I well come to discuss on recent trend in physics" A Postquantum Theory of Classical Gravity?" by Jonathan Oppenheim
“… I well come to discuss on recent trend in physics" A Postquantum Theory of Classical Gravity?…”
- this paper was notified about in phys. org article https://phys.org/news/2023-12-theory-einstein-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html. which notifies about two papers [in Physical Review X (2023) – that in quote above, and in Nature Communications (2023)].
So about what really is this theory see a couple of reDzennn comments [4 and 4 passages in option “Load comments” below the article] in the phys.org link above.
. Additionally only note that the reDzennn comments are well unpleasant for some people, who, of course, cannot object to comments scientifically, and so SS comments in the phys.org article above only have already 3 anonymous “dislikes”.
Cheers
The fundamental error is not understanding the significance of the singularity theorems of general relativity.
Classical gravity is defined by the statement that the symmetry group is that of diffeomorphisms; which is a non-compact gauge group. It is this property that implies that classical gravity is incomplete, therefore imposes the necessity for completing the description. Such a completion implies that classical gravity is the limit of a theory of quantum fluctuations of spacetime.
You have to have a deep look on constants of nature, and understand its integer geometric inter-constant depencencies before even thinking on building a (mathematical, and hence most likely zero/inifitiy poisend (!) driven) model of spacetime, let alone assume such could be 3D or 4D only.
iSpace theory, able to derive constants of nature from most simple first order multiplicative integer geometric first principles only can guide you to understand the required constraints of any such undertaking to create a reasonably sustainable model to be compatible to existing experimental and theoretical results (in part only!) but more so on so far mostly just ignored constants of nature an unit systems used (and its not at all well understood (SI) unit intrinsic side effects, like iSpace theoretically proven quantized time in in form of 1/6961 iSpaceSecond the case of iSpace-IQ unit system, able to be lossless and hence exactly convertible to fully MKSA/SI value compatible based iSpace-SI units, using Volt (V), Ampere (A), Meter (m) and Second (s) only.
Have a deep look on understanding the "simple" relations of and in-between constants of nature on the deepest logical, integer multiplicative (LEGO brick style!) entities everything in the area of constants of nature seems to be orginating from (geometrically, using and spacetime wise enforcing so called "changed distance definition" model forming a Pi3=3 or 6 cells around 1 cell based circle geometry):
Preprint Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants - Comparions of...
Method iSpace - Quick check of α and Φ0 from Markoulakis & Antonidakis
Article New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...
Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...
Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...
Conference Paper iSpace - Deriving G from α, e, R∞, μ0 and Quantum of Gravita...
Conference Paper iSpace - Exact Symbolic Equations for Important Physical Con...
and many more on my RG home in full (Mathematica code based exact form)
“…The fundamental error is not understanding the significance of the singularity theorems of general relativity. Classical gravity is defined by the statement that the symmetry group is that of diffeomorphisms; which is a non-compact gauge group….”, etc.
- Gravity is completely for sure is nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, which – at least with known now Weak, Electric, and Strong/Nuclear Forces makes Matter as it is;
- and all Forces make that absolutely objectively, without any relation what is written in what physical theories, only in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), which [the spacetime] fundamentally cannot be “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved”, “fluctuating”, etc. by anything in Matter.
Correspondingly, say, all other - and existent in mainstream physics – Forces act, and that is correct in mainstream theories, since that was/is never observed experimentally, without any “spacetime fluctuations” effects.
More about what really are at least Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear, Forces see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 Planck scale initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces
- and 2023 Planck scale of Nuclear Force in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force
- where, including, it is rigorously scientifically shown that at least 3 these Forces act by one scheme.
Cheers
Dear Hussainsha Syed the fact is, the nature of our universe with billions of galaxies, where each galaxy holds billions of solar system cannot mechanically, or describe with our mathematic evaluation.
Reading this article might help you.. and your feedback will be appreciated.
Article The Mythos of Gravity Or (Newtonian and Einsteinian Gravity is a Myth)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics