OP posting at another forum):
Previously I had dropped tentative support for Carver Mead's G4v vector gravity theory. Partly on the basis of the apparently definitive positive finding for GR-type tensor gravity GW's, and against vector gravity GW's, as mentioned under 'VIII. CONCLUSION' in the jointly authored article https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.09660 linked to in another forum.

That and a similar negative finding here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.03794 is now strongly challenged by A. Svidzinsky with his reanalysis that evidently dramatically turns the tables in favour of his Vector Theory of Gravity:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07181
https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520

The theory itself:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07058
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... a93a8/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... aa93a8/pdf

With an interesting Editorial piece that probably should be read first:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 896/aa93a9

Some novel features - gravitons are not fundamental but composite objects formed of massless fermion/anti-fermion pairs. Similar proposal for photons.
Has the imo absolutely essential feature that for a spherically symmetric mass the metric has exponential form just as in Yilmaz theory. No horizons thus no BH's.
And just as Stan Robertson showed for Yilmaz theory, the current theory automatically predicts accelerated expansion for universe of the correct magnitude - without requiring any free parameter.

The one thing not to my liking is it assumes a prior background Euclidean/Minkowski metric.
The final arbiter though will hinge on whether his finding that LIGO/Virgo etc. GW signatures actually rules out GR-type GW's and rules in vector GW's continues to hold up. There is certain to be savage criticism from GR community, at least for quite some time.
Will be very interesting to follow developments.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:17 am

***
I instinctively dislike the theory for a somewhat similar reason as yours: "The one thing not to my liking is it assumes a prior background Euclidean/Minkowski metric."

This goes against the profound lesson of "no prior background (not even topological)" Einstein had to learn after having made a mistake of inadvertently introducing such a background in his theory during the final stages of the construction of GR. It took him two years to recognize and overcome his mistake. I have discussed this dark period in the construction of GR in the second section of this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9810078.pdf. The lesson of this historical episode is that if you introduce any form of background in your theory of gravity then you are making a mistake of not reflecting correctly what Nature prefers. She prefers not to have any prior background at all. :)

Whatever the eventual verdict of the community on the theory, I just read the first page of the editorial you have linked, and I must say I am impressed by the courageous and commendable action by the editorial board. They write:

Despite this, we decided to attempt to get the manuscript reviewed to provide the author with feedback on the work, and ultimately, taking into account the mixed reception by the reviewers, we decided that as the author had responded diligently to all of the criticisms raised, although not all reviewers were convinced of the validity of the theory, the paper should be published so that the community as a whole can consider it. This Editorial serves to explain the context in which the
decision to publish was made. It also provides a preamble.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Postby Q-reeus » Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:03 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
I instinctively dislike the theory for a somewhat similar reason as yours: "The one thing not to my liking is it assumes a prior background Euclidean/Minkowski metric."

This goes against the profound lesson of "no prior background (not even topological)" Einstein had to learn after having made a mistake of inadvertently introducing such a background in his theory during the final stages of the construction of GR. It took him two years to recognize and overcome his mistake. I have discussed this dark period in the construction of GR in the second section of this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9810078.pdf. The lesson of this historical episode is that if you introduce any form of background in your theory of gravity then you are making a mistake of not reflecting correctly what Nature prefers. She prefers not to have any prior background at all. :)

Clearly you take a diametrically opposite position to the presumed majority position shared by Svidzinsky, that gravity must ultimately yield to some final quantum field theory.
Anyway as a fan of Mach's principle correctly implemented, which imo Yilmaz gravity achieves nicely, I agree that a background metric is hard to justify on purely philosophical grounds. Nevertheless 'she' might dislike other consistency issues relating to GR and only slightly modified alternatives, even more. As Feynman said:
"No matter how beautiful your theory may be, if it disagrees with experiment then it's wrong!"
So let's see how Svidzinsky's take on extant GW signatures fares over time. His critique of that earlier pro GR finding seems pretty solid. They made a conceptual error in not taking relative phases into account properly. A dramatic reversal of fortunes showed when corrected for.
Whatever the eventual verdict of the community on the theory, I just read the first page of the editorial you have linked, and I must say I am impressed by the courageous and commendable action by the editorial board. They write:

Despite this, we decided to attempt to get the manuscript reviewed to provide the author with feedback on the work, and ultimately, taking into account the mixed reception by the reviewers, we decided that as the author had responded diligently to all of the criticisms raised, although not all reviewers were convinced of the validity of the theory, the paper should be published so that the community as a whole can consider it. This Editorial serves to explain the context in which the
decision to publish was made. It also provides a preamble.

Agreed the editorial board's attitude was commendable. I can understand why you quoted it. That long trek in the wilderness. :D
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:50 am

Q-reeus wrote:Clearly you take a diametrically opposite position to the presumed majority position shared by Svidzinsky, that gravity must ultimately yield to some final quantum field theory.

Indeed I do. For several reasons: (1) GR is experimentally better confirmed by at least two orders of magnitude than QFT (cf. decay of Pulsar orbits due to GW-induced energy loss); (2) QFT is by no means a mathematically consistent theory --- so much so that there is a million dollar prize on offer for its problems to be fixed; (3) QFT is experimentally well confirmed only far from the Planck regime, which is so far removed from the regime where it is confirmed that it cannot possibly be relied on when considering the physics near the Planck scale; (4) quantum theory itself is plagued in general with insurmountable conceptual problems from its very inception.

So, yes, indeed, I believe that both GR and QFT must give way to a full theory of quantum gravity, with GR being a superior theory of the two.

Q-reeus wrote:Agreed the editorial board's attitude was commendable. I can understand why you quoted it. That long trek in the wilderness. :D

Right again. In my considerable experience in publishing in physics journals, I have found that most editors and editorial board members are robotic at best in their efforts, and the peer-review process itself is mostly a joke. Only rarely have I found a sensible referee report or a conscientious and competent editor. Admittedly, however, my experiences in this regard are somewhat unique, because for the past eight to ten years I have had to endure the meddling in my academic, financial, personal and publishing affairs by a bona fide psychopath.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:12 pm

Apparently GR with ECSK torsion can also somewhat predict dark energy.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4859
"Spacetime torsion as a possible remedy to major problems in gravity and cosmology"

Hmm... this might be worthwhile exploring with,

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06036
"On the Role of Einstein-Cartan Gravity in Fundamental Particle Physics"

to see if the prediction can be made better.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Postby Q-reeus » Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:54 pm

Joy Christian wrote:Indeed I do. For several reasons: (1) GR is experimentally better confirmed by at least two orders of magnitude than QFT (cf. decay of Pulsar orbits due to GW-induced energy loss); (2) QFT is by no means a mathematically consistent theory --- so much so that there is a million dollar prize on offer for its problems to be fixed; (3) QFT is experimentally well confirmed only far from the Planck regime, which is so far removed from the regime where it is confirmed that it cannot possibly be relied on when considering the physics near the Planck scale; (4) quantum theory itself is plagued in general with insurmountable conceptual problems from its very inception.

So, yes, indeed, I believe that both GR and QFT must give way to a full theory of quantum gravity, with GR being a superior theory of the two.

Solid results are expected later this year for the EHT aimed at the central compact object at Sagittarius A*:
https://eventhorizontelescope.org/blog/ ... may-1-2018
Combined with even just a few more LIGO/Virgo etc. GW analyses, a definite observation-based judgement between GR and either of two imo superior horizonless rivals should be possible.

In the meantime Joy, and this also goes for Fred and anyone else here, please study the quite straightforward exact derivation of exponential redshift done by Stan Robertson in Appendix A here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01417
Given your exemplary maths skills, it should be a breeze to point out any 'obvious fatal flaw' in that rather simple derivation. Given that if correct, it undermines GR all by itself.
At another forum, that invite was given to another Einstein fan (his forum avatar is a picture of AE). All I got was frustrating obfuscation - chaff throwing instead of giving a simple verdict on the redshift derivation's logical integrity.
I'm hoping that kind of response is not indicative of all such GR-centric folks. Please show me you folks are above that kind of thing.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Postby Q-reeus » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:04 pm

I forgot to mention in last post, that before that invite to an Einstein/GR devotee at the other forum, the same challenge was made to another member there with considerable maths skills particularly in differential geometry and such. He gave no response whatsoever. Hmm.... looks like deja vu here. Which is ironic in a way. The GR fan-boy then jumped in only to waste both our time and effort.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:33 pm

Q-reeus wrote:I forgot to mention in last post, that before that invite to an Einstein/GR devotee at the other forum, the same challenge was made to another member there with considerable maths skills particularly in differential geometry and such. He gave no response whatsoever. Hmm.... looks like deja vu here. Which is ironic in a way. The GR fan-boy then jumped in only to waste both our time and effort.

Q-reeus, as I pointed out in my previous post and what you yourself noted, the vector theory is not generally covariant, or background independent. That is all one has to know. The calculation you have noted is irrelevant, even if correct.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Postby Q-reeus » Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:17 am

Joy Christian wrote:Q-reeus, as I pointed out in my previous post and what you yourself noted, the vector theory is not generally covariant, or background independent. That is all one has to know...

Right about Ssidvinsky's vector theory assuming a preferred background, but I never mentioned and you are wrong in claiming lack of general covariance. Evidently you never even got to read much of the Editorial, because if you had, here's what a few obviously GR qualified reviewers noted there (emphasis added):
It is indeed surprising that such a fundamentally different theory also passes the available tests of gravity without any free parameters, as is shown by the author with all necessary details. If true, this fact alone would make vector gravity a viable alternative to GR. In addition, vector gravity provides an explanation of the dark energy as the energy of the longitudinal gravitational field induced by the expansion of the Universe, and, with no free parameters, yields a value of the cosmological constant that is consistent with observations. Thus, according to this reviewer, vector gravity essentially resolves the dark energy problem. This is what we expect from a correct theory of gravity. Vector gravity also suggests a mechanism of/for matter generation at the Big Bang without involving additional fields and is free of space–time singularities, which is also remarkable.

A substantial part of the paper is devoted to comparisons of vector gravity with available tests. The comparisons are made according to Clifford Will’s book on ‘Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics’ with detailed calculations. The equivalence of vector gravity and GR in the post-Newtonian limit is shown, as is the lack of the preferred frame effects. The Cosmology section clearly demonstrates that vector gravity appropriately models universe evolution and gives a value for the cosmological constant consistent with observations...

How does it feel being part of the GR Mafia Joy - stonewalling and misrepresenting an 'upstart' with his, by all valid measures as per above, not only a viable but markedly superior alternative theory?
Ring a Bell? He he - I'm sure you won't take that bit too hard. I'm just a nobody after all, with a personal observation that sees an ironic twist.
...The calculation you have noted is irrelevant, even if correct.

How you can honestly write that is hard to fathom. Let me be clear - that finding of exponential form for redshift (previously done by others btw - including 1907 Einstein) is absolutely water-tight. And logically demands an exterior metric having that exponential form not GR's Schwarzschild metric, for a spherically symmetric mass.
Even if one tries to claim it only has relevance in SR setting, which would be a claim weak equivalence principle is invalid, it has a direct bearing on non-existence of so-called Rindler horizons. Therefore non-existence of Unruh-Davies effect. That alone would be no small deal.

I still prefer btw Yilmaz theory as it has no fixed background. But fully accept the final arbiter is agreement with experiment and/or observation. Feynman again:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/rich ... man_160383

As things stand though, Shidvinsky's vector theory is already shaping up to be the new champ. The dust has still to fully settle, but whatever the final verdict re GW results, only a theory with an exponential not Schwarzschild-type metric will triumph in the end. I won't quote Schopenhauer - but will link to one :lol: :
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/arth ... uer_103608
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:13 pm

GR Mafia??? Come on Kevin, GR is just too simple to be wrong. It is like Maxwell's equations; too simple to ever be wrong. However, it could be missing something like torsion. But that has more to do with proper interpretation of the finer details.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Postby Q-reeus » Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:42 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:GR Mafia??? Come on Kevin, GR is just too simple to be wrong. It is like Maxwell's equations; too simple to ever be wrong. However, it could be missing something like torsion. But that has more to do with proper interpretation of the finer details.

Your opinion and judgement duly noted Fred. Apologies for having misspelled Svidzinsky's name twice in my last post. Despite the impression of theory freshness given in that Physica Scripta Editorial, it turns out his theory is not that new at all: https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3155
A similar time in the wilderness as Joy has experienced.
Evidently what got it over the line recently re publishing, is the refinements especially specific predictions that have deeply impressed enough GR buffs.
I intend to update pending further results especially newer combined detector GW analyses. And of course the long awaited EHT results.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Postby lkcl » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:43 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Apparently GR with ECSK torsion can also somewhat predict dark energy.


fredi: anything that says it can predict "dark energy" or "dark matter" is an automatic sign that the probability of the entire theory being useful goes down by a couple orders of magnitude :)

any theory that hasn't used occam's razor on the really really simple "what the hell are particles made of?", and hasn't gone "well if photons can be banged together to make particles, and if a particle decays you get a photon, and when an electron jumps shells... you get a photon" and concluded "walks like duck, quacks like duck, therefore it's a duck"... you get my drift?
lkcl
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:15 am


Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 1 guest

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library