New Vector Theory of Gravity challenges GR

So what I can infer is that this all metric maths is nothing but to explain the gravity as produced by matter.

But there is catch, not very deep also, the metric analysis says that the matter affects the geometry of spacetime as defined by metric.

Ideally speaking maths should explain effect of X (real entity) on Y (another real entity), but in these theories the maths is explaining the effect of matter (real entity) on spacetime (mathematical tool)

Now the spacetime also is a mathematical tool, so to define gravity the deformation of a mathematical tool is used. I see no link with maths directly touching upon the reality. It is maths working on a mathematical tool to explain the reality. Isn't it weird or is it our inability to associate spacetime with something real as on date. May be in near future we can comprehend that spacetime is much more than a mathematical abstraction.
 
Hayden said:
So what I can infer is that this all metric maths is nothing but to explain the gravity as produced by matter.

But there is catch, not very deep also, the metric analysis says that the matter affects the geometry of spacetime as defined by metric.

Ideally speaking maths should explain effect of X (real entity) on Y (another real entity), but in these theories the maths is explaining the effect of matter (real entity) on spacetime (mathematical tool)

Now the spacetime also is a mathematical tool, so to define gravity the deformation of a mathematical tool is used. I see no link with maths directly touching upon the reality. It is maths working on a mathematical tool to explain the reality. Isn't it weird or is it our inability to associate spacetime with something real as on date. May be in near future we can comprehend that spacetime is much more than a mathematical abstraction.
Click to expand...
In any modern theory of gravity with a chance of agreeing with observations, it has to be a metric theory. Unavoidably matter and spacetime feed back on each other.
John Wheeler's famous line: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/71...matter-how-to-move-matter-tells-spacetime-how
The trick is to make sure that mutual curving and moving interplay, is formulated in such a way it doesn't lead to nonsensical contradictions and infinities.
 
Q-reeus said:
In any modern theory of gravity with a chance of agreeing with observations, it has to be a metric theory. Unavoidably matter and spacetime feed back on each other.
John Wheeler's famous line: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/71...matter-how-to-move-matter-tells-spacetime-how
The trick is to make sure that mutual curving and moving interplay, is formulated in such a way it doesn't lead to nonsensical contradictions and infinities.
Click to expand...

You still refuse to touch upon the key point of mathematical abstraction.

How can matter tell a mathematical tool aka spacetime to curve? I am not talking about the mechanism, I am talking about how a real thing can influence maths.
 
Hayden said:
You still refuse to touch upon the key point of mathematical abstraction.
Click to expand...
Refuse?! Disappointing you see it like that. Actually I've gone to considerable trouble in providing plenty of imo pertinent links and imo tried to answer your queries reasonably.
How can matter tell a mathematical tool aka spacetime to curve? I am not talking about the mechanism, I am talking about how a real thing can influence maths.
Click to expand...
Did I ever say spacetime was just a mathematical abstraction? Nobody knows what exactly gravity/spacetime 'is' as an ultimate rock-bottom 'thing'. Let me put the onus on you. Point to some alternative framework that rationally does away with concept of spacetime (even if just as 'emergent' property) while also successfully explaining all of the observational confirmations that spacetime framework does.
Compared to the weirdness of QM, I'd say relativity is downright pedestrian.
I'm not interested in a philosophical excursion into ontology vs epistemology.
 
Q-reeus said:
.

Did I ever say spacetime was just a mathematical abstraction? Nobody knows what exactly gravity/spacetime 'is' as an ultimate rock-bottom 'thing'. Let me put the onus on you. Point to some alternative framework that rationally does away with concept of spacetime (even if just as 'emergent' property) while also successfully explaining all of the observational confirmations that spacetime framework does.
Compared to the weirdness of QM, I'd say relativity is downright pedestrian.
I'm not interested in a philosophical excursion into ontology vs epistemology.
Click to expand...

No, you did not, I contd away with that infinity abstraction thread.

But now you are hinting that spacetime could be much more than maths; the clear question emerges now:: What if at the end of the day we see that spacetime is just maths ? Obviously a real thing (matter) cannot distort mathematical entity.
 
Hayden said:
No, you did not, I contd away with that infinity abstraction thread.

But now you are hinting that spacetime could be much more than maths; the clear question emerges now:: What if at the end of the day we see that spacetime is just maths ? Obviously a real thing (matter) cannot distort mathematical entity.
Click to expand...
Well let me put it this way. We now know for sure GW's exist. They have physical effects otherwise LIGO/Virgo could not have detected them. In GR such waves are purely spacetime curvature. Not so in Yilmaz theory or Svidzinsky vector gravity. The latter two, in somewhat different specific ways, provide imo a considerably more consistent picture. But no point in going further here. Study the subject and get a feel for the concepts that underlie those theories.
 
Q-reeus said:
In GR such waves are purely spacetime curvature. Not so in Yilmaz theory or Svidzinsky vector gravity. The latter two.....
Click to expand...

I must study.
In GR it is SPACETIME curvature or changes in them.

In the latter two they could be changes in SPACETIME transverse or radial lines, but the so called spacetime is still intact.

Imo we have no answer about spacetime being something yet unknown reality that is much more than maths, till then it is mathematical abstraction only.
 
Q-reeus said:
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.
Click to expand...


Well personally I think its a load of rubbish.

I have a lot of reasons to think this, but the immediate warning sign for me was his quantization of gravity - the issue here is not that the field is quantized in terms of massless Fermions, it's any approach of quantizing gravity that is most likely wrong; physics has indirectly shown this to us, concerning the so-called divergence problems of gravitational field quantization. Gravity is not a quantum field (ie. requires a mediator) but is a pseudo force - meaning if we did go ahead and quantize the gravitational field, you'd be directly violating the strong equivalence principle. I am surprised this didn't catch on, but the idea of quantizing gravity to seek unification clearly was too difficult to ignore for early scientists, despite it being at difference with the first principles of relativity.
 
curvature said:
Well personally I think its a load of rubbish.
Click to expand...
Maybe because you haven't even read or understood those articles linked to, nor the theory's observational support, wrt LIGO/Virgo GW data analysis done right. And BB/'dark energy' natural resolutions without any free parameters required. Not a bad start imo. Quite a deal better than GR can offer.
I have a lot of reasons to think this, but the immediate warning sign for me was his quantization of gravity - the issue here is not that the field is quantized in terms of massless Fermions, it's any approach of quantizing gravity that is most likely wrong; physics has indirectly shown this to us, concerning the so-called divergence problems of gravitational field quantization. Gravity is not a quantum field (ie. requires a mediator) but is a pseudo force - meaning if we did go ahead and quantize the gravitational field, you'd be directly violating the strong equivalence principle.
Click to expand...
Any appreciable deviation from SEP is only expected to show at curvatures vastly greater than any accessible to any experiment or observation. Only when field energy density approaches the Planck level. But going further back there, I suggest you read the main article, where it's made clear Svidzinsky's vector gravity is only quantized wrt transverse fields i.e.radiation - not the static/quasi-static fields which are purely classical. Also, as a vector theory assuming a fixed background, it's both a true field theory and a metric theory.
I am surprised this didn't catch on, but the idea of quantizing gravity to seek unification clearly was too difficult to ignore for early scientists, despite it being at difference with the first principles of relativity.
Click to expand...
Well most relativists, past and current, believe quantum gravity is the way to go. Svidzinsky's theory doesn't require it as a rescue for e.g. 'singularities' which can't exist in that theory, at a classical level.
 
In vector and particle spin the more positive the radar or radius: the positive centre is the atom's nucleus regardless of centered spin like with protons and neutralizing factors like with neutrons. Gravity can then take over any particle. Atoms can then retake positive form with the ionic form and into a radius a center force is then a new factor like with neutrons. Gravity is then for a positive center like with repulsion for antigravity and any particle that gravity will only bring force down and the object down, but particles and energy into any other path but as excited so more like into the wall or universe black hole. Force then carries a gradient that puts away energy and makes this gravity vector sense of an object seem as if there are particles like with Einstein's notion of force that time can carry with it gravity or space more like with a car then with a train since there is already a path of uniformity. This changes around the inversion of j like 1 over anything negative which puts out of the frame particles and/or anything charged: as to say that uniformity can't make particles but can hold particles - this sense rules out force for any other group of fundamental forces. Force can then make uniform electrons but not quantum spin over a nucleus without a help according to that with single variables coordinates want a spin with Newton's First Law, but that always contradicts that a down quark will put away all that charge can carry into an atom or a boundless variant of the strong nuclear force or law for certainty that contradicts a quark and its spin or the "God" particle and its spin and/or its bound into new states.
 
Forceman said:
In vector and particle spin the more positive the radar or radius: the positive centre is the atom's nucleus regardless of centered spin like with protons and neutralizing factors like with neutrons. Gravity can then take over any particle. Atoms can then retake positive form with the ionic form and into a radius a center force is then a new factor like with neutrons. Gravity is then for a positive center like with repulsion for antigravity and any particle that gravity will only bring force down and the object down, but particles and energy into any other path but as excited so more like into the wall or universe black hole. Force then carries a gradient that puts away energy and makes this gravity vector sense of an object seem as if there are particles like with Einstein's notion of force that time can carry with it gravity or space more like with a car then with a train since there is already a path of uniformity. This changes around the inversion of j like 1 over anything negative which puts out of the frame particles and/or anything charged: as to say that uniformity can't make particles but can hold particles - this sense rules out force for any other group of fundamental forces. Force can then make uniform electrons but not quantum spin over a nucleus without a help according to that with single variables coordinates want a spin with Newton's First Law, but that always contradicts that a down quark will put away all that charge can carry into an atom or a boundless variant of the strong nuclear force or law for certainty that contradicts a quark and its spin or the "God" particle and its spin and/or its bound into new states.
Click to expand...
So she went into the garden, to cut a cabbage leaf, to make an apple pie. Just then, a great she-bear coming up the street poked her head into the shop and said, "What? No Soap?". So he died, and she very imprudently married the barber. And at the wedding there were present the Joblilies, the Picaninnies and the Garyoolies, and the Great Panjandrum himself, with the little round button on top. And they all played catch as catch can, until the gunpowder ran out of the heels of their boots.

See? I can play at being a bot, too.
 
Q-reeus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Needs more clarification.

Firstly, any topic with 8 different links is going to be overwhelming to someone. Then the added bonus of the material being esoteric.
Then the added bonus of not really explaining much and just basically handing out the links and expecting us to figure it out ourselves.
I am sure there maybe someone here who could figure it out but that person is not me. And for reference, Einstein took 10 years to figure out Relativity, do not expect me to take 10 years (or even 10 hours) to try to figure out your post.


https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3155
Here's the link I read.
"We propose a new classical theory of gravity which is based on the principle of equivalence and assumption that gravity, similarly to electrodynamics, is described by a vector field in Minkowski space-time. We show that such assumptions yield a unique theory of gravity; it passes all available tests and free of singularities such as black holes. In the present theory, gravity is described by four equations which have, e.g., exact analytical solution for arbitrary static field. For cosmology our equations give essentially the same evolution of the Universe as general relativity. Predictions of our theory can be tested within next few years making more accurate measurement of the time delay of radar signal traveling near the Sun or by resolving the supermassive object at the center of our Galaxy with VLBA. If general relativity is correct we must see a steady shadow from a black hole at the Galactic center. If the present theory is right then likely the shadow will appear and disappear periodically with a period of about 20 min as we predicted in JCAP 10 (2007) 018. Observation of such oscillations will also provide evidence for dark matter axion with mass in meV range."

I know what the principle of equivalence is. That a force, acts the same as a force. Doesn't really tell me much on the nature of gravity.
Don't know what a Minkowski field is, but I assume it has something to do with a magnetic field because you said it is similar to electrodynamics.

You say the new theory is free of black holes. How then, do you explain the existence of black holes?

I know what a vector is. But I don't see how it applies or explains the actual phenomenon of gravity.
But you are using new improved HD equations to make better simulations and predictions of the universe. Good for you but I don't see how this actually explains how gravity works.
 
gamelord said:
Needs more clarification.

Firstly, any topic with 8 different links is going to be overwhelming to someone. Then the added bonus of the material being esoteric.
Then the added bonus of not really explaining much and just basically handing out the links and expecting us to figure it out ourselves.
I am sure there maybe someone here who could figure it out but that person is not me. And for reference, Einstein took 10 years to figure out Relativity, do not expect me to take 10 years (or even 10 hours) to try to figure out your post.
Click to expand...
I don't expect anything much from you, given a track record here that indicates lots of unfettered enthusiasm but very little useful background knowledge.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3155
Here's the link I read.
"We propose a new classical theory of gravity which is based on the principle of equivalence and assumption that gravity, similarly to electrodynamics, is described by a vector field in Minkowski space-time. We show that such assumptions yield a unique theory of gravity; it passes all available tests and free of singularities such as black holes. In the present theory, gravity is described by four equations which have, e.g., exact analytical solution for arbitrary static field. For cosmology our equations give essentially the same evolution of the Universe as general relativity. Predictions of our theory can be tested within next few years making more accurate measurement of the time delay of radar signal traveling near the Sun or by resolving the supermassive object at the center of our Galaxy with VLBA. If general relativity is correct we must see a steady shadow from a black hole at the Galactic center. If the present theory is right then likely the shadow will appear and disappear periodically with a period of about 20 min as we predicted in JCAP 10 (2007) 018. Observation of such oscillations will also provide evidence for dark matter axion with mass in meV range."

I know what the principle of equivalence is. That a force, acts the same as a force.
Click to expand...
Umm, no. There are three versions of EP, and the common theme is: In a small enough region (tidal effects negligible), gravity and uniform acceleration are indistinguishable. Einstein's elevators.
Doesn't really tell me much on the nature of gravity.
Don't know what a Minkowski field is, but I assume it has something to do with a magnetic field because you said it is similar to electrodynamics.
Click to expand...
More confusion, as expected. Minkowski metric is a flat spacetime consistent with SR, not a field as you imagined. Nothing to do with magnetic fields. There is an analogy between the vector gravity theory and EM, which is also a vector theory. But it's not a perfect analogy.
You say the new theory is free of black holes. How then, do you explain the existence of black holes?
Click to expand...
There is no actual conclusive evidence for BH's, whose distinguishing feature is an event horizon. Despite articles that assume too much and keep claiming 'proof' for BH's exists. It doesn't.
I know what a vector is. But I don't see how it applies or explains the actual phenomenon of gravity.
Click to expand...
So read the actual articles. If you can't make sense of them, recognize that experts in the subject can.
But you are using new improved HD equations to make better simulations and predictions of the universe. Good for you but I don't see how this actually explains how gravity works.
Click to expand...
?????? No I'm not using 'new improved HD equations' whatever they are, for anything!
 
Umm, no. There are three versions of EP, and the common theme is: In a small enough region (tidal effects negligible), gravity and uniform acceleration are indistinguishable. Einstein's elevators.
Click to expand...
Don't know what einstein's elevators are, but I do not see EP as any kind of revolutionary stuff. It seemed obvious to me that gravity was indistinguishable from uniform acceleration. Newton probably already knew this, but never bothered to state it because it seemed so obvious already.



There is no actual conclusive evidence for BH's, whose distinguishing feature is an event horizon. Despite articles that assume too much and keep claiming 'proof' for BH's exists. It doesn't.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Modern science does seem to hold experimental results in little regard these days, and often likes to jump to conclusions in a fake-news/religious style.

So read the actual articles. If you can't make sense of them, recognize that experts in the subject can.
Click to expand...
That argument is a half-fallacy. A half-fallacy is an argument that is not a full fallacy because a full fallacy can be flawed. You cannot ever fully disprove a half-fallacy.
So yeah, maybe you are right, maybe the articles are correct and the experts know what they are doing. Or maybe they don't. You are asking us to have faith in the experts.
The scientific method is, providing stuff that can be proven and tested by others.
If you can't let us test it ourselves at least you can explain to us what the articles actually mean.
Einstein said if you can't explain it to your grandma, you don't full understand it. I found this to be true, when explaining certain math and computer concepts to my mother, during the earlier years I found it hard to speak and kept tripping up on sentences. Like I had this subconscious understanding, and I got the stuff to work on my own, but I couldn't fully explain it to others. But I made it a habit and now I can fully explain it to her, and now I feel smarter as a result and the concepts are more clear to me as well.

?????? No I'm not using 'new improved HD equations' whatever they are, for anything!
Click to expand...
If you aren't using them for anything then what purpose do they serve?
 
gamelord said:
Don't know what einstein's elevators are, but I do not see EP as any kind of revolutionary stuff. It seemed obvious to me that gravity was indistinguishable from uniform acceleration. Newton probably already knew this, but never bothered to state it because it seemed so obvious already.
Click to expand...
Sure conceptually simple but it's universality inspired Einstein to see gravity as purely curved spacetime not a force like in EM. That view became so enshrined it was considered impossible to formulate a viable theory of gravity such as Svidzinsky's vector theory. He has proved them wrong.
That argument is a half-fallacy. A half-fallacy is an argument that is not a full fallacy because a full fallacy can be flawed. You cannot ever fully disprove a half-fallacy.
So yeah, maybe you are right, maybe the articles are correct and the experts know what they are doing. Or maybe they don't. You are asking us to have faith in the experts.
Click to expand...
No I simply stated experts in the subject understand the theories structure and claims. Nothing there about endorsement.
The scientific method is, providing stuff that can be proven and tested by others.
If you can't let us test it ourselves at least you can explain to us what the articles actually mean.
Einstein said if you can't explain it to your grandma, you don't full understand it. I found this to be true, when explaining certain math and computer concepts to my mother, during the earlier years I found it hard to speak and kept tripping up on sentences. Like I had this subconscious understanding, and I got the stuff to work on my own, but I couldn't fully explain it to others. But I made it a habit and now I can fully explain it to her, and now I feel smarter as a result and the concepts are more clear to me as well.
Click to expand...
Try a read of section 14, then 17, in arXiv pdf obtainable here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07058
That should give you a feel for the main differences between GR type theories and the vector theory.
If you aren't using them for anything then what purpose do they serve?
Click to expand...
Don't even bother to explain where 'improved HD equations' came from, or what HD actually means, or where you got the idea I somehow was 'using them'.
 
Svidzinsky's latest arXiv paper: Simplified equations for gravitational field in the vector theory of gravity and new insights into dark energy
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.07541

Evidently his 'new insights' re 'DE', basically amounts to saying that accelerated expansion is an artifact of incorrect earlier assumptions by himself and others, and in fact deceleration, with a 'dynamically effective lambda = 0' is really what's occurring.

He co-authored v1 of an article - https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520 - first published in April 2018 correcting and in fact decisively inverting earlier claims LIGO/Virgo GW data confirmed GR and ruled out rival theories.
Since then, no published refutation to that very much pro Vector Theory of Gravity GW reanalysis has surfaced. Strongly suggesting his reanalysis is right and GR is on borrowed time.

Annoyingly we will have to wait till ~ Jan-Feb 2019 for LIGO-Virgo-GEO to begin a new ~ year long run:
https://ligonews.blogspot.com/2018/09/update-on-ligo-detectors-and-start-of-o3.html
Then likely some months more into 2019 before new GW data, particularly accurately locatable NS-NS merger events, will likely confirm what the currently sole NS-NS merger GW event implies.

Similarly, EHT data collation and analysis just keeps dragging on and not until sometime in 2019 before initial verdict re Sagittarius A* 'SMBH' is published:
https://eventhorizontelescope.org/faq
And so GR's lengthy stay as incumbent stretches on a while longer.
 
sweetpea said:
I did wonder why you never mentioned this one.

www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/
Click to expand...
To answer your 'I wondered why' in two parts:
1: I don't constantly scan for new articles across the full spectrum. And so missed that NS article. Thanks to your totally objectively motivated diligence, am now aware.
2: Far be it for me to suggest NS, as a paid-for subscription rag, has to resort to sensationalism to 'keep relevant' and avoid folding! Still, it should be pointed out the Jackson team's criticism, as acknowledged in that article, is far from new news and was in fact originally raised, and apparently convincingly rebutted, quite some time ago.

If it turns out LIGO et al have been dishonest all along, well that is indeed big news and puts in doubt both GR and Svidzinsky's critique of GR re GW results.
However Vector gravity has a raft of other inherent features that still make it a better choice than GR. Naturally explaining BB inflation and 2/3 fraction 'DE' component etc.

Now suppose Jackson et al team's criticisms are born out. It would imply LIGO et al have been purposefully deceitful. Given their past claims to have thoroughly refuted Jackson et al criticisms, via fully disclosed data and meticulous methodology(s). That in turn implies a conspiracy to deceive. Which we are obliged to theorize about since expecting a full confession of guilt is contrary to human nature and unavoidable ideological etc. biases. Are you happy to endorse, shudder shudder, a conspiracy theory here? Gawd - what an awful and thoroughly un-PC thought!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top