New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

That New Scientist article does a reasonable job in summarizing the pros and cons of the three basic analytical methods LIGO and later LIGO_Virgo used. An obvious issue with template method is that the overwhelming bulk of such templates, maybe all that were used, presuppose GR is correct.
The real bone of contention is the claim by Jackson et al that certain folks at LIGO and LIGO_Virgo consortium have failed to share all relevant GW data with outside researchers, and been sloppy with their own analysis of presumably full data sets. Maybe even worse - massaging some results, especially re first detection, in a way friendly to confirming GR.
Don't take my summary as gospel - read the article through and form your own judgement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have often wondered if finding what you expect to find is the best way of doing things.
They found something or not could it be something else.
They must think it thru.
Presumably more will turn up.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since my update post #36, came across a more recent joint LIGO_Virgo article claiming the NS-NS merger GW detection event GW170817 has confirmed GR over other theories:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00364
There is not a single reference there to Svidizinsky's earlier published direct challenge to their methodology used in an earlier joint LIGO_Virgo article.
That attitude is telling me they are deliberately ignoring what must be to them unflattering findings, and this echoes with the totally independent criticisms of Jackson team in that New Scientist article.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a pity paddoboy is not here to comment☺
Alex

 

How long can you hide dishonesty from the Scientific method? Granted it could be a long time. That is, future independent observations using techniques which will take into account the present ''disputed'' method (templates) and ideas (Svidizinsky). Unless the experts can show in the near future the present used techniques and ideas are right anyway.
I'm no expert, so I will have to leave it to the experts on both sides of the matter.

 

Let's keep religion out of this Alex.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You seem to be making too big a deal out of one challenger. There are lots people putting ideas to LIGO that ''explain'' the findings in other ways. It just seems important to you, but maybe LIGO will get around to it some time if need be.
I'm saying that in a nice way. So, don't blast back.

Q-reeus. What results from ''The Event Horizon Telescope'' would back Svidizinsky's idea over GR ?
Will there be no event horizon for Svidizinsky's neutron star, that star not collapsing further because Svidizinsky's has quantised spacetime and so no singularities or event horizons?

 

No problem. For me it's always been a matter of logical elimination. Some years ago, independent of anyone else's input, I realized that GR MUST be wrong. When participating in a thread at PhysicsForums. Dealing with the very simple case of a spherical shell of matter (Newton's Shell Theorem sort of thing - but not exactly). GR predicted a clearly unphysical 'jump' from just outside to just inside of the shell wall. Which situation is unacceptable logically and fatal to any theory exhibiting such characteristics. I published my findings here:
http://vixra.org/abs/1407.0130
Since then I have come down with a definite finding re so-called 'isotropic Schwarzschild metric'. It's a physical different spacetime metric to 'standard Schwarzschild metric'. The long accepted as physically equivalent coordinate transformation from standard to 'isotropic form' of SM is plain wrong! One day, post many other diversions, I may post a fourth version there with all that cleaned up.

Anyway, getting back to earlier PhysicsForums setting, I knew there and then what the pathology stemmed from - the anisotropic nature of external Schwarzschild metric - 'the unique GR solution for a static spherical mass distribution'. And the cure was immediately obvious - a correct theory HAD to have an intrinsically isotropic metric. A quick search and discovered Yilmaz gravity. Which satisfied that *necessary* requirement. For a few years it was the only viable contender - notwithstanding distorted caricatures from in particular Chris Hillman who wrongly claimed Yilmaz theory had been 'eliminated'. BS. But then came Svidzinsky's Vector Gravity - with the potential final arbiter of GW analysis rightly done. Eliminating pure tensor GW's (which both GR and Yilmaz gravity predicted) in favour of Vector Gravity (which theory also has the *essential* exponential metric form).
So, while I liked Yilmaz theory owing to it's 'no prior geometry' basis, Svidzinsky's reanalysis of LIGO_Virgo GW events looks compelling. Nature is after all the final arbiter of Truth.

I should add at this point that knowledgeable GR devotees will point out that GR is a 'natural' outcome of a standard Lagrangian approach. To which I would reply that such 'natural' principles are freely acknowledged (inadvertently) by e.g. Sean Carroll to be violated re energy (non)conservation in GR in general. Whereas the GR contradictions I have identified are fundamental and cannot be skirted.

Good question(s). In that area I think Svidzinsky is in error. Based particularly on, as already earlier referenced this thread, a surprising and imo valid analysis by Matt Visser et al:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.03781
What he has shown is that an exponential metric (e.g. Yilmaz or Svidzinsky theories), in the case of say beyond NS gravitational collapse, inevitably has a so-called 'traversable wormhole' character. It's quite different to the 'symmetric wormholes' depicted in various pop-sci articles. You can't travel back and forth from one 'end' to another 'end' for instance, even in principle. But the real implication is that at relatively modest energy density levels, spacetime curvature has a 'throat' region that doesn't allow matter/radiation pressure to further support against gravity. Collapse proceeds to some level likely well below either Robertson et. al.'s MECO or Svidzinsky's 'multi-Mev axion' stable radius levels implies.
I will probably get round to contacting Svidzinsky re Visser's findings and hopefully get his response to it. No-one has a handle on all the facts and implications.

 

Q-reeus, I would like to give a considered reply but, most of that is over my head. Thanks for taking the time to explain where your coming from. To be honest I don't think your find the sort of ''expert'' critique you may be looking for here now on sciforums. All best.

 

Thanks sweepea. Pretty sure I understand where that 'now' is coming from. Folks with real competence in such areas have vacated the premises one by one. The positive for this site is having freedom to post links to, and comment freely on, (currently)non-mainstream theories. Something unlikely to be tolerated at a conservative site like PhysicsForums, where experts abound.

 

A short while ago received a very helpful reply email from Anatoly Svidzinsky, where 3 questions put to him were answered. Because it was a private communication I'll just summarize/paraphrase his answers:

Q 1: A recent joint LIGO-Virgo paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00364 makes no mention of your own reanalysis https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00364
re findings in an earlier joint LIGP-Virgo article. Have you had any private communication from them trying to justify what looks like an outright snub?

A 1: They were contacted by us and alerted to the problematic issues with their pro GR finding, but evidently they failed to see any issue. A detailed response will appear at arXiv.org this or next week. Title:
Comment on “Tests of general relativity with GW170817”
[I was given the draft version. Basically, they point out that Jackson et. al. criticisms (see Q 2 below)] are valid to the extent that improperly applied noise reduction techniques has corrupted key parts of in particular the LIGO Livingston detector GW170817 event GW detection (a 'glitch' coinciding with detection event). Which then skewed the overall Beysian analysis to favour GR over Vector Gravity. When properly cleaned up, the opposite holds true, in agreement with the direct analyses earlier done in https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520 (linked to in #1 here).]

Q 2: Any credibility to recently resurrected Jackson et. al. criticisms re GW detections?:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/]Ne

A 2: Jackson et. al.'s criticism is imo valid regarding LIGO_Virgo's handling of noise filtering. However, in particular the NS-NS merger event GW170817 has a long train of continuous data that, apart from corruption of segments of the Livingston data, is very clearly a bona fide GW signal.

Q 3: A recent article by Matt Visser et. al.: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.03781
"The exponential metric represents a traversable wormhole"
The finding (sect 3.1), of a minimum proper radius throat at a modest R = m, seems to imply inevitability of stellar i.e. post NS density collapse to some indefinitely small final size. Given proper volume grows as r continues to decrease! Which effectively makes the EOS very soft for any in-falling matter/radiation beyond that point. This in turn undercuts your arguments re maximum mass of NS's, and viability of theorized 'multi-Mev Axions' 'SMBH's' e.g. at Sagittarius A*?

A 3: I contacted Visser et. al. shortly after their arXiv article was published, and pointed out that their vacuum solution is unrealistic, and furtheremore the situation R < M does not occur for NS's using our EOS. Hence they are stable objects according to Vector Gravity - which automatically includes any potential 'wormhole' character of exponential metric. See fig's 3 & 4 in http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/pdf
Similarly, for meV [not MeV as I had written] scale axion 'dark matter' 'SMBH' candidates, presence of matter gives a different character than 'traversable wormhole' solution suggests: See e.g. fig.3 in https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607179v2
Visser et. al. have raised nothing really new with their article.


In summary, Svidzinsky has detailed answers to all criticisms so far leveled at his theory. In light of his expert responses, I withdraw the assessment last part of #48. Evidently gravity actually takes on a repulsive nature below hypothetical wormhole throat region R = M - making such a vacuum solution 'traversable wormhole' formally symmetrical in nature. The ultimate fail-safe against GR predicted 'collapse to a point singularity'. In keeping with my comments in earlier threads, no need for quantum gravity to ever enter as rescuer of a non-existent problem.

 

2nd line in #51:
'Q 1: A recent joint LIGO-Virgo paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00364 makes no mention of your own reanalysis https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00364'
should have shown last link as https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520

 

Yes indeed.
I must say I have enjoyed reading your posts here and so I say thank you.
Alex

 

I too am following this with great interest, for what it's worth...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Some time ago I ran across CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) as being related to quantum gravity.

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

and

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/quantum-gravity-causal-dynamical-triangulations

Any comment on this novel approach and if this is in any way related to the Vector model?

 

CDT and Vector Gravity are like chalk and cheese. The former assumes GR is the Gold Standard to which a classical spacetime 'emerges' as a 'low energy approximation' from the underlying high energy CDT quantized spacetime substrate. On the other hand, Vector Gravity, even the quantized version, assumes a fixed continuum flat spacetime background. Upon which something analogous to QED applied re quantized gravity (which quantization only applies to transverse i.e. GW's). The 'static' gravitational field is entirely classical in that theory. It's all laid out in the articles cited back in post #1.

 

As a formal follow-on (I expect no useful feedback here): The private communication mentioned in #51-#52 has now finalized as a published article:
Comment on 'Tests of general relativity with GW170817'
https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02604