New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Q-reeus, Jun 9, 2018.

  1. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,949
    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 here: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3484693/

    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/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/meta
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/pdf

    With an interesting Editorial piece that probably should be read first:
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,949
    Wow - such interest here - not.
    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
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,434
    Hi Q-reeus
    I am most interested and thank you for taking your time to present a very interesting post.

    Unfortunately I am not able to comment but I follow your comments with high interest.

    I expect there will be others like me who are interested but unable to comment.

    Please dont lose your enthusiasm.

    Alex
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,949
    Thanks Alex. Exciting times are at hand me thinks. I initially held little regard for claims GW 'astronomy' would yield anything really new. That outlook has now changed with a vengeance!
     
  8. Hayden Registered Member

    Messages:
    32
    What is the new vector theory?
     
  9. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,949
    Please read #1 where relevant links are provided for your convenience!
     
  10. Hayden Registered Member

    Messages:
    32
    Please summarise in brief how it is superior to GR or how it challenges GR.
     
  11. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,949
    It naturally predicts the correct value for accelerated Hubble 'constant', or equivalently 'DE' fraction = 2/3, without any ad hoc free parameter involved, unlike GR's Lambda.
    It passes all the current observational tests as per Clifford Will's PPN framework (mentioned in both Editorial and main theory paper).
    According to Svidzinsky's detailed reanalysis of a previous finding re LIGO/Virgo GW data, the table are turned - only his vector theory is consistent with the data. Not GR.
    IF that is further confirmed, GR is dead.
    There are no singularities or horizons - thus no conundrums like 'information paradox' or 'firewalls' etc. to fret over, since there is no Hawking radiation in the first place.

    I suggest reading at least the Editorial article linked to, after reading just the intro to the second linked article re reanalysis of LIGO/Virgo GW data. Then if you have some specific criticisms of Svidzinsky's theory, let's have it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2018 at 8:39 AM
  12. Hayden Registered Member

    Messages:
    32
    Thanks, nice.
    As you say it has potential to kill GR. Only GR or big bang also?
    If big bang also then prediction of correct accelerated Hubble constant seems odd, means where does expansion come from if no big bang type origin.
     
  13. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,949
    And nice in turn to get some positive response. This place is typically a flaming playground.
    It also has a very interesting explanation for BB that avoids need for hypothetical 'inflaton' field. However it rests on a model for both graviton and photon where both are composite entities formed from massless fermion-antifermion pairs. Obviously different pairs respectively. The intricacies are way over my head but you will find discussion of it in e.g. part 10 here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07058
    I have to rely on the opinion of expert reviewers as to it's tentative correctness. As you may have read in Editorial piece, it got a thumbs-up from some at least.
     
  14. Hayden Registered Member

    Messages:
    32
    The problem is adhocism does not end in astrophysics. This vector theory may solve something but then unwittingly gets into standard model graviton photon fermion anti fermion. And you know at least graviton has no observational evidence, it is sticky physics. What I like most about present models is that all alternative seekers are trying some changes here and there, none is coming up with something different from scratch. They close the leak at point A but then the point B becomes leaky, kind of back to square one.
     
  15. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,949
    Well the Editorial article reviewers cited there acknowledge that it tentatively solves all such issues from a first-principles basis. No ad hoc Lambda or inflaton has to be tacked on. The quantization aspect yes is required to deal with BB inflationary phase 'naturally', but accelerated expansion post inflationary stage is entirely a classical aspect, as discussed in that article. The 'longitudinal gravitational field' component that is not quantized in Svidzinsky's theory. If it really interests, I suggest studying all that article in detail.
     
  16. Hayden Registered Member

    Messages:
    32
    Precisely, the longitudinal gravitational field component is not quantized, and thus the difference in probable explanations for GW. I am of the opinion that the gravity as such does not have any inherent transverse component, this could be due to spin of the object only, kind of frame dragging effect.
     
  17. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,949
    OK to consider such a situation, but note that Svidzinsky's theory, built from first principle postulates, does require quantized transverse components that allow GW's, and explains BB inflationary phase. Again, his reanalysis of LIGO/Virgo GW data looks set to confirm his vector theory. Always, we must let confirmed observation/experiment be the ultimate arbiter. As per my #1 post. I'm a fan of Mach's principle which on a natural reading allows no fixed background. However, it may still survive in a modified form even if his theory is finally confirmed correct. Time will tell.
     

Share This Page