The whole literature with 'quantum' has not to be taken seriously as a remedy of all problems just for one reason:

• The eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator are real numbers and can be assigned to the expected results of measurement

But not all processes in Nature obey a linear mapping procedure, so whatever is related to 'quantum' actually slightly accept the dominance of Linear Algebra - too good to be true.

@ Demetres, you are right that not any measurable can be expressed completely in real numbers. Evenmore, none measurement can represent completely a physical phenomenon because it (phenomenon) is consisted by parts that are extrinsic to the "physical sciences", as we have arbitrary defined them (eg there is an entanglement/connection between any interacting entity, that is out of consideration by any existing theory).

@ Sydney, even the action of "measurement" is out any theoretical consideration (eg "observer" and "observed" differ between before and after the measurement action). So, how could we extract trustable results from an undefinable procedure? All quoted words are " incomplete concepts ".

Dear Sydney (what is this? Australian mascot? :))

Please read a seemingly easy old work here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262817990

You have to understood the Linear Algebra dominance in our scientific world:

• all Calculus is essentially a linear process
• all QM is just linear operators of special form
• the same is true for relativity theories, look Christoffel symbols for example

We have all stuck to Plato's linear mapping, but, even I am Greek, I realize that that such a mapping cannot be the whole of the truth, see:

Article A new cosmological paradigm: universal locality

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

"... mechanism behind the free fall at the level of the microcosm ..."

In the context of "hypotron theory" (HT) of elem. particles

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Hypotron-Theory

such a mechanism exists.

HT is a "quark-like" particle model for hadrons as well as leptons and "force-mediating" particle-like objects. HT is able to reflect some parts of the Gell-Mann quark model for hadrons, and to "explain", for example, why proton & antiproton and electron & positron are the only stable particles with charge +1/-1, and under which conditions a nucleus is stable, and why there is no anti-symmetry between matter and anti-matter at all (this is involved with an alleged structure of the neutron and the nucleus).

In HT there is no "empty" "space", instead "space" is thought to be filled completely with

massless el. dipoles

(+1/3)(-1/3)

and

(+2/3)(-2/3)

AND

massless el. tripoles

(-1/3)(+2/3)(-1/3)

and

(+1/3)(-2/3)(+1/3)

which are thought to collapse and re-extend at an alleged most highest rate in a highly chaotic manner.

Such "fluctuations" have the propery that in the case of the el. DIpoles the dipole moment flips from zero to non-zero and back to zero during a fluctuation cycle, whereas in the case of the el. TRIpoles the total dipole moment remains zero.

These DIpoles and TRIpoles can be considered as a kind of fluctuating "ether". It should be noted that "motion" of something "relative" to a highly fluctuating dipole or tripole cannot be described by means of traditional kinematical notions. Speed or velocity in the spirit of "(S2-S1)/(t2-t1)" cannot be applied to these fluctuating DIpoles and TRIpoles, because the "lifetime" of the state "EXTENDED" is to short to give a time interval "t2-t1".

All of our continuum-involved ideas of "space" and "time" unfortunately cannot be applied to the alleged dynamical behaviour of such DIpoles and TRIpoles which fluctuate chaotically at an alleged most highest rate.

A "gas" of massless fluctuating el. DIpoles of the type

(+1/3)(-1/3)

and

(+2/3)(-2/3)

can be considered as a kind of "medium" which can be polarized, because the mean el. dipole moment is NON-ZERO.

A "gas" of massless fluctuating el. TRIpoles of the type

(-1/3)(+2/3)(-1/3)

and

(+1/3)(-2/3)(+1/3)

can be considered as a kind of "medium" which canNOT be polarized, because the mean el. dipole moment is ZERO.

In HT it is assumed that "e.m./weak/strong interaction" is considered to be involved with massless fluctuating el. DIpoles, whereas "gravitational interaction" is considered to be involved with massless fluctuating el. TRIpoles.

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Hypotron-Theory

With kind regards, Karl

Dear Prof. Beau,

"God does not play dice with the world", he has created gravity whose effect we cannot see, feel or touch with our senses but need in order to see, feel or touch with our senses. Photons or Phonons propagate with the Maxwellian Higgs-Englert-Bosonic Mechanism as we have discovered using E-Stock Exchange experiments (www.researchgate.net/profile/Soumitra_Mallick) in fundamental String Theory AGGNNNetworks in spacetime and spacextime in a three factor fundamental string matching algorithmic field and motion by vector diffeotopy of embedding quantum mechanics and this is independant of the orientation of gravitons in the statistical quantum meanfield. Hence String condensation and the existence of Dbranes Strings are necessary not their vectorial orientation which allows for quantum gravity. However, at this stage I will not bet my money on that although the model satisfies all the Millenium Prize Mathematics problems.

Soumitra K. Mallick PhD(NYU) QC KBE ForMemEPS ForMemReS

for RHMHM School of Mathematical Sciences Thinking in Colorado, USA, Tokyo, Japan, Bengaluru, India and Kolkata, India (proposed)

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm,

Concerning aspects of foundation of physical notions, laws, constants etc. which are assumed to be undoubted valid on an alleged most lowest scale, I think that the most reasonable guiding principle is to start from a basis which is minimalistic and to keep strictly on a logical track, and to be careful with generalizations and extrapolations, and to be careful with using those branches of mathematics which are based on axioms which are not supported by man's experience within "physical reality" at any scale. In particular the idea of calculus, originated by Newton and Leibniz, is fine to use if one considers physical systems which are far above an alleged most lowest scale and which can be decomposed into a huge number of subsystems. But on the scale where alleged ultimate building blocks of matter reside, it is not clear whether or not calculus and the traditional continuum based notions of "space" and "time" leads to success or to a deadlock.

Concerning the new and surprising effects (involved with interpretations of the corresponding experimental results, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281189646_Further_Experiments_Demonstrating_the_Effect_of_Light_on_Gravitation etc.) indicates that the contemporary look at space-time and gravity should be considered as principally incomplete and that the idea of "empty space" at any scale is a fatal misconception. Maybe time has come now to rethink about completely new concepts of an "ether"-filled space-time.

With kind regards, Karl

"This is not physics," VL Ginzburg said at the seminar. I do not remember why. Maybe it was string theory. This is the natural course of development. Standing at the wall, we go into the field of hypotheses.

By the way, there is no quantum gravity as a science. This is a set of questionable hypotheses, possibly leading to nowhere.

“….The whole literature with 'quantum' has not to be taken seriously as a remedy of all problems just for one reason: The eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator are real numbers and can be assigned to the expected results of measurement…”

that isn’t so. The fact that on some level results of interaction of material objects becomes be uncertain is fundamental, since that follows from the absolutely fundamental fact that the phenomenon “Change” [and the Rule “Time”, correspondingly] is logically self-non-consistent. That was quite clearly proven by Zeno 2500 years ago [more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 ].

Quantum mechanics so is principally quite adequate to the objective reality when considers this principal uncertainty, and is quantifiably adequate to the objective reality because of Matter is rather simple logical system, which exists and changes basing on a number of fundamentally stable and universal logical rules and constants that relate to the Matter’s interactions, i.e. “fundamental Nature forces”; and just so mathematics turns out to be very effective tool at describing/analysis of processes in Matter. Including the Hilbert space and Hermitian operators turn out to be adequate tools, in this fact there is no surprising.

That is another thing that in physics the Gravity problem isn’t solved till now, including in the mainstream there is no corresponding theory, however that is more political then physical problem, since till now Gravity is “studied” in framework of the GR, which defines gravitational forces as some interaction of Matter’s spacetime and [gravitational] masses. This interaction is evidently mystic, and so in the GR there is no explanations – by what ways masses impact the Matter’s spacetime [which is postulated as imaginary 4D pseudo Riemannian space]; nobody till now observed imaginary space or time; attempts to quanizy the GR [correspondingly] are in vain, etc.

In the reality Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian empty container/manifold, where Matter exist and changes, which by any means cannot interact with any material object and any material object cannot interact with the spacetime and so to “contract”, to “dilate” , to “bend” it. Gravity is simply 4-th [besides EM, weak and strong] fundamental Nature force, seems in a number of traits similar to the fundamental Nature EM force, including, as that is for every other force, on some level gravitational interactions are quantized. That is another thing that Gravity is so weak, that is observable in most cases when some macro objects interact, when the QM effects become be inessential; as that is true in this case not only for Gravity though, on macro level QM effects of other forces are practically non-observable, besides interactions of photons.

However the QM nature of Gravity rather probably is detectable, and again at interactions with photons, corresponding experiment was suggested in the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s informational physical model yet in 2007, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests ; at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”.

Cheers

Whenever I am involved (at least mentally) into this kind of discussions I feel that we try to solve a problem that refers to a scale (Planck scale) by using experimental data that refer to 10^30 this scale. This is just crazy even to think of it. It is like to try to find out how a car engine is working by observing how galaxy clusters are moving. The only rational way to get a notion of the real fundamental physical laws and the way our cosmos is built and works is to start from a bottom-up procedure (as Sydney Ernest Grimm mentioned above in reply to Karl Kreuzer). It is doubtful wether our cosmos is 3+1 or 2+1 dimensional, based on any observation/measuring mean.(This is just crazy even to think of it.) Has any of our theories incorporated the expansion of our Universe and why its whole mass is adjusted in such a fine way that is equal to a Schwarzschild black hole's radius? (This is just crazy even to think of it.) We have taken the wrong way in all aspects of Physics but we do not feel brave enough to change (The Science of Antiscience Thinking, Sci.Amer. July 2018, 28).

Dear Sydney,

Although time is absolute (if you declare it as the +1 dimension), the "time" we use within our existing theories is observer-dependent, so keep your eyes open because, certainly, Sci.Am.'s July will arrive to you very soon ...:)

Regards, Ioannis

PS: you may find the precedent to the mentioned article interesting.

Dear Sydney,

what I imply by the scale difference, is that probably elementary particles is like an elementary galaxy in your car engine (I doubt there is any such thing in your car). In other words the whole structure of Physics seems to be out of any "elementary" sense. It is rather an excellent set of theories concerning the statistical results of a huge set of participants, just as the gas theory is an excellent theory for the gas, as a system, but not for its molecules (or atoms).

Quantum Gravity (QG), as far as I know, is a bottom-up theory that is not based on experimental results. So, QG-scientist normally are not members of the scientist's majority.

Regards, Ioannis

Quantum gravity is undoubtedly the future. But there is a small nuisance of such a theory yet.

Dear Sydney,

The unification of the quantum theory and general relativity has not yet taken place. There is Platonic love. No children, of course.

A set of hypotheses is not a result.

Sincerely, Valery

Dear Sydney,

I do not do quantum gravity, but I have results in classical general relativity. It turned out that there are also serious tasks there. Something I managed to do. Preprint New version of the general theory of relativity (Initial pri...

Preprint New version of the general theory of relativity (Initial pri...

Sincerely, Valery

As photons cannot leave black holes, but gravitons cannot be catched, gravity and electro-magnetism are nowadays two very different animals, whereas, at (a) big-bang they were the same. How siameses can change!, but the universe still is homogenous.

dear Sydney, I already made my researches and came to my own opinions, that`s why I treat RT and QT ironically. case one is able to make ironies about teaching materials (maybe) is an argument that he did understand it (better :))

Dear Sydney,

"At first sight you will think: “This cannot be true!” However, it doesn’t disavow general relativity."

Experiments put us in a very strict framework. The choice of hypotheses is small. There is never any certainty that this theory will not be under attack and will require restructuring. GR is under strong pressure. It's trouble with the field enery and singularity. They are so old that they try not to notice them. I avoided these difficulties. Now I have reason to not trust conversations about black holes and the beginning of the universe 13 billion years ago.

Sincerely, Valery

Dear all,

Thanks for your amazing comments. It seems like there are as many truth as followers. The question that arises now is how do we decide? On the sense that how do we find a scientific evidence to show wether a truth is scientific or not? Should we write a proposal? Or should we wait together?

Dear Mathieu,

There are several important basic problems with quantum gravity

1. There are not any phenomenology to explain or to need such theory. The only justification is because we think that every interaction must be quantum at low scales. This is a believe but no a necessity.

2. At big scales we have one of the most beautiful theories in Physics, General Relativity, with phenomenology behind it as can be the recent gravitational waves.

3. General Relativity cannot be included within the Quantum Field scheme due to well known inconsistencies as its non-Renormalization.

Therefore it seems a beautiful waste of time to look for a theory which cannot explain any new physical phenomenon which surround us and which even theoretically no easy to frame within the well known low scale theories that we know quite well (for instance QFT).

Dear Sydney,

I agree that we are obliged to ignore meaningless physical quantities and objects. But in mathematics there is a term "does not exist" and we can no longer waste time figuring out what this means in real life.

Speech in Leiden, I certainly read, in Russian language a fairly complete collection of works was published. Moreover, I referred to it quite recently.

I often hear in response to Einstein's references and quotes. "It can not be, Einstein could not say that!"

Even among professionals, there is a rather simplified view of the works of Einstein and GR.

Sincerely, Valery

Dear Sydney,

"Please, do Louis Rancourt a favor and tell him the GR explanation for his force of gravity." A strange experiment, a ridiculous explanation. Surely you can say that this has nothing to do with gravity.

Sincerely, Valery

Dear Sidney,

I'm not sure that I have understood the experiment, but what seems is that they are only considering that the photons have energy and momentum. Therefore they scatter with the moving mass of the pendulum, which if it is fixed during 24h it must rotate due to Coriolis force. But it is not proven anything respect to the gravitation interaction with light. The most important parraph for me is

As the force seems to vary little during 24 hours it would suggest that the speed of movement of the force itself is much faster than the movement of the Earth. If the force was moving at a speed close to that of the Earth, one would expect a noticeable change in weight during the day. The fact that light can interfere (perhaps as a form of destructive interference) with the force also suggest that the force is perhaps similar in nature to light itself

Where it seems that the authors expected a noticeable change of weight without any justification. Why? There are not at all interference between light (electromagnetic field) and gravitation

Dear Daniel,

You wrote: "... the moving mass of the pendulum, which if it is fixed during 24h it must rotate due to Coriolis force."

The motion of a free hanging mass, such as a pendulum, has nothing to do with the Coriolis force. A Coriolis force is purely mechanical, and can only exist when, there is a permanent contact between the translating and the rotating object.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

Do you know what is a Foucault pendulum? I was speaking about that.

Article Foucault pendulum through basic geometry

Dear Sideney,

If that were true then it would be very interesting, but what I have understood is a pendulum moving 24h under a laser, My problem was that I couldn't understand how the laser was respect to the pendulum. I think that a figure would be very important showing the details of the experiment.

Dear Sidney,

I have not enough time to think about this experiment but I will try later.

Dear Daniel,

You wrote: "Do you know what is a Foucault pendulum? I was speaking about that."

I was also speaking of that. There is no Coriolis force involved with it. Neither your reference considers it.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

You are right that my reference tries to explain something more advanced as the Berry phase associated to the holonomies for the Earth rotation. In fact relates the solid angle of with Berry's phase. This is not a good reference for the simple example of Coriolis effect which is due to have a system of coordinates rotating. This is studied by all the students of Physics in their first courses of Classical Mechanics.

The reference

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-atmospheric-and-planetary-sciences/12-090-introduction-to-fluid-motions-sediment-transport-and-current-generated-sedimentary-structures-fall-2006/course-textbook/ch7.pdf

is more explicit for explaining what I want to say respect to the Earth and the Coriolis effect.

Dear Daniel,

Your link is interesting, thank you. It explains well the Coriolis effect.

"The fictitious side force that seems to act on moving bodies in a rotating environment is called the Coriolis force, after the nineteenth-century French mathematician who first analyzed the effect. And the apparent acceleration of the sphere (it is a radial acceleration, not a tangential acceleration, in that only the direction changes, not the speed) is called the Coriolis acceleration. The entire effect is called the Coriolis effect."

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

@ Valery Borisovich Morozov, " Now I have reason to not trust conversations about black holes and the beginning of the universe 13 billion years ago." Although I disagree with the first part of your opinion I fully agree with the second one and I believe that this wrong estimation is the cause of the inexplicable "inflation theory". All these are the outcome of the dominated believe that the speed of light is constant throughout the Universe life.

@ Sydney, the above experiment reminds me the Bernoulli's effect in fluid dynamics. It may be irrelavent ...

Dear Ioan,

By the way Bernoulli's law is also difficult to perceive, also unexpected.

The cause of singularities in general relativity is not theory itself, not postulates. The reason for this is a small inaccuracy in the Einstein equation. However, I added one more postulate, obvious.

Yours faithfully Valery.

Dear Sydney,

A lot of reservations could be expressed to your last post. Dark matter(DM) has a rest mass and it is actually the rest mass of the granular spacetime manifold. Hence, it occupies spacetime evenly. Obviously this is so, according to a different point of view that states that expanding Universe is accompanied by addition of new spacetime quanta that possess the four fundamental properties (e.g. mass, charge, time, spin).

" But without rest mass the basic quantum fields – the scalar field (Higgs field) and the vector field (electromagnetic field) still exist. " This is so because spacetime itself HAS rest mass (DM).

After all, Could gravity be a basic quantum field? Reply: As most of the times, YES and NO. :-)

Kind regards, Ioannis

Dear Sydney,

Spacetime is not the fiber of Univ. but the manifold into witch the Univ. realizes itself.

Entities are part of spacetime and phenomenon is the interaction between entities. Each interaction/phenomenon changes the entities' basic properties.These changes occur within spacetime (and are expressed by spacetime properties).The relation between entities' properties before and after phenomenon/interaction are the observable physical reality and the subject of physical theories. So, there is no theory without interaction/phenomenon or spacetime(entities).

The rest mass of dark matter(DM) is uniform and hence it causes only symmetrical effect. This is not the case for the rest mass of a massive object, that is unevenly distributed within spacetime. (Mass is not deformation of spacetime manifold, not even the cause of any deformation, but a property/information embodied within its quanta/nodes). Spacetime manifold remains stable during Univ. life, although Time transfers the properties/information to the quanta/nodes of an ever outward 2D/3D surface that presents the "present" Univ. reality. Properties/information are transferred into these "new" quanta/nodes following a universal probabilistic law.

PS: a) DM could be related to vacuum energy, WIMP (weakly interacting massive particles), CMB (cosmic microwave background), cosmic aether, Casimir effect, ... ,

b) Our points of view differ and the purpose of these discussions is to examine how our different views could explain better the physical reality in a compact and consistent way.

best regards, Ioannis

Dear Sydney,

I try to develop a bottom-up model of Univ. (like many others) as it is widely acceptable that the existing theories are not only incomplete but most of the time self-contradicting. As any bottom-up model/theory it is completely speculative but is based on few starting axiomatic assumptions on witch the whole model/theory is built/developed as the result of a stream of rational thoughts. Experimental results are always the proving evidences that a speculative theory is reasonable or not.

So, quantized space and time (no infinity in physical reality) is the first of the basic axioms, the rest are: existence of only positive numbers/quantities, symmetry, dualism, incompleteness. Hence, spacetime (manifold) is not the Euclidean volume but a symmetric network of countable nodes/quanta, where each one embodies a specific basic property/information. Entity is a subset of spacetime (network of nodes/quanta). Whatever could be hosted within spacetime is part of physical reality. It is wrong to exclude entities from physical reality (based on arbitrary classifications, physical vs fictional, spiritual, virtual, ...) as we will certainly face troubles, as happened with Quantum Mechanics interpretation.

Best regards, Ioannis

Gentlemen!

You can invent as many as you like the hypotheses about the structure of the physical vacuum and its role in gravity. In fact, there have been no serious gains in this field for the last 70 years. Of course, work in this direction is necessary. But it is not necessary to expect rude results from arbitrary hypotheses.

However, we can calculate the energy with the help of classical general relativity. I did this without going beyond the principles of general relativity

Preprint Dark energy as zero energy of gravity field

dear Sydney, You are (once again) right "everyone who wants to calculate phenomena in the macrocosm can use GR." I rather would say: who wants to aproximate (some) phenomena can use relativity.

Dear Sydney,

You are right, most physicists perceive GR as a complete theory. Known deficiencies for one hundred years have not been eliminated. Ultimately, the shortcomings that were unacceptable for any other theory ceased to be perceived as flaws.

Ten years ago I was firmly convinced of this. And I saw the only way in combining with quantum mechanics. However, I found physically valid metrics that were not solutions to the Einstein equation. And after studying the history, he found the turning point of the GTR aside from the principles laid down in Theory in 1913.

I managed to correct the equation of the gravitational field and all the troubles disappeared. Disappeared singularities and energy problems from the gravitational field. There are new solutions.

Preprint New version of the general theory of relativity (Initial pri...

Certainly it is worthwhile to engage in the unification of the mechanics of gravitation and gravitation. But it is true that success in this direction is so far negligible.

Dear Sydney,

You rose a lot of fundamental points and I will try to respond to each of your paragraphs separately. Keep in mind that a bottom-up model/theory is dealing with Planck and not just "microscopic" scale (ref. to my previous messages 1 month before):

Par.1+2 : Axioms do not need any proof (as far as they do not contradict the obvious reality). We are educated to think through a continuum mentality although Nature seems to be purely discrete in any scale. Any derived physical quantity may seem continuum when its smaller measurable quantity is infinitesimal compared to its actual amount. For example, the quantity of a derived property E (e.g. E=ax2+bxy) would be considered continuous if the elementary properties x,y are of great amount (e.g. 1010 quanta). A botom-up theory starts from scratch and any sophisticated proposition (like Higgs field) would be reinvented if it is absolutely necessary.

Par 3: Many forms of energy are derived properties that seem continuous according to the above argument. The only form of energy that could relate straight to elementary properties could be the mass-energy equivalent (E=mc2), if we accept mass as an elementary property. There is NO manifold deformation. As far as I know we can not measure Space or Time as such. We use them as convenient terms for something that we do not really know what they are.

Par 4: You are right that " We even cannot say that reality must be positive because there is no relation between ontology and positive and negative numbers. There exist no negative-ontology. " However, because positive-negative denotes broken symmetry (not within the same phase of Univ. but between its different phases - "Super-symmetry") we should accept that the elementary properties of our Univ. (during its present phase) are positive, by definition.

Par 5: I did not started with Plato's universe of ideas but I agree with your last sentence. This was early confirmed through the forth axiom/proposition (dualism).

Par 5: A bottom-up approach has the intention of the person that makes use of it. What I mean is that, we can use it in construction of a model that starts from the elementary constituents and their interactions in order to represent a phenomenon or the whole cosmos, or ... (I try to think how it could be used for description of reality but without success).

@Valery, The unsuccessful attempts to ..., or the absence of guarantee for the glorious results are not strong reasons to stop searching.

My best regards to all, Ioannis

I do not want to give instant answers to questions for which thinking is needed for years. That's how I work. I select a few ideas and take a very long time. Now everything has changed. I will not say that in ten years, for example, I will continue this work.

Age dictates the pace of life, but I still will not rush. This allows you to get the most out of work.

Dear Sydney,

I am not, by any means, an expert on GR but I think:

Relativity Theories are based on continuity that means: nothing remains constant (apart from the speed of light - axiom). Hence, we can not say that duration of 1 t is equal to the duration of 2 t (due to the relativity of length) , or even that the quanta of energy are equal. (quanta and conservation laws are incompatible with RT in any sense. This is the main inconsistency of RT) It is like to try to find a topology for the interior of a bubble that continuously alters its own (hopeless !!!).

Best Regards, Ioannis

dear Ioan, by using distributions theory I have shown/demonstrated that natural constants CANNOT be constant. ergo: the (so called) constants of physics are variable in time. for instance: c is an unreachable limit for speed of light. light speed is never equal c! it is less than c.

Dear Sydney,

(Par 1+2)(Par5)1: I have rejected any continuum in physical reality (axiom). Sphere is an idealized mathematical form with the highest possible symmetry. There is no example in Nature that is a perfect sphere. All the physical (not mathematical) forms we call spheres are close to spheres but never perfect ones, because a perfect sphere demands the existence of a continuum that is absent in Nature.

(Par 3)1: We refer to different "quanta". Your "quanta" are energy quanta implying that energy is an elementary property. My "quanta" refer to one of the four elementary properties (e.g. mass, charge, spin, time) and they are the smallest amount of the according elementary property. Generally, a quantum is the smallest possible amount of an entity. Any decrease of this entity-amount causes the alteration of the entity-properties to such a degree that leads to different entity(ies). I wonder, how c2 could represent surface area.

Referring to your next paragraphs:

a) I think that, the first one refers to the "classical" view of QG in respect to the invariant volume of space quanta and I am not ready to be involved to this discussion.

b) What are the underlying mathematical properties that lead to a constant speed of light?

With best regards, Ioannis

@ Paul Pistea : I agree that physical constants are the result of conviction and not physical facts.

mathematics is so perfect as nature can`t match it. but maths is prepared for handling discontinuity too (e.g. distributions for set functions)

Dear Sydney,

From Wikipedia "Quantum": " In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction. "

We should not mix different ideas like mass-volume, phenomenon-object, quantum-volume, energy-action, action-volume, ...

You state that:

a) "Planck’s constant represents an invariant tiny bit of the volume of a field-unit (the basic invariant volume)." , and b) "every field-unit has decreased its surface area with a small amount of energy (Planck’s constant)."

From Wikipedia: "A Planck volume is a Planck length cubed." and " The Planck constant (denoted h, also called Planck's constant) is a physical constant that is the quantum of action."

I feel we discuss not on the same bases ... Any theory (new or old) uses more or less the same set of terms, sometimes with slightly different meaning, though in this case it is necessary to clarify this difference. In any case, in physics we have to keep the dimensionality consistency (e.g. [volume]=L3, [h]= M*L2*T−1) in order not to confuse ourselves and others.

Best regards, Ioannis

"From Wikipedia "Quantum": " In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction. "

Not a very good definition, because there are zero-point oscillations. For example, zero-point oscillations of the vacuum are "half-quantum", but they shift atomic levels.

Sincerely, Valery

I see gravity field and virial mass field equivalent. Dark mass could be the 2nd virial component of spacetime in addition to matter, energy of serial gravitational changes between zip-formed cellular automata in spacetime...

Dear Sydney,

Thank you for the two refs recommended and the whole informative discussion so far.

My best wishes, Ioannis

@ Valery : The zero-point energy of the zero-point oscillations of the vacuum seem to be a theoretical assumption, posed for symmetrical reasons, but it is never experimentally measured. I think it is a matter of conviction, where the zero point should be. (Please correct me if I am wrong)

@ Esa Säkkinen : I should say that gravitational mass is the sum of "ordinary" mass (measured by objects' speed or acceleration) and Dark matter(mass) that is embedded within the part of spacetime manifold that represents the object's volume/space.

Dear Esa,

"I see gravity field and virial mass field equivalent." Dark mass could be the 2nd virial component of the spacetime in addition to matter, energy of the serial gravitational changes between the zip-formed cellular automata in the spacetime ... "

However, so far we can only talk about energy and space.

Sincerely, Valery

Dear Ioan,

Effects of zero-point oscillations (physical vacuum) are very accurately confirmed by experiment. This is the greatest success of physics. Everything would be fine, but its energy density can not be calculated or determined experimentally. The theory gives implausible values ​​of density, and experiment this energy is not manifested. To connect the energy of the vacuum with the "empty space" of Einstein is possible only with the help of the "imagination game", although many believe that this imagination often looks like a sick one.

But it is possible, after setting a homogeneous space with a gravitational field, to obtain an amazing metric. The spatial components of the acceleration of the gravity field violate the isotropy of space. Therefore, they need to be equated to zero. As a result, we obtain a metric that depends only on time and a single parameter with the dimension of the Hubble constant. If we take this opportunity and write the dependence of the redshift on the time traveled by light, we obtain a dependence close to the Hubble law:

z = exp (H_0 T) -1≈H_0 T

It is well known that the Einstein tensor is proportional to the energy-momentum tensor. This allows us to obtain, in particular, the energy density of "empty space". This value turned out to be equal to the critical density found by Friedman, i.e. the expected density of the sum of dark energy and dark matter.

Thus, it can be concluded that the energy of empty space has the ability to co-operate in large-scale clumps observed in the universe. Preprint Dark energy as zero energy of gravity field

Preprint New version of the general theory of relativity (Initial pri...

Sincerely, Valery

I apologise for the misuse, in all of my comments, of the term "Dark Matter" instead of the right one "Dark Energy". (Thanks to Valery Borisovich Morozov)

PS: I am not convinced that Dark Matter exists and hence taking part in any phenomenon.

Dear Ioan,

" I am not convinced that Dark Matter exists and hence taking part in any phenomenon."

But there is definitely something. It is unlikely that this "matter" is more simply a thickening of "dark energy," i.e. energy of space (from the point of view of general relativity).

Sincerely, Valery

Dear Valery,

New mass/energy is embedded within our Universe by each extension step. Part of it belongs to the minimum threshold of spacetime's mass/energy (Dark Energy) and the extra (5-30%) is the one that enables the formation of "ordinary" mass mainly through gravitational condensation.

Sincerely, Ioannis

Dear Ioan,

I showed that the energy density of empty space is equal to the expected sum of dark energy and dark matter.

It can be assumed that dark energy and dark matter have the same nature - the energy density of empty space. And dark matter is the condensed energy of a homogeneous space.

Sincerely, Valery

Dear Valery,

If "ordinary mater". (dark matter) and dark energy have the same nature (that is what I believe) it remains to be clarified what we mean by empty space(time) and "ordinary mater" (elementary particles ?). If empty space(time) is a space(time)-part that there is no "ordinary matter" inside and if it is homogeneous then there is no difference between DE and DM (DM indistinguishable to DE). In the case it is no homogeneous then the part with a (stable+deducible) minimum mass/energy may be called DE and the rest DM.

I consider "ordinary mater": whatever mass/energy is not per se a constitute of spacetime, and DE: spacetime's mass/energy. Hence there is no place for DM (by definition). The difference between "ordinary mater" and DM (mass that does not belong to elementary particles) is that elementary particles, for "ordinary mater", are classified, according to their properties, to certain identities while the rest (DM) can not be classified to any of these identities.

Sincerely, Ioannis

when dark matter is elucidated, could it be booked in an extended periodic system?

The number of elementary particles(EPs) depends to the number of elementary properties that spacetime could accommodate. If we accept that elementary properties are four (with possible value 0 or 1) then EPs should be 24=16.

PS: EPs may differ considerably to the "elementary particles" of Standard Model, because the scale of classical physics ("elementary particles" came from) is vastly different from the Planck scale (EPs refer).

Dear Ioan,

I can not answer all questions at once. These answers are not present. Now I am engaged in the advanced GR. This is a theory with great possibilities, but they are limited.

Today, the relationship between general relativity and field theory is not found. A hundred years of development of the theory did not advance us to a unified theory. A huge number of not very plausible hypotheses are all that we have now. I think these hypotheses lead us further away from physics.

Sincerely, Valery

Dear Paul,

"when dark matter is elucidated, could it be booked in an extended periodic system?"

We do not know anything about the structure of dark energy, the GRT is in some sense a phenomenological theory. She does not ask such questions. All we can know is the dark energy of its energy-momentum tensor. The rest is the matter of future theory.

Sincerely, Valery

dear Valery (as we do not know much about dark energy) that`s why I (ironically) asked about an extended periodic system :))

Dear Paul,

Now we know a little more. (so far only in Russian) Preprint Темная энергия и темная материя – нулевая энергия гравитационного поля

Perhaps this will help to learn a little more about the "physical vacuum" on the other hand.

Sincerely, Valery

dear Valery, by applying distributions theory I have handled RT and QT (both by using one tool) and I have de results of unifying them. 1st conclusion: RT false. QT claims some truths.

Dear Paul,

"QT claims some truths."

No doubt. But there is a long way to go.

Sincerely, Valery

dear Valery, you are right; please note that QT mostly claims what is NOT allowed :))

Science isn't done by taking opinion polls, but by explicit, impersonal, calculations. The problem of quantum gravity involves understanding how to sum over spacetime geometries that aren't solutions to Einstein's equations. The reason this is a hard problem is that the gauge group-the group of spacetime diffeomorphisms-isn't compact. So any proposal must produce a prescription for solving this problem, for computing this sum in a way that leads to a finite answer, that's independent of any regularization of the infinite volume of the group of diffeomorphisms.

That's the only thing that matters.

A corollary of this calculation is the resolution of classical singularities, that describe black holes-due to gravitational collapse-and cosmology, namely the pre-inflationary Universe.

“…Science isn't done by taking opinion polls, ….”

That is principally so, however that

“……but by explicit, impersonal, calculations..”

principally not. Mathematics is nothing more then, though very effective since the system “Matter” is based on a rather small set of logical rules, links and constants, tool at describing objects and processes in It, a tool, which only guarantees that results of some correct calculations are logically consistent with initial assumption and conditions. If the assumptions and conditions are absurd, mathematics guarantees that results will be absurd, again nothing more.

Though the mathematical results sometimes make more clear in some cases that the assumptions and conditions aren’t correct, and the fact that it turns out to be impossible to develop quantum version of the GR is an example of such case. So in that

“…The problem of quantum gravity involves understanding how to sum over spacetime geometries that aren't solutions to Einstein's equations. …..”

the problem of quantum gravity doesn’t relate to Einstein equations, because of the equations are derived basing on incorrect assumptions that gravity is result of rather evidently impossible real physical impacts of real material bodies on Matter’s spacetime and further on real physical impacts of this impacted [“curved”, “bended”] spacetime on the real bodies. The GR doesn’t contain any rational explanations how such strange effects can exist/happen; that are simply bare declarations, which established as basic postulates on this theory. Including

“…A corollary of this calculation is the resolution of classical singularities, that describe black holes-due to gravitational collapse-and cosmology, namely the pre-inflationary Universe…”

there cannot be till now [and, of course, that are based on the GR] grounded “resolutions of classical singularities” that relate to “the pre-inflationary Universe” [and a lot of other, though]. Nobody knows why and how this tribal Universe appeared, besides as practically surely true version of the creation of Universe by some Creator; who didn’t inform humans till now about His aims, where He found so many energy for the creation, and how the creation happened.

Though rather rational sketch how the creation could happen, which bases on the rigorous proof in the Shevchenko and Torarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 , that everything what exist is nothing else then some informational patterns/systems of the patterns, including Matter is completely an informational system also, is given in the Sec. 6.1.3. “The problem of Beginning and evolution of Universe” in the link above and in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics , at least Sec. 3.3 “Planck mass particles”.

Where it is suggested that firstly in [5]4D absolute Matter’s Euclidian spacetime

[the spacetime, since it is nothing else then the action in concrete dynamical informational system of the absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities “Space” and “Time” (see the first link above), “implicitly” existed already before the creation; and really exists after the creation],

a dense 4D lattice of 4D fundamental logical elements was exponentially created [the inflation], and further in this lattice a huge portion of energy was pumped. The created disturbances in lattice were, and are, material objects, i.e. particles, bodies, etc.

After creation, as that seems follows from the experimental data, the lattice [not, of course, either space or time] expanded/expands, rather possibly by the same algorithm as at the inflation; and again by Creator only, baby possibly grows till now. How that proceeds? For that again there is no any hints for rational assumptions; and, for example, such things as introducing of some “dark energy”, etc. in the Einstein equations are again nothing more then some scholastic mathematical exercises.

In the reality Gravity is nothing more then the 4-th fundamental Nature force, which is in some traits similar to the fundamental EM force; including in depth gravitational interactions are principally quantized. However because of the Gravity’s extreme weakness yet on microscales, the corresponding QM effects are practically non-observable on the macro-level. However with a rather non-zero probability an observation of quantum interactions in the system “Earth-photons” is possible, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests ; at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”. The experiment was proposed yet in 2007.

Cheers

Dear Paul,

The classical method of general relativity has not yet said the last word. Nuisance theory due to Einstein's equation. It is an approximation, but a good approximation. It does not correspond to the principles of general relativity.

There is no need more in the Einstein equation. Nevertheless, the proportionality of the Einstein tensor to the energy-momentum tensor makes it possible to calculate the latter. For example, the energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational field.

Preprint New version of the general theory of relativity (Initial pri...

Preprint Dark energy as zero energy of gravity field

dear Valery, I do not accept RT because it is false when operating with singularities.

mathematics is based merely on presumptions followed by argumentation(s). physics doen`t (always) need to argue WHY something happens. physicists often claim that: it is like it is; but not why!?

dear Paul ,

"I do not accept RT because it is false when operating with singularities."

This is indeed a serious flaw.

I rescued the theory from the singularities they are neither in space nor in time (see references) In addition, a local law of conservation of energy has appeared.

I can not now answer the question, Why?

But I have good news. The metric includes a parameter that is found from the scalar linear wave equation. This is an occasion to consider it the equation of a certain quantum field.

Quantization implies the existence of a uniquely defined field, like the electromagnetic. But there is no gravitational field in Einstein's equations. There is the curvature of space and the energy-momentum tensor of the source of gravity. Quantize of the curvature, as we have seen, it is impossible. The conservation laws include the psevdo-tensor of the energy-momentum of the gravitational field, but it cannot be determined unambiguously, that is, the energy cannot be localized in this way. Thus, an explicit expression for the gravitational field energy is absent in the General theory of relativity, if it is not associated with any other operators, for example, the Riemann-Christophelic tensor, which has 256 components for 4 dimensions. On the other hand, the consideration of the gravitational field as an independent substance, causing the curvature of space, allows us to determine the vacuum pressure in the local area

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279541340_Local_Vacuum_Pressure

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317102173_The_dynamics_in_general_relativity_theory_variational_methods and the pressure of the gravitational field in it.

Quantization of gravity can be based on the nature of radiation and absorption of gravitational waves, but for this currently there are no experimental results.

dear Valery, I have worked out a new overarching theory (by using distributions) and found out the errors of RT and QT. the impediments can be read in my work (unification of relativity and quantum) published on RG too.

“…On the other hand, the consideration of the gravitational field as an independent substance, causing the curvature of space…”

for those people who understand what are the absolutely fundamental notions/phenomena “Space”, “Time” and “Spacetime”, and what are these phenomena in the concrete system “Matter”[the explanations see links in the SS post month ago above],

it is quite clear that Matter’s spacetime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”. The emptiness hasn’t some scaled inherent own metrics, in the emptiness there are no inherent measures in both, in the 3D space and in (1+1)D time.

Besides it is clear that there are no physical mechanisms/forces by which some material objects could impact on the space/time/spacetime; and so the postulated in the SR/GR spacetime transformations, which are caused by reference frames and masses, are no more then some bare declarations; which have no rational grounds and, correspondingly, have no some explanations in these theories. What is quite natural, such explanations, besides a magic, are impossible.

And, if the people understand also that Gravity is only the [“4”-th] fundamental Nature force, which, besides, in a number of traits is similar to the fundamental Nature EM force, which is quantized without any problems and nothing makes at that with the spacetime, then they understand also that there is no principal problems at Gravity quantization. And understand that for the Gravity at all and for the quantization particularly there is no necessity in a “curvature of space”.

Cheers

Dear Paul, I do not hesitate - the future theory of gravitation is the quantum theory of gravity, but not the mechanical sum of the two theory of general relativity and the quantum theory. However, now it is important to deal with the general relativity, its contradictions with energy density and singularities. I managed to do something in this direction.

Yours faithfully, Valery.

Sergey,

The concept "space-time is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”. The emptiness hasn’t some scaled inherent own metrics, in the emptiness there are no inherent measures in both, in the 3D space and in (1+1)D time.

Besides it is clear that there are no physical mechanisms/forces by which some material objects could impact on the space/time/" is is more a philosophical category. Such a representation can be used to construct mathematical models in a certain reference frame. Physics studies objects that are measurable, and therefore change. Physically, not measurable space-time is a great nothing.

Sincerely

Wladimir,

“…Sergey,

The concept [SS quote] "space-time is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”…Besides it is clear that there are no physical mechanisms/forces by which some material objects could impact on the space/time/….[end quote] is more a philosophical category”

- ?

already nearly 110 years in physics

[and in mainstream philosophy also, though all philosophical contribution in the problem of ontology of space/time/spacetime, in a innumerous publications contains nothing more then excitations by discoveries of “fundamental properties of the space/time/spacetime” in the relativity theories]

the space/time/spacetime aren’t some philosophical categories, they are physical objects, i.e. in the SR/GR it is postulated that the real Matter’s spacetime is the non-absolute 4D imaginary [mathematically] Minkowsi/pseudo-Riemannian space, which really is transformed by reference frames, even by any moving particles, and “masses”.

In spite of that, for example, nobody observed some imaginary space or time and nobody measured some transformation of just the space or the time [all what was observed, and fundamentally only what can be observed, is/are transformations of concrete material objects and changing of internal processes rates in concrete material objects], seems millions of publications are issued, where these rather strange spaces are the base at solving concrete physical problems.

Including a huge number of publications in respectable physical journals, where rather evidently fantastic effects are considered; as a number of “holes” in the spacetime [when in the emptiness cannot be “holes”, it is a huge “hole” itself]; “foams”, babbles” in the spacetime, “channels between Universes”, etc. Sophisticated instrumental installations are built aimed at “discovering of ripples of the spacetime”, again etc.

As well you write about some “space curvature”, which cannot exist fundamentally.

Though, again, it would be much more useful to solve the problem of developing of the indeed correct theory of the fundamental Nature force “Gravity”, which acts in Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime.

Including, for example, it would be quite rational to make experiments where the quantum nature of Gravity can be rather probably discovered, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests ; at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”; the experiment was proposed yet in 2007; the necessary money seems no more then 50 $millions, not billions that are spending in physics now on studying of non-existent effects.

Besides the GR is simply wrong when postulates that the photons don’t change energy in gravity fields, correspondingly for weak [e.g., Earth’s] fields GR predicts the “gravitational time dilation”

[here exists indeed real effect. However, of course, in the gravity field nothing happens with the time, simply internal processes rates in bodies in gravity become be lesser]

that is evidently two times larger then the true value; and that can be easily tested, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment for that is necessary no more 0.5 $million.

“…Physics studies objects that are measurable, and therefore change. Physically, not measurable space-time is a great nothing.…”

Again, the Rules/Possibilities “Space” and “Time” [more see paper “The Information as Absolute” linked in SS post a month ago], when they act in concrete informational dynamical systems, including in the system “Matter”, have no measures fundamentally. All, what as the Rules they establish, is that between different [in this case material] objects and different states of changing objects must be non-zero spatial and temporal intervals. And if there is only one object and only one change of a state, it is meaningless to say about some concrete size’s value of the object and of concrete change time interval’s value.

However, if there are two objects/states, it becomes be possible to measure experimentally relative lengths/durations, which can be larger/lesser and equal. If there are a huge number of the objects and the changes, and if the objects and changes are in accordance with some universal laws and constants, as that is in Matter, it becomes be possible to establish etalons of length and time interval, and to quantitatively compare objects and processes in Matter.

What humans do in practice, including in physics.

Cheers

Gentlemen, the frame of reference, according to Einstein, is a set of rulers and clocks. So it is a very real object. In GRT, space is endowed with an en- ergy and momentum. Exactly as the electromagnetic field.

Einstein described this very well in his article "The Ether and the Theory of Relativity of 1920"

Статья в собрании сочинений "Эфир и теория относительности 1920 г."

Einstein "Ether and the theory of relativity"

If we are from the point of view of the hypothesis of the existence of an ether, to view the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, we note a remarkable fundamental difference between them. Can not be space, and also a part of the space without gravitational potentials; The latter tell him the metric properties - without them it generally unthinkable. The existence of a gravitational field directly with the existence of space. On the contrary, it is very easy to imagine imagine any part of space without an electromagnetic field; in contrast to falsity to the gravitational field the electromagnetic field in some way only a secondarily connected with the ether, and the nature of the electromagnetic field is not at all determined by the nature of the ether of the gravitational field. With modern state of the theory it seems that the electromagnetic field in contrast from the gravitational field is determined by a completely different formal cause; as if nature could endow the gravitational ether Instead of fields like electromagnetic field, as well as fields completely another type, for example scalar.

Since, according to our modern views, and elementary particles matter by their nature are nothing more than a condensed- the electromagnetic field, then, consequently, in our modern picture of the world there are two completely different in content reality, although related causally, namely, vitiation ether and electromagnetic

Dear, Sergey

"Besides the GR is simply wrong when postulates that the photons don’t change energy in gravity fields, correspondingly for weak [e.g., Earth’s] fields GR predicts the “gravitational time dilation”

This is due to the not quite accurate recording of the Lagrangian photon. The article https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317101911_Application_of_Lagrange_mechanics_for_analysis_of_the_light-like_particle_motion_in_pseudo-Riemann_space_additional_version proposed the principle of stationary integral of energy of a light-like particle motion that conforms to principles of the calculus of variations in the classic mechanics in accordance with which the motion variations must be cinematically admissible for the system. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat’s_and_energy_variation_principles_in_field_theory

The virtual displacements of coordinates retail path of the light-like particle to be null in the pseudo-Riemann space-time, i.e. not lead to the Lorentz-invariance violation in locality. Equations, obtained by this method, agrees with result given by the generalized Fermat's principle, proposed by Frolov. The obtained Lagrangian gives the photon energy increasing in the gravitational field. It should be taken into account that only the contravariant energy-momentum vectors will correspond to the energy and momenta in the Minkowski space. The increase in the energy of the particle is accompanied by its intake from the vacuum. "If we consider the vacuum as a set of individual particles, then when the gravitational field transmits negative effective energy to them, they will create a negative pressure, leading to the compression of the vacuum" ( the book В.Б. Беляев, ДИНАМИКА В ОБЩЕЙ ТЕОРИИ ОТНОСИТЕЛЬНОСТИ: ВАРИАЦИОННЫЕ МЕТОДЫ), which is consistent with the curvature of space near the mass.

Sincerely

Dear Wladimir,

“…[Quote from the SS post] "Besides the GR is simply wrong when postulates that the photons don’t change energy in gravity fields, correspondingly for weak [e.g., Earth’s] fields GR predicts the “gravitational time dilation” [end quote]

This is due to the not quite accurate recording of the Lagrangian photon….”, etc.

I seems cannot to add something new to the SS post above. Again, till physics, when elaborate some problems where Gravity force is essential, will consider some fantastic “curvatures of the space/spacetime”, in spite of taht Gravity is simply a concrete fundamental Nature force, which is characterized by concrete its parameters [strength of the field, mode of propagation, etc.], the results of elaborations always will be questionable.

Mathematics is nothing more in physics then an effective tool at analyzing of concrete physical problems, which only guaranties that results of mathematical analysis are consistent with the initial premises, conditions, etc., which were introduced at the elaboration. If the premises, etc. are correct, the result of application of mathematics will be correct; if the premises, etc. are absurd, the result of application of mathematics will be absurd; nothing can be else.

Including the physical function “Lagrangian” isn’t something arbitrary applicable function, which automatically correctly solves physical problems. It contains, first of all the potential and kinetic energies, which are concrete in concrete systems of material objects; and if, in this case, the potential energy isn’t defined correctly, application of the Lagrangian formalism inevitably will give an incorrect results. Again, till the correct Gravity theory isn’t developed, correct solutions of corresponding physical problems are impossible; besides the cases when some approximations can be effective.

The example with light and “gravitational time dilation” see the SS post above, though Einstein in this case indeed points on the new, unknown in his times, and which didn’t follow from those times physics, physical effect.

This effect, though the GR postulates incorrect “dilation” value, is indeed real; what that means becomes be understandable only in the informational physical conception [links see in the SS posts above].

There is no, of course, of some “time dilation”, again that is principally impossible.

In the reality all/every particles and so further all/every nuclei, etc. are some close-loop algorithms [that run with, in certain sense constant, frequency, what is observed as the constant motion of material objects in the absolute 4D sub-spacetime of Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with 4D velocities having identical absolute values be equal to the speed of light]. The “rest mass” particles, nuclei…if are at the absolute rest move only along the zero [the coordinate time axis] axis with the speed of light.

However if an particle nucleon… is impacted, its algorithm changes the operation mode; and in Matter there are two main types of the changes exist:

(i) - if a free rest mass particle, nucleon… is impacted by some spatial momentum and so moves not only in the coordinate time, but in the 3D space also, some algorithm’s steps become be “diluted” by “blanc” spatial steps and algorithm operates with lesser frequency, in accordance with the Pythagoras theorem, in inverse Lorentz factor [“the SR time dilation”]; and

(ii) when a particle, nucleon … is impacted by some field, the algorithm again runs slower because of its whole [unlike the (i)] steps are “removed” by acts of the interactions; however, in contrast to the kinematical “dilation”, the inertial mass of stable systems of particles…… becomes be lesser [if the system is stable, as that is in gravity] then for the sum of the particles…masses on negative mass defect, what characterizes the corresponding slowing down of the algorithms.

That is valid for any system of particles… that constitute a stable system, there can be “gravitational dilation” , “electrostatic dilation”, etc. and the gravitational “dilation” is very probably two times lesser that the GR predicts

More see the SS posts above and links in the posts

Cheers

Something that does not exist cannot take a wrong turn.

“…Something that does not exist cannot take a wrong turn.……”

- rater strange claim. The quantum gravity indeed doesn’t exist in the general relativity theory, however from that by no means meant that the quantum gravity doesn’t exist.

Moreover, from that just follows that the general relativity theory is rather questionable mental construction; and that is indeed so, since that follows also, for example, from that in the GR a few seems evidently fantastic “relativistic effects” are postulated:

- that matter’s spacetime is imaginary [mathematically] pseudo Riemannian space, when nobody till now observed imaginary either space or time;

- that this space can be “bended” by some material masses that use some magic forces, about which the author says nothing;

- that this “bended” spacetime forces using some [other?] magic forces, about which the author again says nothing, to move real material bodies to move along some curved “geodesics”, etc.

Nothing of the postulated above follows from anything in physics; and cannot follow, thank heavens physics outside the relativity theories is mostly rational and experimentally validated science.

When Gravity is simply the fundamental Nature force, as the Strong, EM, and Weak forces, and, as that is fundamentally in everything in Matter and in the indeed physics, the gravitational interactions must be quantized.

That is another thing, that because of extreme weakness of Gravity force some observation of the quantum effects is very non-simple task; however, again, this problem with a rather non-zero probability has the solution – see the paper “The informational model - possible tests” linked in the SS post September 20, 2018 above; thee experiment was suggested yet in 2007.

More see the SS posts above and links in these posts

Cheers

Space in GR is not an abstraction. This space is endowed with a density of energy and momentum, tensions. The gravitational field is identified with this space. The Einstein tensor allows one to go from a space-field to an energy-momentum tensor.

The equation of motion is a natural extension of the classical equations of motion in curvilinear coordinates to relativistic motion in 4-space. The simplest test for any theory of gravity (Einstein 1907) is the dependence of the speed of a standard clock on the gravitational potential.

Quantum gravity (which is not) must include all the attributes of GR. Because the connection of time and space is an established fact, as is the fact of the curvature of space.

With your own shortcomings (nonlocality of energy and singularities) you can cope without going beyond GR:

Article The General Theory of Relativity, a New Iteration

And if quantum gravity was taking the wrong way?

Of course, such a theory is needed, but what is being done now does not go beyond the ordinary game of quantum fields in Minkowski space. Perhaps not enough imagination and knowledge of GR.

Now a couple of posts appear in the thread,when the poster seems didn’t read the SS post above. So:

“…Space in GR is not an abstraction…..”

Space isn’t, of course an abstraction, however not because of that that is so in GR; the GR’s author didn’t understand – what is “Space” and what is “Time”, and so in GR a few rather strange for anybody, who knows answers on the questions above [which [the correct answers] are possible and are given only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904], properties of Space and Time, and “fundamental relativistic effects” are postulated – see the SS post above.

In the conception it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; including Matter is nothing else than some informational system also, which is rather simple logical system, and which exists and constantly changes its state basing on a rather small set of fundamental laws/links/constants.

When “Space” and “Time” are absolutely fundamental [i.e. that act in whole Set] Rules/Possibilities [briefly see, e.g., the SS post in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_most_precise_definition_of_time_And_what_is_the_easiest_way_to_describe_time ], which act in/for every informational pattern/system absolutely fundamentally really. In Matter as the Possibilities they compose the absolute [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”, where Matter and every material object [particle, body, galaxy…] exist and constantly, because of the energy conservation law, change their internal states and spatial positions.

For the container it is all the same – there is something inside it or not, and, if something exists, what happens with this something.

Correspondingly all “fundamental relativistic effects” in the GR are nothing else than some fantastic allegations of, again, the author, who didn’t understand what he postulates.

Including that

“…This space is endowed with a density of energy and momentum, tensions. The gravitational field is identified with this space. …..”

- isn’t, of course, so. Gravity is the fundamental Nature force, which is in a few traits similar to the fundamental Nature EM force, and like the electric charge, which creates electric field, Gravity has the charge “gravitational mass”, which creates gravitational field, which by no means can be identified with space – just as the electric [and any other field] field by no means can be identified with this space. Though, of course, both fields have energies, can be [EM is characterized seems near 100 years already] characterized by some the forces’ tensors, etc.

Etc., including that

“…Quantum gravity (which is not) must include all the attributes of GR. …..”

- isn’t, correspondingly correct, quantum mechanics is the physical theory that is based on rational and adequate to the reality postulates, so cannot include the GR; and just so any attempts to “unite” QM and GR inevitably failed; when that

“…Because the connection of time and space is an established fact, as is the fact of the curvature of space. ….”

- isn’t, and principally cannot be, adequate to the objective reality; there were no any experimental observation of any fantastic “connection of time and space”; all what was/is observed is interactions of real gravitational masses with real gravitational fields.

Moreover, the rather strange postulates in the GR, where by some magic forces some “masses” really transform Matter’s spacetime, and this transformed Matter’s spacetime really determinate the real masses motion, is some ‘development” of “discovered” by Minkowski earlier other “fundamental properties of the space/time/spacetime” and “fundamental relativistic effects”, as, say, “the space contraction” and “the time dilation.”

For these properties and effects be real in the SR it was /is necessary to have – and SR has – basic postulates that there is no Matter’s absolute spacetime and that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate; and it is quite natural that from these postulates any number of senseless logical, physical., etc. directly and unambiguously follow [including well known Dingle problem in the SR, twin and Bell paradoxes].

And, say, in the Bell paradox the space doesn’t want to contract, in spite of the postulated in the SR “space contraction” even in this case there are two moving “inertial reference frames”, and this effect from which follows that the postulated in the SR transformations of the space/time/spacetime aren’t adequate to the reality, is well observable, in contrast to “observations” of some SR/GR spacetime transformations, which – in both, in the SR’s and the GR’s ones, again, are fundamentally impossible in the reality.

And for the author of the two posts above would be much better than ""improving" of the GR to attempt to develop the Gravity theory, though that is not simple task and the theoretical results will be really experimentally testable.

Cheers

" And, say, in the Bell paradox the space doesn’t want to contract, in spite of the postulated in the SR “space contraction” even in this case there are two moving “inertial reference frames”, ..."

This paradox arose from a lack of understanding of the physics of accelerated motion. J. Bell did not take into account that time in uneven systems goes unequally. At different points at different speeds (Einstein result 1907). The strict decision of the paradox was made only recently.

Preprint J. Bell's Relativistic Paradox and Equivalence Principle

Different time course at different points is typical of relativistic physics.

" Correspondingly all “fundamental relativistic effects” in the GR are nothing else than some fantastic allegations of, again, the author, who didn’t understand what he postulates. "

These are just emotions. Like any criticism unproductive. The physicist is engaged in solving problems, but not debates. We are not in parliament. Only the result is important here.

No result, no discussion.