Science topic

# Quantum Gravity - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Quantum Gravity, and find Quantum Gravity experts.

Questions related to Quantum Gravity

The introduction to the discussion is the 16:58 minute video of Sabine Hossenfelder. In my opinion Sabine Hossenfelder is one of the physicists who shows an outstanding insight in modern theoretical physics. Her videos at Youtube.com are well argued, founded and understandable for every theoretical physicist. So I hope that every RG member who wants to participate in the discussion about the Big-Bang hypothesis will try to communicate at the same level as Sabine Hossenfelder (I cross my fingers).

With kind regards, Sydney

One of the alleged difficulties of producing a so-called quantum gravity theory is due to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

To probe ever tinier distances, we need ever greater energies. The problem is that if you concentrate too much mass/energy in a tiny space, the gravity of such a space becomes so huge that tiny black holes form, making the measurement impossible. Even though that assumes GR holds in the microscopic realm.

This is my question. How do we know that a high energy allocated to a tiny subatomic region of space would create a tiny black hole, since we don't have any

**proven UV-complete theory of quantum gravity**to begin with?How do scientists know that a high energy concentration in a tiny space would lead to a tiny black hole?

**Here's a precise description of this issue:**

A rigid body with vertical proper length J rises along the Y direction in an inertial frame S(T,X,Y) with constant proper acceleration, therefore me may write the equation of hyperbolic motion of the body along the Y direction as:

1) J

^{2 }= Y^{2}- c^{2}T^{2}Using Born´s definition of rigidity, the proper length “J” must be invariant under Lorentz transformations between instant commoving inertial frames where the proper length (squared) J

^{2 }coincides with the line element (squared) along the Y direction: Y^{2}- c^{2}T^{2}. It is straightforward to see that this is the case just for boosts along the Y direction. If the velocity of the body and its inertial commoving frames have an aditional constant component along the X direction, the line element is different, the vertical length J cannot be invariant in the inertial comoving frames and we get a violation of Born´s rigidity.Consider two particles A and B in translation with uniformly accelerated vertical motion in a frame S (X,Y,T) such that the segment AB with length L remains always parallel to the horizontal axis X (X

_{A}= 0, X_{B}= L). If we assume that the acceleration vector (0, E) is constant and we take the height of both particles to be defined by the expressions Y_{A}= Y_{B}= 0.5 ET^{2}, we have that the vertical distance between A and B in S is always (see fig. in PR - 2.pdf):1) Y

_{B}- Y_{A}= 0If S moves with constant velocity (v, 0) with respect to another reference s(x,y,t) whose origin coincides with the origin of S at t = T = 0, inserting the Lorentz transformation for A (Y = y, T = g(t - vx

_{A}/c^{2}), xA = vt) into Y_{A}= 0.5 ET^{2}and the Lorentz transformation for B (Y = y, T = g(t - vx_{B}/c^{2}), x_{B}= vt + L/g) into Y_{B}= 0.5 ET^{2}we get that the vertical distance between A and B in s(x,y,t) is:2) y

_{B}- y_{A}= 0.5 E (L^{2}v^{2}/c^{4}- 2Lvt/c^{2}g)which shows us that, at each instant of time "t" the distance y

_{B}- y_{A}is different despite being always constant in S (eq.1). As we know that the classical definition of translational motion of two particles is only possible if the distance between them remains constant, we conclude that in s the two particles cannot be in translational motion despite being in translational motion in S.More information in:

I worked for months on writing this paper, but it's been rejected twice. It gives an alternative explanation to the expansion of the universe and gives a hint to quantum gravity, but there is no mathematics to back this idea, although it only needs some basic knowledge to understand. I've also given testable perditions to prove my point. Should I make it public or keep sending it to journals?

I've attached abstract and Introduction of my paper.

1) Can the existence of an aether be compatible with local Lorentz invariance?

2) Can classical rigid bodies in translation be studied in this framework?

By changing the synchronization condition of the clocks of inertial frames, the answer to 1) and 2) seems to be affirmative. This synchronization clearly violates global Lorentz symmetry but it preserves Lorenzt symmetry in the vecinity of each point of the flat spacetime.

Christian Corda showed in 2019 that this effect of clock synchronization is a necessary condition to explain the Mössbauer rotor experiment (Honorable Mention at the Gravity Research Foundation 2018).

---------------

We may consider the time of a clock placed at an arbitrary coordinate x to be t and the time of a clock placed at an arbitrary coordinate x

_{P}to be t_{P}. Let the offset (t – t_{P}) between the two clocks be:1) (t – t

_{P}) = v (x - x_{P})/c^{2}where (t-t

_{P}) is the so-called Sagnac correction. If we call g to the Lorentz factor for v and we insert 1) into the time-like component of the Lorentz transformation T = g (t - vx/c^{2}) we get:2) T = g (t

_{P}- vx_{P}/c^{2})On the other hand, if we assume that the origins coincide x = X = 0 at time t

_{P}= 0 we may write down the space-like component of the Lorentz transformation as:3) X = g(x - vt

_{P})Assuming that both clocks are placed at the same point x = x

_{P , }inserting x =x_{P}, X = X_{P ,}T = T_{P }into 2)3) yields:4) X

_{P}= g (x_{P}- vt_{P})5) T

_{P}= g (t_{P}- vx_{P}/c^{2})which is the local Lorentz transformation for an event happening at point P. On the other hand , if the distance between x and x

_{P}is different from 0 and x_{P}is placed at the origin of coordinates, we may insert x_{P}= 0 into 2)3) to get:6) X = g (x - vt

_{P})7) T = g t

_{P}which is a change of coordinates that it:

- Is compatible with GPS simultaneity.

- Is compatible with the Sagnac effect. This effect can be explained in a very straightfordward manner without the need of using GR or the Langevin coordinates.

- Is compatible with the existence of relativistic extended rigid bodies in translation using the classical definition of rigidity instead of the Born´s definition.

- Can be applied to solve the 2 problems of the preprint below.

- Is compatible with all experimenat corroborations of SR: aberration of light, Ives -Stilwell experiment, Hafele-Keating experiment, ...

Thus, we may conclude that, considering the synchronization condition 1):

a) We get Lorentz invariance at each point of flat space-time (eqs. 4-5) when we use a unique single clock.

b) The Lorentz invariance is broken out when we use two clocks to measure time intervals for long displacements (eqs. 6-7).

c) We need to consider the frame with respect to which we must define the velocity v of the synchronization condition (eq 1). This frame has v = 0 and it plays the role of an absolute preferred frame.

a)b)c) suggest that the Thomas precession is a local effect that cannot manifest for long displacements.

More information in:

Please, see the attached file RPVM.pdf. Any comment will be wellcome.

More on this subject at:

You can find the wording in the attached file PR1-v3.pdf. Any comment will be wellcome.

More on this topic at:

If you have an object and you drop it from a high altitude (that is, its velocity is zero, then it accelerates.) and I lower it one second later at zero speed, that object will accelerate at 9.80 m/s per second.” DEAR WALTER LEWIN

Accordingly, what can be said about gravity? GET A ZERO M/S SPEED BALL DROPPED FROM A HEIGHT OF 100 METERS. So what can we take from here? From here we deduce:

Gravity is caused by acceleration. Gravity is equal to accelerated motion, and we can deduce it from here. Because the speed of the matter, the ball, has increased and decreased by one. and so gravity was formed. a=g thanks.

There is a good book of C.Rovelli, "Quantum gravity", where this old issue is very well discussed. Namely, do we have treat the metric as characteristic of real space-time manifold or as pure gravity field which fills the big nothing. Let's assume that the second is true, the metric is a gravity field and consider any vacuum solution of Einstein equations. It must be a source for the metric in this case as well, there is no matter, therefore the simplest conclusion is that the vacuum field has it's own energy, at least locally, which we can call as a positive or negative.

So, as it seems, in this interpretation of the metric, it must be some kind of cosmological constant simply by definition of the what the field is. An another consequence is about the energy conservation. If we have a vacuum with some energy, how it was created and where from the energy did come? Again, the simplest explanation is that initially we had two vacuum states with different signs of the energies equal zero overall, which somehow have been splitted and separated.

Of course this is an issue about how the matter is arising, we can also speculate that the matter is first and the geometry is second and that there is no pure vacuum solutions without matter present. Of course, is it seems, the questions about the energy and entropy of the initial state will remain in this case as well.

at large scale, do earth goes around sun or particles of the earth goes around the particles of the sun?

i am proposing new theory which says;

*the Gravitational force in between two objects depends on the most probable distance in between them.....*Preprint THEORY OF MOST PROBABLE DISTANCE

my dear unique scholars welcome to your valuable feedback, answers, comments....

thank you

I would like to do work on quantum gravity. But general relativity is not complete. So if i want to do work on GRT. I am beginner for this course. GRT fails in few aspects. Any one suggest me research papers. Please send me your answers.

At Planck scale, the physical gluon acquires third degree of freedom in the form of scaler potential when the unphysical ghost particle effect disappears at Gribov horizon. Now, relativity demands Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction of Planck scale at light speed of gluon. But that would mean sudden demise of quantum theory. In order to unite relativity with quantum theory, the physical gluon speed instead reduces to zero in any inertial frame and accordingly exhibits mass gap property. For more details, please refer to my preprint http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25092.65926

A complete and provable theory on Quantum gravity has not been is achieved so far. Some approachs suggest that space-time is quantized at a very small scale. It is really quantized space-time? What's the scale? Can this scale be explored experimentally?

What is the symmetry group of the configuration space of scale factors of pseudo-Riemannian, symmetric metrics on a three-dimensional manifold?

Is it possible to formulate the Ricci-flow as the Euler-Lagrange equations of some system? What would be the corresponding action functional?

As stated in a robotics lesson, "the time variable t varies from 0 to 1, that is, 0 ≤ t ≤ 1". Therefore, this discussion’s logic states that 0 may be equal to 1 (division by 1 is accepted, so why isn't division by 0?) Since time is permanently united with space in physics, 0=1 in space-time too. This is consistent with a proposed future theory of physics called Quantum Gravity; where Quantum Mechanics is united with General Relativity, Einstein's theory of gravity. A possible path to attainment of quantum gravity is realizing that all objects and events on Earth and in space-time are just one thing - like 0 equalling 1, and like the objects in a computer image seeming to be a lot of separate objects but really just being one thing (strings of binary digits). A spacecraft sitting on its launchpad can be assigned t=0, and its destination t=1. Since 0=1, reaching the destination takes the same time as reaching the launchpad from the craft’s position on the launchpad (travel is instant). Robot motion can also be instant and not require interpolation, which is making the end of a robot arm move smoothly from A to B through a series of intermediate points. Of course, this is nonsense if viewed from CLASSICAL mechanics. We need a mindset immersed in QUANTUM mechanics which has been extended to macroscopic entanglement.

Quantum information theory suggests out of probabilistic information we only get definate information, if so then anything around is should also be definate due to the classical gravity iff quantum gravity influence quantum measurement.

I would like to know what you think of this theory

I am stuck between

**Quantum mechanics**and**General relativity**. The mind consuming scientific humor ranging from continuous and deterministic to probabilistic seems with no end. I would appreciate anyone for the words which can help me understand at least a bit, with relevance.Thank you,

Regards,

Ayaz

I think the chaos applies to all theory because chaos existed in classical physics itself so the chaos should exists in quantum and relativity

I wish, I could be agree with is paper or the book. As we know, the building block of universe is quantum mechanics remark. in addition we know atoms are very organized entity, and that should not be a theory. I call an atom intelligent element, and any intelligent element is following nature of that specific environment, which they are temperature, pressure. Therefore, an atom is made of very large number of Intelligent Quantum mechanics Constituent Elementary Particles.

It is known that Higgs mechanism is right but the theory does not fully explain mass and gravitation (see for instance http://www.higgs-boson.org/).

In the meantime, there is a rather old paper by M. Consoli where he tries to make connection between Newtonian gravity and Higgs condensate (Url: http://cds.cern.ch/record/404050/files/9910372.pdf).

Another paper by Paul S. Wesson suggests a connection between scalar field 5D gravity and the Higgs field of particle physics. See http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.2476.pdf.

For more recent reference, see for example Dejan Stojkovic (http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6960) who discusses implications of the Higgs discovery for gravity and cosmology. The abstract goes as follows: "The discovery of the Higgs boson is one of the greatest discoveries in this century. The standard model is finally complete. Apart from its significance in particle physics, this discovery has profound implications for gravity and cosmology in particular. Many perturbative quantum gravity interactions involving scalars are not suppressed by powers of Planck mass. Since gravity couples anything with mass to anything with mass, then Higgs must be strongly coupled to any other fundamental scalar in nature, even if the gauge couplings are absent in the original Lagrangian."

So do you think it is possible to explain gravitation from Higgs boson? If yes, then how? And are there experimental supports for it?

A metric at the most has 10 degrees of freedom. How do you show the same from the metric in Newmann-Penrose formalism?

There is a plenty of examples of classical solutions to low-energy effective theories that were proved to have vanishing α'-corrections to all orders and hence be also perturbatively exact string solutions in the literature, see e.g.

Since in all the literature I'm familiar with, the proof of α'-exactness of leading-order solutions relied heavily on the fact that the corresponding spacetime metric admits a covariantly constant null Killing vector, I'm currious if this is always the case.

**Is anyone aware of some paper which proves α'-exactness for leading-order solutions beyond those with spacetime backgrounds admitting a covariantly constant null Killing vector?**

(I'm aware of the fact there are also different approaches in finding exact string solutions that do not relly on proving α'-exactness of leading-order solutions and hence may yield exact string backgrounds with no covariantly constant null Killing vectors but the present question is focused strictly on this approach.)

I am aware that Prof Subramanian Chandrasekar did considerable work on eqilibrium configuration of bodies (including rotating) under gravitational potential. Has this / Could this been applied to the Strong Nuclear Force which is also attractive though of a different form (and scale) and the attractive EM force (possibly repulsion could be handled by symmetry ??) ? Could this have connections to Quantum Gravity / Solitons / Self-focusing under a combination of forces etc ?

It is sometimes good to examine the progress in science, even for the most passionate topics such as quantum gravity

This paper of mine cites evidence of Gravity in works in the He-2-4 Geometric Model.

It has taken me 20 years of chase of Truth to understand these things and Gravity was one of the most complex topics. Equally complex was understanding the Strong Force. The work on He-2-4 took 2010 to 2017 of constant thinking of the problem after I hit this mysterious nucleus using simple arguments of symmetry of 3 Fields: Electric, Magnetic and Space (Ether) Fields.

He-2-4 is the most abundant, most stable, most symmetry and mother nucleus to the rest of nuclei, except H. It also explains why Noble gases are stable and why some nuclei are Radioactive.

We find the tell tale signs of Gravity through the gradient of mass-density observed in the He-2-4 Geometric Model that enabled us to calculate its mass accurately in 2 different ways using the Energy Partition Theorem and Equivalence of Energy Principle. The model satisfies Quark and QCD models and uses the same QCD quanta unit which Yukawa derived. It also satisfies the Nature's CCP Packing, Thomas Problem of distributing charges, and Vector Equilibrium.

Einstein tired to construct EM force as an aspect of geometry.

while i am constructing a theory of quantum gravity i tried so many ways. EM force as an aspect of geometry is one of them.

i am requesting to unique scholars to discuss about this.

Working Paper E M force as geometry1

Greetings,

Completing Bachelors in Engineering this June'19, I thought I'd start with Masters/PhD in Gravitational Physics this fall but I received rejections from almost every graduate school I applied to. To where I received an offer from, I won't be able to pay off the tuition fees.

Of course I knew that to receive an offer, one needs to have some experience with the subject. With the engineering curriculum on one hand, I tried to manage my interests in gravity. From watching lecture videos by Frederic Schuller and Leonard Susskind to reading books by Sean Carrol and to even doing a summer research internship on black hole geometries, I tried to gain experience on the subject.

I wish to understand relativity from a mathematical point of view.

" A good course in more abstract algebra dealing with vector spaces, inner products/orthogonality, and that sort of thing is a must. To my knowledge this is normally taught in a second year linear algebra course and is typically kept out of first year courses. Obviously a course in differential equations is required and probably a course in partial differential equations is required as well.

The question is more about the mathematical aspect, I'd say having a course in analysis up to topological spaces is a huge plus. That way if you're curious about the more mathematical nature of manifolds, you could pick up a book like Lee and be off to the races. If you want to study anything at a level higher, say Wald, then a course in analysis including topological spaces is a must.

I'd also say a good course in classical differential geometry (2 and 3 dimensional things) is a good pre-req to build a geometrical idea of what is going on, albeit the methods used in those types of courses do not generalise. "

- Professor X

^I am looking for an opportunity to study all of this.

I would be grateful for any opportunity/guidance given.

Thanking you

PS: I really wanted to do Part III of the Mathematical Tripos from Cambridge University, but sadly my grades won't allow me to even apply :p

The classical limit of loop quantum gravity is Einstein-Cartan theory (EC), not general relativity (GR). I would like to know whether the other main approach to quantum gravity - string theory - also has as its classical limit EC, with torsion and the spin-torsion field equation. Or is its classical limit GR or something else?

At the April APS meeting:

(a) I attended a presentation on a loop quantum gravity model of the origin of cosmic inflation. I asked the researcher what quantization contributes to the model, compared to just using classical EC (which causes inflation-like expansion). The presenter thought the classical limit of loop quantum gravity is GR.

(b) A researcher at a major university told me that the Hamiltonian and other mathematical properties of EC as so much superior to those of GR that they do all their theoretical research based on EC and not GR.

Is EC quietly displacing GR as the foundation of quantum gravity research, and do some of the researchers not recognize this is happening?

can anybody explain what is erik verlinde's emergent gravity in a layman words rather than giving links?

The topological abroach on the space-time dimension and also the differential geometry of the transitor and also quantum gravity as the new approach in unifying all force of nature into one equation that really describe the vibrating string of the quantum mechanics...THIS THE APPROACH WHICH MIGHT CHANGE THE SCIENCE OF OUR CENTURY PEOPLE!!!

**On dark matter, dark energy and the Chinese Go model of cosmos evolution**

**Abstract**

In addition to the known universal gravitation，electromagnetic interaction，strong interaction and weak interaction，there are three basic interactions in nature，and there are three kinds of mediated mesons，one of which forms dark matter together with neutrinos，and the other two kinds of mediated mesons forms dark energy together with photons，which are based on this basis，This paper describes the Chinese Go model of cosmos evolution。

**Keywords**

Special relativity；dark matter； dark energy； cosmos evolution； Chinese Go； general relativity；Supermassive black hole；Sight； gravitational wave；Cosmological constant

***************************************************************

**8. Discussion**

Anthropic Principle requires that the Medium quality black hole and the supermassive black hole explode in a way that does not release huge amounts of energy in the galaxy like a supernova explosion (stellar seed). The Chinese Go model of cosmos evolution requires that supermassive black holes cannot be universally born from the stellar mass black hole s and Medium quality black holes by the original way of annexing stellar matter, or just like the evolution of the origin of life,once a supermassive black hole is born in the original way in a galaxies with relatively few dark matter microphoton, it will spread to the universe through a process similar to the division and genetic variation of living cells. The universe is infinite. In a corner, through the violent collision between supermassive black holes, can or can not let a supermassive black hole core“cosmic egg”(a ascending generation transition shell, a Photino cavity, and a changesphoton cavity)appear big bang of metric tensor (analogous to inflationary theory of Alan Guth, numerical drastic change of Λ ), and so on.

From my research on Quantum Gravity, I have found out that there was many attempts to write the best theory by changing our interpretation of Quantum Physics. This change in interpretation has impact on our mathematics too, which is interpretation free.

In the history of physics, we had lots of interpretations those now we consider them wrong. In my view PMI is constructed on those kind of interpretations.

Is not the time to abandon interpretations of Quantum Physics for good?

In other words, if you project the ten-dimensional space of string theory onto a four-dimensional space-time, is the resulting space-time, which will have an uncertainty principle in the coordinates at the Planck scale, accurately represented by a spin foam?

Couldn't you create a quantum theory of gravity simply by using the energy-momentum tensor of QED or the Standard Model or whatever in Einstein's field equations without specifically or explicitly "quantizing the gravity 'field'"? Surely this has been tried. If so, what turned out to be the problem with it? Could you provide me with references to the literature (primary or secondary--I tend to do better with the secondary literature)?

Horava-Lifshitz gravity has proven to be a mathematically consistent framework for a quantum theory of gravity with several interesting applications, however, in the other hand, it has certain physical limitations (just like any other quantum gravity theory does). What are the perspectives of this theory?

What is meant by gravitational degrees of freedom?

"I thought about quantum mechanics a hundred times more than general relativity, but I still don't understand," Einstein said.

Perhaps the most difficult to understand is the wave-particle duality, which may be because the understanding of it is only in the form of mathematics.In fact, no one can actually verify the wave-particle duality, because the experiment can't verify a single photon.

Electrons orbiting the nucleus of the cycle and the volatility of the particles there are closely linked, we can think of chemical bonds between atoms and atomic are fluctuating, at a certain moment because electronic is only a position on the orbit, and from the time a constantly changing position, the this kind of change has the regularity.When two atoms of electrons near each other, two atoms repel each other, and when electrons in an atom near the nucleus of another atom when they will attract each other, so that can form regularity of volatility.

Inner surface cracks in the double-slit experiment of atom has been in a regular wave conditions, when the particle is trying to through the gap, when near the atom will be fluctuations in the perforated of atomic bomb, a reflection of photonic and electronic electromagnetic ejection in such a state of regular fluctuations, as the accumulation of time and the number of regular interference fringes are formed.The smaller the momentum of a particle is, the larger the Angle of the ejection is, the greater the spacing of the stripes, the longer the wavelength is.

Electronic counter near the double slit to observe, emitting a large number of photon hits the aperture inner surface of atoms, and makes the surface atomic wave interference, can be seen as inhibits such a state of regular wave, the particles will no longer through double slit by regular reflection and ejection, which in turn has emerged two bright stripe.

This is why increasing gap width will not cause interference and diffraction, because of the emitted particles and gap edge contact and collision probability becomes a matter of fact interference and diffraction and crack width, crack of fluctuations, particle momentum, launch position and the Angle of aperture.

**Hawking's Legacy**

Black hole thermodynamics and the Zeroth Law [1,2].

(a) black hole temperature:

**T**_{H}= hc^{3}/16π^{2}GkMThe LHS is intensive but the RHS is not intensive; therefore a violation of thermodynamics [1,2].

(b) black hole entropy:

**S = πkc**^{3}A/2hGThe LHS is extensive but the RHS is neither intensive nor extensive; therefore a violation of thermodynamics [1,2].

(c) Black holes do not exist [1-3].

Hawking leaves nothing of value to science.

**REFERENCES**

[1] Robitaille, P.-M., Hawking Radiation: A Violation of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics,

*American Physical Society*(ABSTRACT), March, 2018, http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/NES18/Session/D01.3[2] Robitaille, P.-M., Hawking Radiation: A Violation of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics,

*American Physical Society*(SLIDE PRESENTATION), March, 2018, http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0264v1.pdf[3] Crothers, S.J., A Critical Analysis of LIGO's Recent Detection of Gravitational Waves Caused by Merging Black Holes,

*Hadronic Journal*, n.3, Vol. 39, 2016, pp.271-302, http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0127v5.pdfIn the Quantum Mechanics, the origination and essence of the spin angular momentum remain a mystery. Recently some viewpoints are in the violent competition.

The first viewpoint deems that the spin angular momentum is intrinsic, and is a quantum property without detailed classical analogy [Copenhagen interpretation]. Of course, not everyone accepts the idea.

The second viewpoint argues that the spin angular momentum is not intrinsic, and is merely the property of wave-field [F. J. Belinfante, “On the spin angular momentum of mesons”, Physica, 6 (7-12) (1939) 887--898. H. C. Ohanian, “What is spin?” Am. J. Phys., 54 (6) (1986) 500--505.], which is independent of the internal structure of particle.

The third viewpoint considers some suppressed precessional motions as the spin motions. In the complex octonion space, the precessional equilibrium equation infers the angular velocity of precession. The external electromagnetic strength may induce a new precessional motion, generating a new term of angular momentum, even if the orbital angular momentum is zero. This new term of angular momentum can be regarded as the spin angular momentum, and its angular velocity of precession is different from that of revolution. [“Spin Angular Momentum of Proton Spin Puzzle in Complex Octonion Spaces”, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 14 (6) (2017) 1750102. “Two different types of precessional angular velocities in the complex-octonion space”, April, 2017]

Furthermore, there may be certain other viewpoints. Undeniably these different viewpoints violate the physical model of spin angular momentum. And these conundrums will intrigue and faze some scholars continually.

i developed concept related to Gravitational waves in which quantization of Gravitational wave can be done similar to light waves or EM waves...

energy of Gravitational waves comes in discrete packets called g-quanta....

E = If

where, I = constant similar to plancks constant.

f= frequency chirp of Gravitational waves.

welcome for your valuable comments...

Preprint THEORY OF MOST PROBABLE DISTANCE

**What is a theory of everything?**

“A Theory of Everything is literally a theory of everything, including the force of gravity (which is not described by the standard model or a GUT), and anything else in our universe that our current theories cannot explain. One of the main ingredients in a "theory of everything" is Quantum gravity, the unification of gravity (general relativity) with quantum mechanics (quantum field theory). We do not yet have a successful theory of quantum gravity. A GUT is also a necessary ingredient of a theory of everything, but only if a GUT exists”. [1]

**Solution the problems of GUT and a Theory of Everything:**

It may be thought that these two problems are separate of each other, but both problems; GUT and the Theory of Everything has a common root. Therefore, the solution of each of them includes another solution as well.

A. The solution of GUT: if we describe the mechanism of the virtual photons production (electromagnetic force carrier) by charged particles, then we will see that electromagnetic repulsive force in a very short distance, turns to the attractive force, then the GUT problem can be solved. In this way we will reach to unify the electromagnetism and gravity that is the Theory of Everything. [2]

B. The solution of the Theory of Everything: to get understand the Theory of Everything, we must re-define fundamental particles. In CPH Theory, mass/energy and the amount of speed of fundamental particle must be constant and not turn into other particles. While in the Standard Model, fundamental particles have variable mass and speed, so they are not fundamental particles. To find fundamental particle we must reconsider and analyzed the interaction between photon and the graviton. In this way the GUT problem can be solved, too. [3]

Both of the above methods have been given in CPH Theory.

1 - Barak Shoshany's answer to What are the Grand Unified Theory and the Theory of Everything, and what is the difference between them?

2 - Hossein Javadi’s answer to What principle can potentially substitute 4 fundamental forces in physics? Is it the principle of least action?

3 - Hossein Javadi’s answer to Are massless Dirac fermions, as discussed in the literature of graphene, identical to Weyl fermions? If yes, from where does the name of massless Dirac fermions come?

Quantum gravity could be probed by entangled masses

Two separate groups in the UK; have proposed experiments that may for the first time reveal a link between the theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

In CPH theory, the graviton identity is changed and the information is transmitted by exchange color-charge (graviton with the new identity).

**Connection between quantum gravity and entanglement**

**The Mechanism of Graviton Exchange between Bodies, Part II**

e

Quantum gravity could be probed by entangled masses

I have described the relationship between quantum gravity and quantum entanglement, before. See:

Connection between quantum gravity and entanglement

What is the possibility that I'll get a PhD job for research in String Theory and Particle Physics? I'm currently in my 3rd Year of Undergraduate Studies and have done research work in Photonics. Due to unavailability of faculty specialized in relativity, cosmology, particle physics etc., I chose to do research in Photonics. To manage my interests, I studied relativity, particle physics from online resources. What are the chances that I'll get a PhD job at institutes like Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Stanford, Kavli IPMU etc.?

I am investigating the thermodynamics of quantum gravity as part of my QG project. I want to find the quantisation energy of the intergalactic medium.

If on the way to quantum gravity there is some use in models simulating both the one-dimensional theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, why not consider the random walk model of a sailing boat along the surface of a torus. Could you share links on this topic?

Even though they say information is conserved, can information be biased at the first place?

Example:

Example 1:

Observer A and B saw a 10 *10 matrix. However, due to technique reason(for example, A was very short and B was tall enough) A could only say the last role, yet B was able to see all 10 rolls. Thus even the matrix was the same, A and B had different answers due to observation limits.

Example 2:

Observer A and B saw a 10 character string 0101010101. However, A use the binary system reading and got 341, B use decimal reading thus got 101010101. Thus even the character string was the same, A and B got different answers due to interpretation.

Example 3:

Observer A and B was in a massive gravitational field near a black hole, yet non of them was aware of the situation. B was close to an object and observed it as a cube, A was far away from the field and the object and observed it as an "oval". Thus even the object was the same, A and B got different answers.

e.t.c.

That was, even though the observer agreed on the result/measurement, or agreed on the observation of the outcomes; can the information they preserved being biased towards each other?

I have been working on a model of quantum gravity in which GR is formulated in the language of Quantum Mechanics .The latest version can be downloaded from the link below. Kindly peruse through to see if it meets the criteria of a self consistent theory.

In order to start going into the topic, let us consider two alternatives. If we think that the photon dies out when absorbed then there is not much to talk about. However, if we consider the second alternative, lets us point out that in loosing its energy it becomes unobservable since our senses as well as all our apparatus need an energy transfer to achieve any detection.

So, if photons do survive after being absorbed they thus became ghost photons, i.e. invisible. Evidently this is problematic. But let us not dismiss so fast.

Let us make an imperfect analogy between a photon and a spring. If the spring vibrates it has an oscillatory energy. If it transfers its oscillatory energy to an external material it looses its energy, but the spring is still alive, it has not disappeared. Well, if you see the photon as an oscillator then the analogy makes some sense.

Let us address now a still more controversial issue. Let us suppose that if the spring is not stressed it has no strain mass. But if it is vibrating it has then just energy without having mass, and this analogically applies to the photon.

Well, let now consider the case of a stressed spring that is vibrating. It has then mass and energy. Again, analogically this applies to massive elementary particles.

Why should we appeal to very complicated models and theories? Is it really worthy?

Those interested in this viewpoint and willing to go deeper into this issue may read the paper: “Space, this great unknown”, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301585930_Space_this_great_unknown

Article Space, this great unknown

What additional quantum number has the antiparticle that annihilate it? The sign of its Ricci scalar curvature in the non-Euclidean space-time?

Quantum gravity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluidity: Superfluidity is the characteristic property of a fluid with zero viscosity which therefore flows without loss of kinetic energy. When stirred, a superfluid forms cellular vortices that continue to rotate indefinitely. Superfluidity occurs in two isotopes of helium (helium-3 and helium-4) when they are liquified by cooling to cryogenic temperatures. It is also a property of various other exotic states of matter theorized to exist in astrophysics, high-energy physics, and theories of quantum gravity The phenomenon is related to Bose–Einstein condensation, but neither is a specific type of the other: not all Bose-Einstein condensates can be regarded as superfluids, and not all superfluids are Bose–Einstein condensates

we will try to write matrices whose obeys to some algebra to describe the graviton. is that is possible? if your answer is no, why ?

"Despite the great success of General Relativity in describing the physics of

the Solar System, there are still

**puzzles left**. When Albert Einstein introduced his theory of General Relativity in 1915 there were no measurements, which tested gravity on scales far beyond the distances of the Solar System.As General Relativity was able to solve several problems like the gravitational bending of light or the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, it was quite natural to accept it as the standard theory for gravity.

But nowadays there is data from far more distant objects, like other galaxies or galaxy clusters. On these distance scales there arise several problems. For example the measurement of rotational velocities of stars or gas in galaxies differs very strongly from the expectation.

Thus, it is only possible to fit this behavior by invoking some unknown Dark Matter,

which interacts with the baryonic matter only via gravity or via the weak force, but not electromagnetically or strongly."

The conformal theory of gravitation seem to address to these issue in a more satisfactory way

It is said of general relativity that it has been experimentally proven.

But what about experiments involving black holes and the recent LIGO experiments - do they really uphold GTR?

The group MG/r occurring in an equation indicates that action at a distance is being described. Newton realized that something unknown must be operating on a smaller scale, but had no tools to explore it. Einstein offered geometry of curvature which can be expressed locally. but G/c

^{2}remained invariant in General Relativity as shown in the integration of functions.Einstein offered a variable scalar light speed when gravity must be considered.

c/c

_{o}= ( 1 - 2MG/rc^{2})Suggesting

G/G

_{o}= ( 1 - 2MG/rc^{2})^{2}By applying equivalence principle for mechanical acceleration and making r very large

c/c

_{o}= ( 1 + v^{2}/c^{2})which is just a case of invariant h Planck's constant, but results in G/c

^{2}that decreases very slightly with increasing speed. Then one possibility of G is given,G/G

_{o}= ( 1 + v^{2}/c^{2})^{2}but this result is not in agreement with Vacuum Partition theory.

General relativity seems to be over constrained except in the low energy case.

Einstein's ( c/c

_{o}= ( 1 - 2MG/rc^{2}) ) is not exactly compatible with invariant (G/c^{2}).How Is Large Scale Gravity G Expressed In Local Properties Of Space?

If matter is Abelian(inertia), then it will point to energy since energy and matter are equivalent through equation E=Mc2...Theory of Relativity.

Consider the Goldstone model of a complex scalar field ΦΦ. It has U(1)U(1) global symmetry, so if we apply the transformation Φ→eiαΦΦ→eiαΦ the Lagrangian is left invariant

The metric tensor of general relativity reduces to the metric tensor of special relativity in the absence of gravity. Therefore, both possibilities may exists.

^{As we know the interactions of Higgs field gives mass to particles. Greater the interaction, greater will be the mass (or energy) possessed by particles. Any difference in energy or mass should naturally make differences to the gravitational interactions, although it will be very small as compared to other dominant forces at sub-atomic levels. }

Effective-theories characterized by a coupling strength that is

**not**dimensionless, include important examples in quantum-field theory , such as the four-Fermion theories, chiral-effective-theories in QCD, Nambu-Jona Lasinio(NJL)-type of models, Gravity..etc. Further, effective theories have assumed increased significance , primarily due to the fact that Nature has revealed the basic-structure of matter in layers of energy-scales. The primary reason, which excludes these effective theories from the domain of renormalization-programme ( and thereby, preventing meaningful comparison with experiments), is perhaps the non-applicability of power-series expansion in the coupling-strength of the conventional perturbation theory (CPT) to such cases. Recently, however, a radically different formulation of perturbation-theory has been proposed and tested in the context of quantum-mechanics, which gets rid of the power-series-expansion in the coupling strength altogether, thereby extending its domain of application for arbitrary values of the coupling-strength (cf. https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01510). Answer(s) to the above question assume importance in this changed perspective.

Observational data indicates that the cosmological constant has a positive value, resulting in a de Sitter spacetime. In loop quantum gravity, the IR divergences in the Ponzano-Regge model can be made to disappear through q-deforming SU(2) to SUq(2). The classical limit of this Turaev-Viro model is GR with positive cosmological constant.

On the other hand, anti de Sitter spacetime has a number of (potentially) desirable properties as well, for example the AdS/CFT correspondence. This correspondence is used in Light Front holographic QCD and seems to offer some insights into confinement as well as meson and hadron spectroscopy (arxiv:1407.8131). AdS also admits a positive energy operator making it more suitable for a particle interpretation. There has been some work (mostly by Flato and Fronsdal) describing photons and leptons as composites of singleton representations that live in an AdS spacetime.

Would it be possible and sensible to describe spacetime as being anti de Sitter at very small scales and de Sitter at cosmological scales? Perhaps this would be possible through a bi-metric model?

To me it seems that such a model would offer the best of both worlds (LQG without IR divergences, agreement with cosmological observations, AdS/CFT, singleton representations). I am just not sure if such a model would be possible and if it even makes sense to think along these lines. I would very much value any comments people may have.

Thanks in advance!

Einstein described gravity as equivalent to curves in space and time, but physicists have long searched for a theory of gravitons, its putative quantum-scale source. Physicists have searched for a theory of quantum gravity for 80 years. Though gravitons are individually too weak to detect, most physicists believe the particles roam the quantum realm in droves, and that their behavior somehow collectively gives rise to the macroscopic force of gravity, just as light is a macroscopic effect of particles called photons. But every proposed theory of how gravity particles might behave faces the same problem: upon close inspection, it doesn’t make mathematical sense. Calculations of graviton interactions might seem to work at first, but when physicists attempt to make them more exact, they yield gibberish — an answer of “infinity.” “This is the disease of quantized gravity,” Stelle said.

With regard to the exchange particles concept in the quantum electrodynamics theory and the existence of graviton, we will present a new definition of graviton. To define graviton, let’s consider a photon that is falling in the gravitational field, and revert back to the behavior of a photon in the gravitational field. But when we define the graviton relative to the photon, it is necessary to explain the properties and behavior of photon in the gravitational field. The fields around a "ray of light" are electromagnetic waves, not static fields. The electromagnetic field generated by a photon is much stronger than the associated gravitational field. When a photon is falling in the gravitational field, it goes from a low layer to a higher layer density of gravitons.

We should assume that the graviton is not a solid sphere without any considerable effect. Graviton carries gravity force, so it is absorbable by other gravitons; in general; gravitons absorb each other and combine. This new view on graviton shows, identities of graviton changes, in fact it has mass with changeable spin

Article What is CPH Theory?