The Thing That Is Space-Time by Don Limuti

Dear Don Limuti,

For conceptual views on space-time and Dark Matter, please read: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf

Quantum Mechanics claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145

Kamal Rajpal

Hi Don,

I read your wonderful essay with great interest. You give deep ideas and make important conclusions aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. To "grasp" the original structure of the Cosmos today, it is necessary to maximally support competitive ideas, primarily in cosmology . Thanks to the FQXi for supporting the competition of fundamental ideas..

Pavel Florensky made a good conclusion, which is topical for physicists and mathematicians: "Мы повторяем: миропонимание -- пространствопонимание./ We repeat: world understanding is spaceunderstanding." ... Physicists and poets should have a single picture of the Universum as an holistic generating process, filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E. Husserl).

Best wishes!

Vladimir

Don,

Great job, again. Fundamental and well written. I'm always interested in your excellent ideas and explanations.

You Penrose and still share rejection of the BB. (You may recall my cyclic model published in 2013, similar to 'Conformal' but overcoming the issues Roger accepted with that).

If you don't like QM I this year finally have an option; a classical mechanism fully reproducing it's predictions, rather complex but easy as it's logical and sequential, from a starting assumption off OAM, so different to 'singlet' states.

(unfortunately few read carefully enough to form it in their minds, and dogma will defeat it, but Declan Traill's short essay & plot confirms it works!

May I ask, can we refer more to 'current physics theory' than 'nature itself' in saying; 'completeness is not one of its properties'? If so I heartily agree.

Well done.

Peter

Hi Don

Thanks for posting on my blog or I would have missed your essay. We are on the same wavelength as far as gravitons, and I really like your Quantum-Newtonian deductions. And LLF, LOL!

I expect that the lowest graviton energy would be Hh/2, which is related to the energy, Hh, lost from a photon each cycle in the tired light scenario. If that is true, then an expanding universe ought to be ruled out, as I argued in my essay. However, it is merely a quibble whether associated terms such as dark energy are appropriate.

Incidentally, there is apparently a theoretical limit to the temperature which can be attained by a solar concentrator, and that limit is the temperature of the radiation from the Sun. I would guess that gravitons have a temperature similar to photons given by kT=hf, where k is Boltzmann and hf is photon energy. The graviton temperature would be quite low corresponding to its low frequency, and should not raise the temperature of matter when it interacts, if this reasoning is valid.

Cheers,

Colin

Dear Don,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding.

Understanding, respect and your advices are highly valued.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

General relativity represent gravitation as curved spacetime. But it is possible to formulate theories of gravity without any spacetime curvature. This fact shows that spacetime doesn't really has such properties.

In fact, spacetime per se doesn't exist. It is merely a mathematical construct build over the extensions of the real particle positions.

Quantum mechanics is needed when Newtonian interaction is introduced in a quantum description.

"The key postulate is that mass curves space-time". No really, massless particles can curve spacetime as well because the source of curvature in GR is Tab, not m alone.

The same argument that gives photons a zero mass also gives zero mass to gravitons.

Why would one assume all photons have the same wavelength?

"E = Nhc/d" isn't correct because Newtonian gravitational energy is negative.

Also graviton model cannot be "fit" into Newton theory. Gravitons are quanta for contact-action model of interactions. Newton theory is action-at-a-distance. Graviton model can be fit into a field theory of gravity.

Gravitons associated to the scalar potential are virtual.

For rotating masses we have to include velocity-dependent potentials. Multiplying by 2pi a scalar potential doesn't give the gravitational energy of rotating masses.

The energy of a graviton is not E=mc2. Besides the graviton being massless and energy of massless particles being given by E=|p|c; this is a special relativistic expression lacking the corrections due to gravity.

Dark matter and dark energy couldn't be more different. One is a fictitious distribution of mass measuring 'inertial' corrections to the 1/r law. The other corresponds to a matter-gravitation interaction term is lacking in Tab in the metrics equations of GR.

Vulcan was introduced as hypothesis to explain the discrepancies between Mercury orbit and the predictions made by Newtonian gravity. We know today that Vulcan doesn't exist and that the discrepancies are due to relativistic effects not considered by Newtonian gravity.

Does "05.3" mean 5.3? Or is it a typo and means 0.53?

The discrepancy between perihelion shift of Mercury and GR prediction is of 0.1%. Table in page 5 doesn't represent this.

"Thus we do not call the effect the curving of light but the curving of Space-Time." Light bends both in the geometrical picture of GR and in the non-geometrical picture. See attachments.

"By increasing the density of gravitons we can create a black hole." No really, the gravitons generate a pressure that prohibits the collapse into a singularity.Attachment #1: 1_curvedspacetime.gifAttachment #2: 1_flatspacetime.gif

Don,

Thanks for your comments on mine. I see your score has slipped, probably the 1's issue I've also had! Mine should boost it back up. Well done for yours. I really did like; "completeness is not one of its properties". I think teaching year in year out causes most academics to forget or ignore that.

Best

Peter

Thanks for your kind comments Don.

I checked out your website and it is fantastic! A great source of many ideas contrasted to each other in the ways worth caring about.

Best,

Jack

Dear Don,

Your interesting essay offers new ideas on the nature of gravity and dark matter and deserves high estimation

With the best regards

M.Yu.Khlopov

Hi Don,

your essay is dense and well written. It's also nice on a graphic level, which does not hurt :)

It deals with very complex problems and hypothesizes the existence of gravitons, which, as we know, is considered by many to be essential, if one wants to include gravity within the Standard Model, but it is very difficult to prove. Your theory goes further and considers gravitons not only as carriers of a fundamental force, but as "bilding blocks" of space-time.

I don't have sufficient skills to evaluate your theory in depth, but it seems to me that it is meditated and coherent. I hope you have the opportunity to support it and make it known as much as possible.

Last, but not least, I can only share your "parting thought":

"Physics is amazing, but I believe that completeness is not one of its

properties. And it keeps on getting better."

All the best,

Giovanni

Don,

I am doing some "speed" reviewing. This is well-written and presented nicely. Many years ago I had a course were for homework we did a matrix for gravitons, it take me two days and never made sense to me, but I got a "B" for the course. I do feel this essay is a little off topic because it presents a case for a fundamental, but is not about what a fundamental is.

All the best,

Jeff Schmitz

"Historically we have thought of Space-Time as a void (nothing) within which the stars exist and which we live our lives." No exactly. In relational theories there is not such void.

"This changed about 100 years ago when Einstein argued successfully that Space-Time had the property of being curved. All of a sudden

Space-Time became a thing that had properties." It is possible to formulate gravity without spacetime curvature, which implies spacetime doesn't really has such properties.

"The key postulate is that mass curves space-time". That is not a postulate of GR. Curvature is generated by Tab, not by m alone.

The same argument that shows that photons are massless also shows that gravitons are massless. Equations proposed in this essay "for the mass of a single graviton" are incorrect.

There is no reason to assume that all photons have the same energy.

"We now have the total gravitational quantum energy connecting two objects as E = Nhc/d". Gravitational energy is negative, so this expression is invalid.

The energy of a system of rotating masses is not obtained by dividing by 2pi the energy of non-rotating systems. For moving masses the interaction energy also depends on the velocities, not only on positions.

Dark matter and dark energy couldn't be more different. The first is a fictitious distribution of mass introduced in equations that are lacking a proper treatment of inertia. The other is a correction term that accounts for a mass-graviton interaction term is missing in the right hand side of the metric equations.

Vulcan was introduced to account for dynamical terms missing in Newtonian gravity. Vulcan is no more needed. Of course it doesn't exist.

Table in page 5 doesn't show that the GR prediction deviates from the observed value by 0.1%.

"By increasing the density of gravitons we can create a black hole". No really, the graviton field generates a pressure that prohibits a collapse a la GR. No singularity is formed; so no horizon is formed.

Dear Don Limuti,

Your essay seems very interesting to me. I wish success in the contest.

Best wishes,

Robert Sadykov

Don Limuti

Thanks for interesting discussions. If you see this you may be interested in my latest blog post at:

blog

Best regards from ______________ John-Erik Persson