Don,

I have to correct my previous post. Your theory does not just go beyond the Standard Model, but out of it, because you don't consider the graviton as a boson!

I apologize for the inaccuracy,

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

    Hi Jeff,

    I considered whether my essay was on topic. I believe it fit the topic.

    1. If you were a language purist then this contest would be answered by a dictionary(s). I do not believe this is what was intended.

    2. Your criticism states: "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."

    I just took a look at your essay:

    It is interesting that you start off with a definition: One way of defining "fundamental" is as something that is not dependent on anything else. Then you go off evaluating examples of what is or is not fundamental. I will use your logic on your own essay: One sentence explains what fundamental means. All the rest of the essay is off topic.

    So, by your own logic you would flunk your own essay. I am glad you cannot grade your own essay, I think it has some merit in that I agree with the conclusion "Perhaps that true fundamental, that end of questions, is only of value as an inspiration."

    All the best,

    Don Limuti

    "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

    15 days later

    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

    Write a Reply...