Dear Emmanouil,

“…Does Quantum Gravity between two elementary particles really exist or experimentally ever measured?… In other words quantum matter attracts each other magnetically and at the same time repulses each other fermioncally (electrically). The equilibrium of these two actions macroscopic effect we call gravity...”

In the reality in Matter there exist [at least what humans know now] 4 different “fundamental Nature forces”: “Weak”, “EM”, [in fact only electric force], “Strong”, and “Gravity”; and this set of the forces had turned out to be sufficient to create practically infinite diversity of material objects – particles, nuclei, atoms, molecules, bodies, stars, galaxies, etc.

At that everything in Matter, and everything at all, tough, is/are nothing else then some informational patterns/informational systems of the patterns, which are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set - that is rigorously proven in the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904.

From the conception and from the experiments, which show that particles are rather stable and particles, at least from which material objects are made, are stable, i.e., have stable parameters, at least in tens of billions of years, follows that the particles are some clos-loop logical algorithms, which always cyclically and with high frequency run, so particles are observed as they are always “spinning”.

Thus the “fundamental forces’” interactions in Matter are produced by some logical “marks” [that are observable as “charges” of the forces] on fundamental logical elements, which constitute the particles’ algorithms chains. These marks for 3 forces are rather specific, and not all particles have all marks/charges; besides, for example, electric charges can have different signs, so the EM force can be attractive and repulsive, etc.

That allows to create practically electrically neutral systems of particles, i.e. atoms, molecules, bodies; or, when the forces are short range [Strong force], that allows to create particles and nuclei, which [nuclei] are composed essentially by protons that have the same charges, but, since Strong force is much stronger then EM force, the electric repulsion cannot destroy nuclei.

The Gravity force is extremely weaker then the other 3 forces, and so practically don’t impact on the objects that are formed by these forces. However the gravity charge has only one sign, and so every material objects, including every particles, always attract each other, and just these Gravity properties [external weakness and mono-action] allow to create in Matter large compositions of atoms/molecules…, i.e., planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

The quantum effects are absolutely fundamentally inevitable, because of all/every material objects/systems and Matter as a whole are dynamical objects. They are changing constantly, when there absolutely fundamentally [see the link above] cannot be continuous changes; that quite convincingly was proved by Zeno yet 2500 years ago, see also the link above. All interactions at acting of all/every of forces are fundamentally discrete and uncertain on some level, and gravitational interactions fundamentally cannot be, and aren’t, some exclusion. More see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494

That is another thing, that Gravity interactions are so weak, that in most cases the quantum gravity cannot be observed on the background of actions of the other forces. Nonetheless it seems as rather probably that quantum effects can be detected, for example, in experiment with photons 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; when the paper was rejected by at least 5 “official” physical journals, as the other linked here papers, though; in spite of that the papers are evidently publishable in any journal

Cheers

Hello Emmanouil Markoulakis

Article On the weight of entanglement

"An experiment by Edward Bruschi and his team demonstrated that there is indeed a link between gravity and entanglement.

David Edward Bruschi, a physicist at the Institute for Quantum physics of Jerusalem to demonstrate that quantum entanglement affects the gravitational field. Disturbances of the gravitational field are proportional to the intensity of the entanglement between two particles. Depending on the distance of the two particles, their energy, coherency state, strength of quantum correlation perturbative effects of metric spacetime emerge and alter the gravitational field by low disturbances. The experience was to a Bose-Einstein condensate in which two particles are entangled, both in different orbits and different speeds. The authors sought to know if the strength of entanglement can be altered by variations in intensity of the gravitational field. For it, both microsatellites must first be orbited in the same orbit, and then one of them was to receive a sudden thrust which forces him on a second orbit, undergoing a sudden change of speed and gravity. According to calculations and simulations, physicists expect that the entanglement between the condensate lose 20% of its effectiveness. Later, this experience has been proven and the intensity of entanglement so well

following the same variations as the gravitational field."

Regards,

BAUDRIMONT Roman

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis, I really like the idea that the Higgs Field allows an entity to have a different sort of mass, an apparent mass. I keep sticking my neck out with a theory I invented, which I call Kriske's Field Theory, for the obvious reason that I thought it up on my own. In that theory when an Electron, Positron pair are created, the Electron and the Positron Immediately get mass from the Higg's field, but because the Positron is traveling backward in time (via Feynman's interpretation and CPT) it quickly becomes apparent mass, as the backward traveling Positron evaporates and turns into a "Hole", which explains why they are so similar. Now in KFT, the charges all balance as the "Hole" has an apparent charge as seen in Semiconductors or +1, but they can't recombine (something like the Majorana particles), and on the rare occasion that they do, only one Gamma Ray is emitted not two. So everything worked out except the problem of how the "Hole" only got an apparent mass, and now I see clearly how that happens. The last detail to work out in KFT is to prove that that missing Gamma Ray, is equivalent to the Mass that is seen in Dark Matter, that can't be detected. It may not be that easy, as each particle has an Antiparticle (except Majorana particle, which are there own), so there are many, many types of holes, and a whole lot of Dark Energy from the missing Energy of the Matter - Antimatter annihilation. Nobel Prize please (perhaps a bit of experimental and mathematical proving first, but it is something like that).

Hey!! Since I gave you the idea with the apparent mass of the positron I want also a piece of the Nobel prize!!...

...just kidding :)

The problem is with the particles is that unless we invent the quantum microscope there in no way to be sure. For me quantum optics is the strongest most promising physics discipline right now. That is the missing link previous researchers from the previous century enjoyed for the macroscopic world there were fielding with, direct observation.

Respected Sir

You are requested to read my all articles from LinkedIn profile/Researchgate account and the article in the link below.

Regards with thanks

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3026

"Does Quantum Gravity between two elementary particles really exist"

Nobody knows.

"or experimentally ever measured?"

No. It is too weak.

We need essentially experimental development but not away from actual reality.

“…"or experimentally ever measured?" No. ….”

- yeah, that is so. However that

“….It is too weak...”

isn’t a problem, if we don’t consider this thread’s problem “measurement of Quantum Gravity between two elementary particles” literally, in two points: (i) – indeed, measuring gravity force between, say, two macro-bodies, it is impossible to detect interactions of just the particles; and (ii) - because of the gravity force is extremely weak, it is indeed impossible to detect the interaction between two singled particles.

However if we consider the gravity interaction between macro-body, including Earth, and singled particles, that with a rather non-zero probability allows to detect quantum impacts of body’s gravitons on particles. That seems as unique possibility to observe the quantum effects in Gravity. And that

“…We need essentially experimental development but not away from actual reality…”

isn’t a problem for a long time already; see the links in the SS post above. The suggested more then 10 years ago experiment [the last link] turned out to be too fundamental, when is suggested by some unknown authors, who didn’t belong to some “scientific community”, to be published in some official journal, and so the linked papers were rejected by editors of a number of such journals, and so, by both these reasons above, the experiment isn’t considered by some experimentalists groups.

When installations that are practically ready to be used at the experiment exist seems a couple tens of years already, that are the interferometers, which were built aimed at detection of the gravity waves. All what is necessary is to add in the interferometers the 3-th arm, which should be perpendicular/vertical to Earth surface, when the all arms should have lengths 300-400 m.

And this experiment would be much more useful for physics then observation of mystic “ripples of spacetime”.

Again, the experiment was suggested yet in 2007…

Cheers

Dear

You are requested to read my all articles please.

Regards

I forgot to directly answer the question. If, in fact positrons evaporate into holes, in free space; if in fact the holes are pieces of space time. Then of course, that is the Unified Field theory everyone is looking for. It may be that there is no need for a Graviton, if this evaporation takes place. The Gravitational wave, may in fact be a classical wave, on a surface of PSI, which is weird. So yes, and no.

In my articles it was shown that our universe actually Unfolded from the symmetry breaking of the Super Unified Gaussian Energy Group SU(11) instead of the unified Gaussian Energy Group SU(5) and in the theory of SU(11) it was possible that 30-number bosons of SU(6) changes to 30-number of bosons of SU(5) or vice versa by the exchange of the J-BOSONS of SU(11).

SU(6) is called a latent energy group, the production of the energy SU(6) are maximum in the early Universe. Thus residual always remained within our physical Universe which filled our so-called vacant space.

For details please read my all articles specially the article "Revised Standard Model of Physics and Origin of Biology".

No.

There are some new ideas which propose to test quantum entanglement between two test masses in the presence of gravitational interactions. It is argued that if the masses are too small, it is definitely difficult to test the change in position due to gravitational effects; however it may be possible to check the change of "quantum entanglement phase" caused by gravitational interactions.

S. Bose et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 240401, arXiv:1707.06050

Which theory of Gravity is right?

Einstein theory of Gravity or Ferent Quantum Gravity (FQG)?

In Einstein theory of Gravity, how you learned from your professors Dark Matter is ‘invisible’ and ‘transparent’ Matter.

In Ferent Quantum Gravity, Dark Matter is not ‘invisible’, is not ‘transparent’ Matter.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330832633_Dark_Matter_is_not_'invisible'_is_not_'transparent'_Matter

“…There are some new ideas which propose to test quantum entanglement between two test masses in the presence of gravitational interactions. It is argued that if the masses are too small, it is definitely difficult to test the change in position due to gravitational effects….”

That is indeed correct, but that

“…. however it may be possible to check the change of "quantum entanglement phase" caused by gravitational interactions.……”

with a very non-zero probability isn’t. If we consider the gravitational interaction just between some “small masses”, in fact, since here some quantum entanglement is used, between two particles, then that is practically impossible because of the probability of interactions in this case with a very non-zero probability is very low .

If here the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s 2007 year idea

[see the two SS posts above, for convenience repeat the link https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests ; at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”. ],

is used and authors of the PhysRev paper suggest to detect some changes of a "quantum entanglement phase” caused when gravitons of Earth gravity field interact with one of the entangled pair’s particle, that seems as rather problematic also; however, what is much more important in this case, in this case practically is impossible to control any other impacts, which could caused analogous effect in the pair.

When the method suggested in the link above is very simple, simultaneously with measuring interference fringe distortion between horizontal and vertical arms it is possible in parallel to observe the control fringe between two horizontal arms, all possible parasite, background, etc. effects can be evaluated also; etc.

The experiment undoubtedly is worthwhile to be made, however by some rather far away from science and ethics reasons it isn’t made; when the paper was rejected by editors of a few official journals…

Cheers

he he the re invented the wheel!! The Aether.

now the are talking about scalar fields and mediums...bye bye GR...

https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-energy-tested-on-a-tabletop-20150331/

Gravity is just a pressure equilibrium between ordinary matter and energy thus disturbances in the aether medium and the undisturbed scalar surrounding aether thus dark energy.

Requested to read my all articles including the article attached.

Dr Narayan Kumar Bhadra

The link you have provided is broken.

Dear

You are requested to read my all articles and the article "Revised Standard Model of Physics and Origin of Biology"; "The Complex Quantum State of Consciousness-IOSR" etc. from Researchgate account/LinkedIn profile or by Google Search in the name of the title or my name.

Dr Narayan Kumar Bhadra

The article again attached

Emmanouil,

“…Dr Narayan Kumar Bhadra The link you have provided is broken.…..”

Dr Narayan Kumar Bhadra, instead of to point URL papers as they are opened on the RG [with https], points addresses, when papers open at once as “Full text”; and so every attempt to read a paper increase the “Full text” score on the RG. That is a trick, and possibly RG admin blocked such possibility.

Cheers

Quantum gravity in the loop approach is not experimentally verified, however it gives an interesting approach to a unification of all forces within quantum mechanics. Einstein - if he were alive - would not accept such theories. Feynman tried to bring gravitation inside quantum physics, but he failed in providing a way to quantise spacetime. Personally, I m working on alternatives to loop quantum gravity.

The search for quantum gravity (between elementary particles) is pointless since it doesn't exist. All the forces in the quantum world are EM in nature.

Gravity is a macroscopic quantum decoherence effect. An equilibrium between the quantum forces manifested at the macroscopic level as gravity.

“…The search for quantum gravity (between elementary particles) is pointless since it doesn't exist.……”

The gravity acts as attractive interaction just between [more than 99.999% in most cases] particles; and in this case it is just as exchange by quanta [by gravitons]. That is another thing that practically everuthimg in Matter contains manyyyy particales, and so the elementary attractions cannot be selected from the sum of the interactions. Just therefore inertial mass of some body, which is also [in more than 99.999% in most cases] the sum of particles’ inertial masses, is equivalent to the gravitational mass.

More see SS posts above and papers linked in the posts

Cheers

Quantum theories of gravitation are not experimentally confirmed, however it is interesting to consider whether gravitation can be can be formulated within quantum theories.

I do not believe that the present theories of quantum gravity, such as loop quantum gravity or as part of string theories are correct.

"The consideration above shows that gravity in principle is a collective phenomenon ."

I take that as a quantum integration process thus a quantum decoherence macroscopic phenomenon.

“…I do not believe that the present theories of quantum gravity, such as loop quantum gravity or as part of string theories are correct. …..”

That is quite natural belief of any human, though keeping in mind also that the “quantum gravity problem” appeared in physics because of that standard gravity theory in physics more 100 years is the Einstein’s general relativity, where the having magic potency “to bend Matter’s spacetime” mass bends poor pseudo Riemannian imaginary [mathematically] 4D space, and further this bended space, again using some magic forces, forces, say, Earth to rotate around Sun. But this bended spacetime doesn’t want to be quantized.

The rather fantastic [though the GR is fantastic theory itself, so in this case that was natural] theories in the quote above just appeared aimed at to solve this GR problem

When in that there is no any necessity, Matter’s spacetime is, of course, absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime, where all dimensions are real [mathematically], when nobody till now observed either imaginary space or imaginary time. And Gravity is simply some fundamental Nature force, which is similar in number of traits to the other fundamental Nature force, i.e. EM force. Correspondingly there can be “gravitational waves” as some disturbances of the gravity field, like EM waves; and gravitational interactions must be [ that is fundamentally always working principle if some objects/systems are dynamic, when everything in Matter always constantly changes] on some level be quantized, as that happens at EM interactions.

The model of Newton’s gravity, that is based on rather natural introducing of gravity quanta exists from 2007, see “The informational model – gravity” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265509276_The_informational_model_-_gravity

As well as from 2007 there exist the suggestion, how the quantum nature of gravity can be detected, see SS post [now] 3 days ago.

That is another case, that by some having no any relations to physics and ethics reasons corresponding papers were rejected by a editors of a number of physical journals.

Cheers

On Bell paradoxes and on entanglement, as well as about Bohm-mian quantum mechanics, I suggest that those who are interested should read the book by Ray F. Streater "Lost causes in and beyond Physics", Springer 2007.

follow

Emmanouil Markoulakis

You are absolutely correct: ”Newtonian gravity” is a measurable physical FORCE. On the other hand, “Einsteinian gravity” is a physical distortion of space-time GEOMETRY. Quantum Mechanics is NEITHER!

Volodymyr Krasnoholovets

It may turn out that ZPE/F (zero-point energy/fluctuations) offers the best explanation, not unification, of the quantum/cosmic connections.

I refer you to the recently published, 13 Feb 2019, paper in the Astrophysical Journal “Detection of the Missing Baryons.”  SEE:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaef78

I also refer you to the work of (1) Harold E. Puthoff, (2) Bernhard Haisch, (3) Alfonso Rueda, and (4) Phillip J. Tattersall as being of utmost relevance.

P.S. One of the authors, Akos Bogdan, has made the paper available

Preprint Detection of the Missing Baryons toward the Sightline of H1821+643

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Physically observed "Cosmic Strings" are NOT related to unobservable, theoretically constructed, "Quantum Strings" created for the purpose of unifying QM/GR through a so-called quantized gravity. I refer you to the work of Mike McCulloch on "quantised inertia." The best explanation for the mechanism for inflation and dark energy is a vacuum energy arising from quantum fluctuations (ZPE/ZPF).

(See my previous post to your question.) In cosmology, inflation is a hypothetical physical process which produces an asymmetry between baryons and anti-baryons. If the results on "Cosmic Strings" proves correct then can we conclude that "Space-Time warps matter" rather than the other way around as in General Relativity. See my paper: Article Sakharov Curvature in Rowlands Duality Spacetime: Do vacuum ...

I believe that a string-like formulation of gravitation is not correct. Loop quantum theory offers a better attempt to formulate a quantum theory of gravity, however so far it is not confirmed by experiments and an experimental confirmation will not exist in the next few decades.

I am going to claim that everyone is wrong about this, based on my theory. I am the only person in history that has put forward a testable, theory of the disappearance of charge ( A testable, workable Unified Field Theory), through the evaporation of Positrons into Holes, and no one wants to believe me, even though you can experiment with it unlike these other theories. You see the evaporation in the Goo we call Dark Matter at the Horizon. Each Glob has its own history, as time goes in Both directions, as is required by Bell's Theorem and the Unitary Entities, it predicts. When you look at the horizon of the Universe, you are looking at a sphere where things at the distance are smaller, but bent over, in a similar manner to the Horizon on Earth, where everything tends to a limit (on the Earth it is a curved line, in the Universe it is the CMBR). Anyway, as you look you see Pebbles, connected by lines, as each of these Entities has a backward transition in time as well as a forward one (No Big Bang, as such, a better name for the Big Bang, is the Big Blunder). These pebbles are connected by strings of Holes, and taken as a whole are an infinite number of small Universes, each with their Own past but connected through webs. You see the same thing on Earth, India, Spain, England All have different pasts and futures from the US, but all are connected. You see this Porridge of Peas, Each Pea is a seperate entity, going both forward and backward in Time, but each is in the Porridge. I wish people would stop resting on these vague, and obviously wrong theories, and simply reason and experiment the correct answer. Feynman almost had it right, I have no idea why he didn't see the "Ghost Particles" for what they are. Please nominate me for the Noble Prize and lets get on with the sausage making we call Physics.

"Please nominate me for the Noble Prize and lets get on with the sausage making we call Physics. "

Yeah why not... Next time the Nobel prize committee will ask me I will nominate you!! :)

Sorry Emmanouil, I am only trying to make friends, not enemies, in this quest. Sometimes text is a bad way to communicate as it does not convey the subtle jests, and wit that would be picked up in spoken communication. Please don't unfriend me, as I am certain that I am right, but one experiment is worth a 1000 words.

What are you talking about man? I like you.

In answer to the original question, I am unaware of any experiment or observation that validates quantum gravity, and the question I always ask relating to quantum effects is, what is quantised? As far as I can see, there is no gravitational effect that requires a quantum description, but here the problem may be that gravity is so weak and it only seems to do one thing that nobody can make an experiment to detect it work.

“…In answer to the original question, I am unaware of any experiment or observation that validates quantum gravity, and the question I always ask relating to quantum effects is, what is quantised?…..”

The problem “what is quantized?” appears only in the general relativity, where Gravity is effect of rather strange magic interactions in rather strange in this case system

“[gravitational] mass - 4D imaginary [mathematically, what is rather strange also, nobody till now observed imaginary space or time] pseudo Riemannian space – [another gravitational] mass”,

where the space above is postulated in the GR as real Matter’s spacetime, where either space or time quite naturally don’t want to be quantized.

However Gravity , of course, isn’t some magic “spacetime force”, it is simply one of the fundamental Nature forces, which is in a number of traits like the fundamental Nature EM force, including has the charge [only one, unlike EM, though, and the same charges attract each other, again unlike EM], and gravitational field that is again like EM field. So the answer on “what is quantized” is simple – as that is quantized in QM – energies, angular momentums, etc.

“…here the problem may be that gravity is so weak and it only seems to do one thing that nobody can make an experiment to detect it work.….”

That is indeed problem of detection QM nature of Gravity; and indeed, Gravity indeedis extremely weak force, so corresponding quantum effects are extremely negligible at gravitational interactions of evidently “non-QM” bodies.

Nonetheless the QM Gravity nature can be observed, see [to understand in first approximation what gravity is] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265509276_The_informational_model_-_gravity ; and how to detect at least quantum interactions of light in Earth gravity field

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests

; http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”.

The experiment was proposed yet in 2007…

Cheers

Vacant space are always filled with new energy sources of SU(6), called latent energy group as explained details in my all articles.

You are requested to read my all articles and the article published recently "Revised Standard Model of Physics and Origin of Biology"; "Mind and Consciousness as created by Electromagnetic Force".

Dear Sergey Shevchenko and Ian Miller

Thank you for the links to your important research. I will be reviewing them during my upcoming trip to Texas and California. The question “what is quantized?” has been investigated by two researchers, one theoretical and the other experimentaL. Their conclusion: INERTIA, rather than gravity, should be ”quantised.”

I refer you to the works of (1) Peter Rowlands at the Univ. of Liverpool and (2) Mike Mcculloch at Plymouth Univ. I would also recommend the research of (3) @Harold E. Puthoff, (4) Bernhard Haisch, (5) @Alfonso Rueda, and (6) @Phillip J. Tattersall as being relevant to the study of the inertial ZPE/ZPF connections.

Sabah E. Karam - quantizing inertia is effectively quantizing mass, which in turn reflects quantized energy. However, there is no evidence that I am aware of that energy is quantised. In the electromagnetic interactions we see in quantum mechanics, action is quantised because there is an underlying wave, action determines the phase, AND (as shown in my "Guidance Waves") that wave is not entirely complex (from Euler). What physically would underpin discrete values of inertia?

Ian Miller

See: https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com

I also refer you to the recently published, 13 Feb 2019, paper in the Astrophysical Journal “Detection of the Missing Baryons.”  SEE:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaef78

Other ”dark matter“ detections have been invalidated and “quantised inertia” produced in ZPE/ZPF is a viable alternative.

Ian Miller

I have read many pros and cons on the topic of QI. Here is a nuetral/objective analysis bordering on the PRO.

Pseudoscience vs. Novel Theories: a critical examination of quantized inertia

https://resonance.is/pseudoscience-vs-novel-theories-critical-examination-quantized-inertia/

Sabah E. Karam

I am not convinced, but I guess more evidence might suffice. If I follow correctly, McCulloch argues inertia is an effect from accelerating in a bath of Unruh radiation. (I am not sure why velocity is not affected either because a moving particle will have different intensity of radiation frequencies between front and back.) My concerns are that first that radiation is extremely weak, and second, and more important, the inertia should vary according to the shape of the object, i.e. a flat thin surface should accelerate in vacuo less than a needle, in each case the key shape factor oriented normal to or along the line of acceleration. But inertial mass is supposedly independent of shape. I am also unconvinced that a sphere at the outside of a galaxy would see any particular difference from that inside because galaxies are still largely free space. Finally, inertia responds to gravity in known ways, and gravity is not shielded, but unless Unruh radiation was shielded I find it difficult to account for what we see. Similarly, light being bent in a gravitational field is difficult (for me) to relate to Unruh radiation because it is supposedly a uniform field (if I follow correctly) and if there were to be an effect it should be along the path of flight (because radiation following cannot catch up). Maybe I have all this wrong?

One more point. I do not consider the absence detection of dark matter to be relevant because they are probably looking in the wrong way. For example, Heim predicted a neutral electron, and if it were its own antiparticle, and if matter did predominate after a slightly asymmetric annihilations of matter and antimatter, this would explain the dark matter. This is not to say Heim was right, but he made a prediction, and an effect consistent with it is there. (He also got the mass of the electron remarkably right.) No detection method so far would have a hope of detecting this particle, so it is not eliminated from consideration.

Ian Miller

I agree with you that ”inertial mass is independent of shape” for linear motion but this is not case for rotational Motion. Paul Wesson argues from a dimensional analysis point of view in a 2003 paper called “Is mass quantized?” that “null 5D paths lead to relations ... which imply that mass is quantized.“ He concludes that “mass is apparently unquantized at the levels we have been able to examine, but also means that a direct tests involving current accelerators is impractical.”

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0309100

Sabah E. Karam

I am unaware how inertial mass alters for rotational motion, if you make a correct geometric shape correction.

As for the arXiv link, the term h is included, and the means he is quantising action. h is the quantum of action. That would only lead to discrete values of mass if energy had only very limited values, but as can be seen with molecules and their bond energies, the energies can take quite a variety of values, providing you compensate with different periodic times.

“…INERTIA, rather than gravity, should be ”quantised.”…..”

Inertia and Gravity are fundamentally different physical phenomena. Inertia is the manifestation of absolutely fundamental logical self-inconsistence of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Change” [more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, where, first of all, the main fundamental phenomena/often used physical parameters: “Energy”, “Space”, “Time”, are properly defined], so if it is necessary to change some something is logically obligatorily necessary to pay by two things: (i) – to spend some energy, and (ii) – in spite of the (i), nonetheless, if energy isn’t infinite, the change of some parameter will be uncertain.

That the phenomenon “Change” is logically self-inconsistent was shown in a few outstanding aporias by Zeno 2500 years ago.

Just because of the self-inconsistence above the processes in Matter on some level are fundamentally uncertain; and, since Matter is rather simple logical system, which exists and changes in accordance with a rather small set of fundamentally universal logical laws/links/constants, including universal elementary physical action constant ћ, corresponding physical theory “quantum mechanics”, which was predicted by Zeno, works. Including the inertia, which is manifestation of the “resistance” of anything to be changed, becomes be measurable by measuring of “inertial mass”.

Gravity, again [see the SS post above], is one of four known now fundamental Nature forces, which, as any other of the forces, have its charge, which emits the force mediators, in this case gravitons. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses, in spite of that they are fundamentally different, is, in certain sense, accidental physical effect, which appears because of every particle, in contrast to other Nature forces, is charged by Gravity charge, i.e. has gravitational mass; when inertia reveals at attempt to change current state of something, is applied eventually to every particle as well. Thai’s all.

Inertia isn’t of course, caused by some “Unruh radiation” , “Higgs fields”, etc.

Though because of the link between inertia/inertial mass and energy “the more spend energy at changing of some state of something, including, of course, at creation of something – the more inertia/inertial mass of this something” exists. In Matter these physical parameters are universally proportional E=mc2.

Including when in some system of material objects the objects are bounded by some force, this system at appearing radiate energy be equal to its corresponding mass defect, and the system usually have some discreet energy levels. Thus it has also some discreet “inertial and gravitational mass levels”, however in that there is no any new physics, QM well works operating by energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc., operators that act on complex vectors in the complex Hilbert space “Ψ-functions”.

These vectors, or “wave functions” are principally complex, and, though it is formally possible to describe a wave by real function, i.e., in this case by using cosines, however the main parameter of the Ψ-functions”, which just determinates the real [mathematically] probability of some physical parameter/s real value is the amplitude of this function, which is principally complex number, and only when is used as its squared module, becomes be real [mathematically] physical value.

Again, more about gravity and quantum gravity see SS posts above and links in the posts. The huge number of existent other “solutions” of the gravity quantization problem are nothing else then some artificial ad hoc mental constructions, which mostly attempt to “save” the principally wrong GR postulates about some “active” spacetime. What is fundamentally impossible, Matter’s spacetime is only the absolute [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”, where Matter exists and changes; which principally cannot be transformed by anything in Matter and principally cannot impact on anything in Matter; and so these constructions above are mostly practically useless in physics.

Cheers

Dear Emmanouil,

If gravity a quantum decoherence, then how is it any how related to singularities or space-time continuum. In the debate, Bohr, said about quantum entanglement which is later experimentally proven.

Though, QFE doesn't exactly explains why electrons spin and how they decide do they have to spin +1/2 or -1/2.

Not only this QFE is predicts the outcome of nature not the nature itself.

“…If gravity a quantum decoherence, then how is it any how related to singularities or space-time continuum…..”

Gravity is so weak force, that in Matter, where particles, including in compounds, say as mesons, atoms, etc. interact with forces, which in number of tens of orders are stronger, any contribution of Gravity in this case is practically infinitesimal.

Gravity becomes be dominant force, when many compounds, where actions of other forces are compensated, say atoms are electrically practically neutral, however in this case the masses of the compounds, say, of bodies, are so large, that the numbers of the elementary, i.e. between particles,

gravitational interactions are so large, that energies of gravitational interactions between bodies again turn out to be “outside QM scale”; here is no sense to say about some “decoherence”.

Besides any fundamental Nature force has no relation to some “singularities or space-time continuum”. All what this continuum makes is that Matter, including every material particle, body, galaxy, etc., exists and changes in the Matter’s absolute [t5]4D Euclidian empty container/spacetime.

More see SS posts above, including that, in spite of what is written above in this post, QM nature of Gravity can be observed.

“…Though, QFE doesn't exactly explains why electrons spin and how they decide do they have to spin +1/2 or -1/2. …..”

What is spin in the reality and why fermions have spin ½ see the SS post in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/is_there_any_particle_with_bosonic_and_fermionic_nature_simultaneously#view=5c708eb24f3a3ebe1c236f61 and papers that are linked in the post.

Cheers

Besides any fundamental Nature force has no relation to some “singularities or space-time continuum”. But gravity has, and gravity isn't a force. How gravity is related to singularity well before big-bang when everything was inside a infinite density. Gravity could be the reason for holding the matter within it. That was something you can call a singularity, such singularities can be calculated with the black hole. Singularities are the reason why gravity is so strong near black holes. And general relativity(GR) says gravity is just an experience of accelerating bodies in the space-time continuum.

Quantum Gravity, does explains the graviton interaction between any two practicals in special case of quantum mechanics (obviously in theses) but when m-theory is used to combine both QM and GR, it does breaks the space in more fragments. I mean in around 10 space dimensions and 1 time dimensions.

Dear @Sergey Shevchenko

I like your Axiomatic approach to “Information.” It reminds me of Euclidean Axioms which have been very valuable in the development of Geometry. AND... denial of one of those Axioms, the parallel postulate, has led to self-consistent non-Euclidean geometries! We know that Euclid's reasoning, from assumptions to conclusions, remain valid even if they are removed from their physical meaning.

In listing your Properties I1-I8, I found that Property I3 (Свойство И3) is referred to but not defined either in Ukranian or the English translation. Can you supply us Property I3 (in both languages).

Sergey Shevchenko

The wave function, with phase exp(2πiS/h) is not entirely complex, since, from Euler, exp(πi) = -1, real.

Ian Miller

“The wave function, with phase exp(2πiS/h) is not entirely complex, since, from Euler, exp(πi) = -1, real.”

The wave function isn’t a concrete number, it is a function, including at, say, motion of a particle its phase constantly changes, and, besides, very few points, the function is complex even because the exponent is complex. But, again, more principal is that in most cases just the amplitude of the function, which contains the main information about QM objects/systems is complex.

Cheers

“….But gravity has [“singularities or space-time continuum”.], and gravity isn't a force. How gravity is related to singularity well before big-bang when everything was inside a infinite density.…..”

Gravity is only fundamental Nature force, see SS posts above. Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidean spacetime relates to Gravity only in that gravitational charges [gravitational masses] and fields exist and change in this spacetime; as, say, the spacetime relates to every other fundamental Nature force, as, say, to E charges and E and EM fields.

There cannot be any singularities in the spacetime, the spacetime is simply empty container, in emptiness itself cannot exist anything besides emptiness.

What was before Big Bang nobody knows, as well as nobody knows by what reason and how Matter appeared, and why/by what way it is as it is. Till now unique indeed scientific conjectures about Appearance/Beginning only religions have, but from these conjectures practically no other rational conseuences follow.

Any of existent numerous official “scientific” “physical” models are nothing more than some fantastic meaningless, including just physically meanigless, fairy tales about physically inbeliavable “singularities in space-time continuum”; from which, besides, by no means follow any rational suggestions why Matter is, for example, very rationally organized informational system.

The GR postulates that mass acts by some force on the spacetime and further the “bended” spacetime forces masses to move “along geodesics” is a fantasy also, which appeared because of Einstein

[and Minkowski earlier as well, firstly real interactions of material objects and the spacetime were postulated in the SR, the GR is, in certain sense, a “development” of Minkowski’s ideas, more about the SR see, e.g., a couple of last SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_search_of_an_absolute_reference_frame_is_it_possible_to_define_one#view=5c750e0bd7141b40b1758d14 ]

didn’t understand what are space/time/spacetime. By this reason authors in the SR/GR don’t define rationally, though in this case that would be obligatory requirement, what are space/time/spacetime and don’t explain physically – so what forces “contract”, “dilate”, “bend” the space/time /spacetime. They simply to undefined phenomena postulated some ad hoc ungrounded claims.

More about these [Gravity and Big Bang] points see SS posts in last 12-3 days in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Am_I_the_only_one_that_is_doubtful_of_LIGOs_detection_of_gravitational_wave_GW150914#view=5c7524036611235f824271bb

and papers that are linked in the posts. Now RG software is inconvenient for such job, but in this case the problems aren’t too hard to seek foe and to read concrete posts.

Though the SS posts and papers that are linked in the posts in this thread are useful, of course, also.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

The amplitude tells you how much of whatever the wave represents is there. The reason the phase has to be complex is that the exponent form is required to get from the Hamilton's "action waves" to the Schrödinger equation, and that exponential function is the only way to get a wave that works for QM. You can still get to the Schrödinger equation using that route with A real. Try it. With that in mind, why do you insist A is complex, AND always has a value where, when you multiply by another complex number, must always be complex? The reason must be physical-based, not merely assumption.

Ian Miller

Dear Ian Miller,

“…You can still get to the Schrödinger equation using that route with A real. Try it. With that in mind, why do you insist A is complex, AND always has a value where, when you multiply by another complex number, must always be complex….”

You seems didn’t read SS posts attentively enough. In, say, the last posts there is no claims that in every cases some wave function values cannot be real, in the post is written “in most cases just the amplitude of the function, which contains the main information about QM objects/systems is complex.” I. e., not “always”, in certain sense, though; real numbers are in this QM case principally complex numbers with zero imaginary part.

Sorry, but I comment first of all official physics and as a rule don’t comment alternative approaches; if comment, than no more than 1-2 times. That is by a few reasons, including because of authors of such approaches are usually rather stubborn and every time write next an next claims without understanding comments, and, first of all, because of such approaches, in most cases, have no relation to corresponding thread's question - as that is in this case; so the claims are something as a spam, when comments only make the spam two times more effective.

So I would like to hope that you will obtain answers/comments on/to your questions either in the SS posts above, as that is in this case, or somewhere else.

Best regards,

Cheers

Dear Sabah E. Karam ,

“…In listing your Properties I1-I8, I found that Property I3 (Свойство И3) is referred to but not defined either in Ukranian or the English translation.…..”

Rather probably you solved this problem and found Property I3 already; so only on the off-chance, and, since possibly somebody else has the same problem [I don’t write posts only to addressed members, of course, as that any other RG member does] see the text between I1 and I2 that begins “…As Property I3 is true ….”, and the further is the text about this Property.

But more interesting in this case is your

“…I like your Axiomatic approach to “Information.” It reminds me of Euclidean Axioms which have been very valuable in the development of Geometry. AND... denial of one of those Axioms, the parallel postulate, has led to self-consistent non-Euclidean geometries! ….”

To this quote there can be a few remarks.

First of all – any new logical mental construction, including Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries, or, say, any other scientific theory, always is based on some set of initial non-provable conjectures, the sets can be arbitrary, but mast contain at least on conjecture, which are called as a rule “axioms” in mathematics and “postulates” in other sciences [though, of course, sometimes axioms and postulates are in the sciences and in mathematics].

At that there exist principal difference between mathematics and other sciences: mathematics is purely abstract product of the fundamentally non-material human’s consciousness, and here is, in certain sense, no problems with axioms, that can be arbitrary mathematical claims, that are introduced, mostly, by “Let A is….”, “let B is….” , etc., and further corresponding construction is made in accordance with existent mathematical or introduced operations rules and logical rules.

Thus in mathematics often there is no necessity to prove existence of “A”, “B”, etc. Proofs, including proof of existence of some new, in certain sense mathematical object, appears only at deriving corollaries from the conjectures, i.e. proofs of theorems, at solutions of mathematical problems and tasks, etc.

Nature sciences differ from mathematics fundamentally. First of all (i) - the choice of initial conjectures isn’t arbitrary one, it [mostly] should relate to real phenomena/processes in the external to consciousness World; and (ii) – the conjectures must , or, more correctly, principally cannot be other than, be based on some observed information about the World. Humans haven’t any apriory “undoubnedly true” information about the external, and obtain any new information only using their senses and experimental tools.

At that any experimental information cannot be proof of any conjecture, corollary, theory, etc.; from that in N some experiments, which in some identical conditions have the same outcomes, by no means follow, that the (N+1)-the experiment’s outcome will be the same. Or, again, postulates in physics and othere sciences are principally non-provable, either “theoretically” or experimentally, and scientists only can believe that they are true/adequate to theobjetive reality. Though it is enough to have one experimental outcome that isn’t in accordance with a theory to prove that the theory is either wrong at all or at least its application is limited.

Another two obligatory requirements for any theory would be correct are: (1) – the postulates must be mutually consistent, and, what is more important, (2) - from the theory any meaningless consequences must not follow.

And, what is important also, if some experiments are made aimed at testing some theory, it is necessary, first of all, to test utmost directly just postulates, not some consequences of the theory.

A seems classical example now , where the points (2) above, and that at testing of a theory must the postulates be tested, are the relativity theories. From the SR postulates about that there is no Matter’s absolute spacetime any number of meaningless consequences follow, and there weren’t any experiments where postulated transformation of space/time/spacetime were measured.

Though, because of the indeed in very many cases in the reality correct and powerful Galileo-Poincare relativity principle well works, there are a numerous experiments that “confirm the SR”, however such confirmations don’t differ from, say, a case, when somebody, analyzing, say, a collision of a car and a wall, working at that in the frame where the car is at rest and the wall, correspondingly moves; after obtaining adequate to the this experiment results, claims that he proved that the wall was moving through highway with the speed 100 mph. What is really the nonsense, of cpurse. Nothing more.

The main fact, which is the base of the “The Information as Absolute” conception, that the information cannot be non-existent is, since that relate to external to humans phenomenon “Information” about which at the born humans have no apriory information, some experimental fact also.

However, because of that the information is absolutely fundamental, in contrast to any experimentally observable in any other theories, concepts, etc., phenomena, ect., which can be only “simply fundamental”, since relate only to Matter and Consciousness, which are only infinitesimal sub-Sets in absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set,

in this case it is enough only in one experiment to detect some information as a data to prove this main inference in the conception, from which a number of other main postulates, definitions of phenomena “Matter”, “Consciousness”, etc., quite rational follow. Including it becomes be clear what are main physical phenomena “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, and “Quantum uncertainty”; from what follows the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, where, including, it is shown what and why in the SR/GR are wrong and what happens in Matter in the reality. And a number of other fundamental basic phenomena/notions become be essentially clarified also, though.

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko

I am sorry if you think my comments are spam. I was merely showing a mathematical possibility. My main point is that I believe the title question has to be addressed by finding some observable phenomenon that requires quantization to explain it rather than to get lost in maths, and with gravity I can't see that phenomenon. Yet. I apologise if you think I was diverting from the question.

Dear Ian Miller,

Well, you are right, as a thumb of rule the existence of gravity of point energy concentration formation of quantum energy (i.e. particle) always suggests that it can be divided to sub energy formation and structures meaning that our particle consists of sub-particles thus it can be quantized.

Therefore I believe quantum mechanics shoots itself on the foot when forbidding by axiom elementary particles like the electron, quark and neutrino to be further subdivided and therefore by theory and axiom it forbids at the same time elementary particles to have quantum gravity (however it allows elementary particles to have apparent mass due to the Higgs field).

Gravity is always a merging mechanism suggesting division of matter and the physical or mathematical proof correlating quantization of matter with gravity deserves the Nobel Prize.

No gravity, no further quantization of known matter.

So far there is no proof of elementary quantum particles to have gravity therefore we are forced to assume that these are truly the elementary particles of known matter and weightless but not massless :)

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Dear Ian Miller

I don’t think that Sergey Shevchenko understands that your answers are coming

from a chemical, molecular biological, physical perspective.

They are not diversions or spam!

First, let me say nobody has offended/bothered me. The reason I entered this discussion is I wonder whether gravity is an emergent property. At the risk of being accused of wild speculation, consider the following which only applies if the pilot wave type interpretation of QM applies. The wave function has to guide the particle, BUT it only, by and large, guides the particle of origin of the wave, thus the 2-slit experiment gives exactly the same result if a large assembly of particles are used independently of the rate at which they go though. To guide it, it has to exert a force, through something like Bohm's quantum potential.

Now, suppose you add my condition that the potential is only realised widely when the wave is real. Now, if two waves from two particles have exactly the same phase, there will be a new potential generated, but of course the probability of having equal phase is very low. Given the potential is proportional to the particle energy, and not the particle itself, we now have a force that will decline inverse square from an assembly, but because it is emergent it will not be quantised. Just to be more annoying, it would increase with the velocity of the assembly and certain shapes need not be entirely linear.

Not saying this actually happens, but it is a demonstration that it is possible to construct something where the gravitational effects are not quantised. This is why I ask for observational evidence.

Ian Miller

WOW!

Your description is very close to the STOE photon (particle) model of diffraction (1 slit) and interference (2 slit) experiments at the heart of QM. The first video shows experiments that reject wave model for the interference experiments - yes, they follow Bohmian Interpretation with the photon being the source in a REAL plenum (spacetime, ether, vacuum, etc.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDB-K_sSjU&t=3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k&t=4s

The papers are in the project:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-photon-diffraction-and-interference

However, the waves need not be in phase for the photons to generate waves that effect other photons ( see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329017937_Photon_diffraction_and_interference

which shows a computer simulation of incoherent photons -everything out of phase- becoming coherent then forming diffraction patterns on screen. The amplitude of the generated plenum wave declines as 1/distance.

These seem to be the demonstrations you seek.

The base components of the universe in the STOE are hods which emerge to form photons and matter and plenum whose divergence produces gravity, the force on the photons, etc.

With this model and experimental consistency where QM and wave models of light are rejected, the answer to this question is obvious.

Did I omit anything?

Hodge

John Hodge

Thanks for the reference. I've downloaded your paper and will think about it, but not today as I have some dinner and entertaining to get on with.

“Hawking radiation doesn’t exist”

Adrian Ferent

“Dark Matter does not have temperature”

Adrian Ferent

“Gravitons from Black holes transform Matter and ‘heat’ in Dark Matter.”

Adrian Ferent

“In Ferent Quantum Gravity (FQG) Black holes are not cold or hot, Black holes are Dark Matter and do not have Temperature”

Adrian Ferent

“Virtual particles do not exist in Ferent Quantum Gravity, virtual particles exist in Quantum Field theory.”

Adrian Ferent

“Event horizons do not exist in Ferent Quantum Gravity, event horizons exist in Einstein General Theory of Relativity. At Event horizons there are only Gravitons without Hawking radiation.”

Adrian Ferent

You learned from your professors, from your books, from the greatest scientists that Black holes are very cold. They are cold because they absorb everything including all heat.

Bigger Black holes, they absorb more stars, planets…they become colder; because your professors, the greatest scientists did not understand Gravitation, Black holes and Dark Matter.

“In Ferent Quantum Gravity (FQG) Black holes are not cold or hot, Black holes are Dark Matter and do not have Temperature”

Adrian Ferent

Hawking radiation doesn’t exist!

Hawking radiation is blackbody radiation that is predicted to be released by Black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon.

Temperature of a black hole is inversely proportional to its mass, such that:

Hawking radiation temperature: T = k / M

The power of the Hawking radiation from a solar mass black hole turns out to be minuscule: 9 x 10^(-29) W.

For a black hole of one solar mass, we get an evaporation time of 2×10^67 years, much longer than the age of the Universe.

Hawking and all the scientists did not understand Gravitation and Black holes.

“Black holes are Dark Matter”

Adrian Ferent

“Dark Matter does not have temperature”

Adrian Ferent

“Gravitons from Black holes transform Matter, ‘heat’ in Dark Matter.”

Adrian Ferent

Dark Matter has another structure, based on Ferent length lF = 1.296 × 10^(-69) m much smaller than Planck length lP = 1.616199×10^(-35) m.

Dark Matter does not emit, reflects, absorbs light.

“Dark Matter is not ‘invisible’, is not ‘transparent’ Matter.”

Adrian Ferent

“Light will not cross Dark Matter because the Gravitons from Dark Matter will transform light in Dark Matter.”

Adrian Ferent

“Light will not cross Dark Matter because Dark Matter density is higher than Planck density.”

Adrian Ferent

Hawking Radiation: black holes will generate virtual particles right at the edge of their event horizons. The most common kind of particles is photons. A pair of these virtual particles appear right at the event horizon, one half of the pair as negative energy drops into the black hole, while the other as photon is free to escape into the Universe.

“Virtual particles do not exist in Ferent Quantum Gravity, virtual particles exist in Quantum Field theory.”

Adrian Ferent

“Event horizons do not exist in Ferent Quantum Gravity, event horizons exist in Einstein General Theory of Relativity. At Event horizons there are only Gravitons without Hawking radiation.”

Adrian Ferent

Ferent wave equation of the graviton:

Ψ – the wave function of the graviton

String theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are wrong theories because both of them predict Hawking radiation.

All Gravitation theories based on Einstein gravitation theory are wrong, for example String theory, Loop Quantum Gravity.

174. I am the first who discovered that Hawking radiation doesn’t exist

175. I am the first who discovered that Dark Matter does not have temperature

176. I am the first who discovered that Gravitons from Black holes transform Matter and ‘heat’ in Dark Matter

177. I am the first who discovered that in Ferent Quantum Gravity (FQG) Black holes are not cold or hot, Black holes are Dark Matter and do not have Temperature

178. I am the first who discovered that event horizons do not exist in Ferent Quantum Gravity, event horizons exist in Einstein General Theory of Relativity. At event horizons there are only Gravitons without Hawking radiation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331373527_Hawking_radiation_doesn't_exist_Black_holes_do_not_have_temperature

John,

It is all about aether medium disturbances after all as you very well describe it and experiment.

All the particles we know are disturbances in the same medium. thus aether. The only type of energy all particles are made up of, is the aether medium.

Undisturbed aether medium pressure surrounding a disturbance (particle) in the aehter, my QFM theory predicts this disturbance to be in the form of a vortex thus concentration of aether energy in a point thus mass, cannot be accounted for the force of gravity alone since aether has a scalar density in nature when undisturbed but this monopole concentration of energy at this vortex singularity itself forming a pressure point is I believe we perceive as gravity.

Density of the aether medium is higher at the aether vortex singularity formed than the scalar density of the undisturbed aether surrounding this disturbance.

Don't get me wrong please. Of course pressure goes from high to low and the perimeter of the vortex will have a lower pressure than surrounding aether scalar value but the apex, tip at the end of the hyperbola vortex formed will have a higher pressure thus a particle (fig.1).

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Emmanouil

John Hodge

I have read your paper, admittedly perhaps too quickly, and if I follow correctly, your wave is actually gravitational in nature. That may be equivalent to my quantum potential, which is an attractive force on the particle. Where to from there? What would be attractive is if you can generate some sort of effect by which well-separated very large masses generate an additional interference. You might be able to get around the need for dark matter. Unfortunately, I can't really see (now, at least) how to do this. But amounts of dark matter that account for galactic rotation generally do not match the motion in galactic clusters.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Yes. Very good. That is the STOEs suggestion for charge (the coulomb field). There is another type of vortex - the ring (I think you once wrote of this) The suggestion is these 2 combine to produce a lower overall density and if either combines with a like vortex, the ether (plenum) is increased (repulsion of charges)

Ian Miller

I thought you were originally talking of light models - those were the references.

The plenum is the medium of Bohm and in a larger scale the divergence is gravity. Matter bepresses scalar field that causes divergence to be attractive.

The STOE suggests Rotation curves (RC) (the observation suggesting dark matter) is due to the Source being at the center of spiral galaxies. This is very similar to the QSSC model. This explains many other anomalous (to the standard cosmological model) effects including a theoretical microwave background radiation temperature. Motion in galactic clusters has been accounted by baryonic matter by x-ray measurements.

Note in

Article Scalar Theory of Everything Replacement of Special Relativity

there are links to papers that describe the various galactic observations.

These papers are available on RG under my papers.

Ian Miller

I thought you were originally talking of light models - those were the references.

The plenum is the medium of Bohm and in a larger scale the divergence is gravity. Matter bepresses scalar field that causes divergence to be attractive.

The STOE suggests Rotation curves (RC) (the observation suggesting dark matter) is due to the Source being at the center of spiral galaxies. This is very similar to the QSSC model. This explains many other anomalous (to the standard cosmological model) effects including a theoretical microwave background radiation temperature. Motion in galactic clusters has been accounted by baryonic matter by x-ray measurements.

Note in

Article Scalar Theory of Everything Replacement of Special Relativity

there are links to papers that describe the various galactic observations.

These papers are available on RG under my papers.

theories of quantum gravity is not experimentally verified.

ZPE/F (zero-point energy/fluctuations) offers the best explanation for a Newtonian force/Einstein geometry explanation, not unification, in light (no pun intended) of the recently published, 13 Feb 2019, paper on COSMIC STRINGS (not related by any stretch of our theoretical imaginations to QUANTUM STRINGS) in the Astrophysical Journal “Detection of the Missing Baryons.”  SEE:

Article Detection of the Missing Baryons toward the Sightline of H1821+643

Article Detection of the Missing Baryons toward the Sightline of H1821+643

HERE IS THE LINK TO THE FEBRUARY 2019 IOP PAPER

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaef78

John Hodge

No, I was thinking of the pilot wave approach, where there is a wave associated with any motion (which includes light), but also expected where there is a Lagrangian, and so gravity, by and large, would originate from the nucleus, though the quark-quark interactions. It is not worked to any degree of depth, and I cited it mainly to show that if it originated from something like that, gravity would not be quantised. That is, there is no absolute need for gravity to be quantised.

Ian Miller

I don't understand what you are thinking. What you are saying before was about cosmology issues. Now what?

Motion (in the STOE) requires a force (which implies a Lagrangian) generated by a divergence of some medium if you accept the existence of the medium (the pilot wave approach you mention). Certainly, a wave presents the divergence to a surface of a particle. But so to can a slope 1/r (not wave) from other masses. The STOE suggest a continuous medium not quantized gravity. No need for whatever the "quark-quark" thing is.

@John Hodge

The point about the pilot wave is that it accompanies particle motion, so there has to be particle motion to generate it. If you have two (or three) bound quarks there is motion of each in the frame of reference of the others (think of the Uncertainty Principle). In my guidance wave variation, the square of the amplitude of that wave is proportional to the energy of the interaction. The reason the gravitational effect is mainly due to the nuclei is that that is where the most binding energy is. All binding energy must also involve motion (virial theorem that applies from a Lagrangian) as well as potential energy.

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis

Your Question and related answers have generated much interest, especially mine. The discovery of “Cosmic Strings” (see my Answer above) negating the concept of “dark energy/matter/mass”

SEE: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9810066.pdf

Ground State Energy of Massive Scalar Field in the Background of Finite Thickness Cosmic String

N.R. Khusnutdinov and M. Bordag

QM of free scalar particles in curved space time generated by cosmic string

was studied in the 30+ years ago, and there are many models. The problem

was teduced to studying the scattering of free quantum particles across a

conical singularity which are ”free Hamiltonian of scalar particles on a cone.”

The vacuum interaction for two parallel cosmic strings was first considered by

@M. Bordag ”On the vacuum interaction of two parallel cosmic strings. Annalen Phys.,

47:93, 1990”

I refer you recent papers of our RG colleagues

@Nail R. Khusnutdinov and @J. M. Muñoz-Castañeda (some papers need to be requested).

EARLIER MATHEMATICAL FORMULATIONS

“Quantum vacuum interaction between two cosmic strings revisited”

J. M. Muñoz-Castañeda and M. Bordag, Phys. Rev. D 89, 065034 – Published 25 March 2014

Earlire mathematical formulations were done In 1995.

SEE: M.Bordag, J. Phys. A., 28, (1995) 755; and

M. Bordag, K. Kirsten, Phys. Rev. D 53, (1996) 5753.

Dear Emmanouil, you will find you answer in chapter B from my full text associated to my project Graviton Physics.

You can find this in preprint docs or follow the link:

Preprint GRAVITON PHYSICS

Emmanouil Markoulakis

I think Ian Miller and I are headed in the same direction. The pilot wave is a plenum (ether, spacetime, etc) wave whose divergence directs particles. That is, the plenum divergence is gravity. Therefore, the test which detects gravity on the quantum scale is diffraction and interference - Young's double-slit experiment.

Yes you can put it in this way as well. I agree.

However divergence comes always together with curl which is zero in the case of gravity.

Preprint THE PHILOSOPHICAL SKETCH OF GRAVITATION ORIGIN

oh yes of course. These satellites must been moving relative to the Earth very fast! I guess one rotation per hour or so, like the ISS?

For everyone who knows physics!

Explain this if you can?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_the_neutralize_by_gamma_radiation_a_magnetic_field_without_demagnetizing_the_permanent_magnet

Emmanouil Markoulakis

"This is the fermionic natural repulsion property necessary for matter to occupy space and have volume."

The Pauli exclusion principle leading to fermionic repulsion a priori has nothing to do with angular momentum. It is a consequence of the antisymmetry of the many-particle wave function under particle exchange.

One can then show mathematically that this antisymmetry entails a half-integer spin. This is the spin statistics theorem, proved by Lüders for general interacting particles.

“…The Pauli exclusion principle leading to fermionic repulsion a priori has nothing to do with angular momentum…..”

The Pauli exclusion principle indeed leads to fermionic repulsion; and that is caused, by some unknown way, with angular momentum, and that was experimentally observed; when that

“…It is a consequence of the antisymmetry of the many-particle wave function under particle exchange. …..”, etc.

- isn’t so, this “the antisymmetry of the many-particle wave function” was ad hoc postulated in the QM only aimed at to fit the QM with the experiment, again, for that there is no rational explanations till now.

Nothing can happen in Matter because of that in some human’s mental construction something is postulated, humans can only to describe – adequately to the reality or as an illusion – events/effects/processes in Matter.

Returning to the thread’s question, again – there is no doubts that Gravity is the fundamental Nature Force, and so, as that is at any interactions by any other [Strong, EM, Weak] fundamental Force, the gravitational interactions are quantized.

When the quantum nature of gravity can be observed with a rather non-zero probability yet now – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests ; http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 ; at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”.

The experiment was proposed yet in 2007.

Cheers

Spin and fermionic repulsion are just of the problems of science today. The challenge is to identify more primitive model to model more problems and the reduce to the current model.

Spin is measured through magnetic field. It can be modeled not a angular momentum spin but by suggesting the particles has multiple magnetic poles. spin 12 and an asymmetry of 720 degrees requires 4 pairs of N-S poles. Spin 1 requires only 1 N-S pole.

So, a new question to unite these observations is what makes the 4 pairs of poles fermionic while a single pole is bosonic?

Actually our universe unfolded with the symmetry breaking of the Super Unified Gaussian Energy Group SU(11) gives two fundamental properties of Energy Sources called Matter Oriented Unified Energy Group SU(5) and other by SU(6) created Quantum Gravity as well as biomolecules with Consciousness etc.........

For details cordially requested to read my all articles.

My view is that NOTHING can be caused by mathematics - it is merely described by it. Take the simple relation 1 + 1 = 2. I have a bag, to which I add one orange, the I add one orange. My relation tells me the bag contains two oranges, but the relation is not the cause - the cause was my adding oranges. Those who argue the Exclusion Principle is caused by the wave function being antisymmetric add to the confusion because when push comes to shove, they do not believe there is actually a wave.

As for spin and fermionic repulsion, my Guidance Wave approach explains this as follows. The particle, say an electron, has a volume and is not a point. To have a volume there must be a surface, BUT we can take an element of that surface and say by the Uncertainty Principle, it cannot have a defined position with respect to the centre, otherwise it would also have a defined radial momentum (zero). Accordingly, the "surface" is a pulsating wave, and because there is very little mass attached to the particle, the wave is quite extensive and consequently the particle appears like a point.

However, that argument regarding a surface element also applies to angular position and angular momentum. Therefore there is also an angular wave motion couples with the radial motion. A wave must have a crest and a trough, by symmetry there are no nodes, therefore the wave requires two cycles and the action change, per cycle, is h/2. For a photon, the spin is 1 because there are two waves.

The fermionic repulsion is simple. The repulsion does not exist per se, but the electric charge repulsion does. The pairing of electrons only occurs when there is a positive field to bind the electrons. The Pauli Principle comes from the fact that two electrons can provide a crest and a trough in one cycle; a third electron cannot, and would move the position of the crests, etc, which does not result in a stationiary wave, and Maxwell's relationship ends that possibility. However, FOUR electrons would manage it provided the pairs behave in phase - which is why, in chemistry, the well-known SN2 reaction can occur. In the symmetry arguments, it violates the Exclusion principle and should not happen, but nobody told it that, and there is nothing from the mathematics to enforce it. More details on the Guidance Wave approach are in my ebook.

As I stated above, mathematics cannot be a cause of something - it merely describes, and runs the risk of pretending to be more than it is. The next question is, do you believe that the Schrödinger equation adequately describes the quantum mechanical effects we observe? Is there any observation at odds with it? If there are no such observations, then the next question is, have you observed in any experiment a "cloud of spatial excitations?" The Uncertainty Principle simply comes from the quantisation of action, and the change of action determines the phase of the wave function - it is this quantisation that relates the Schrödinger equation to the waves that Hamilton obtained from classical physics. The particle's de Broglie wavelength is determined by such quantisation of action, so I stick with my opinion. Mathematical formalisation does not provide a cause, merely a procedure for those who wish solely to calculate.

About the fermionic repulsion debate:

A mathematical description Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) does not necessarily describe causality mechanisms only equivalent effects.

If someone accepts that the PEP is a consequence of the electric charge of the fermion particles then it is meaningful to ask what is charge and with which mechanism it is created?

Electric charge is a dynamic effect in quantum physics and it involves motion of magnetic flux or else moving magnetism.

I can prove that what we call electric charge of an electron is a physical spinning magnetosphere or else whirling dipole magnetic flux the electron is made up of.

Therefore electric charge of fermions is closely related with motion and angular momentum which are in analogy spinning magnetic tops.