Points 2 and 3 are wrong. The correct way of treating these issues can be found in any textbook on general relativity.

Point 1 isn’t new. It’s a straightforward consequence of the Einstein-Hilbert action, as discussed, for instance in Weinberg’s book from 1972.

“…Is gravity propagated by graviton particles?

1). There is plenty of evidence that gravitational fields, like electromagnetic fields, propagate at the speed of light. LIGO observations of gravitational waves are the latest, and perhaps strongest, evidence. That would suggest that gravitational fields are propagated by some sort of photon-like particles: gravitons.…..”

- yeah, Gravity is, of course, nothing else than some [“fourth”] fundamental Nature force, which is similar in a number of traits to the other – Electric/EM Force, and so gravitational waves are radiated by accelerated gravitational charges – “gravitational masses”, as that accelerated electric charges do.

At that practically for sure gravitational waves really are coherent flows of particles “gravitons”, as EM waves are really are coherent flows of particles “photons”.

That is another thing, that particles photons aren’t real mediators of the E/EM Force, though that is postulated in the Standard particle Model, which includes/repeats in this case, as its postulate, the corresponding postulate in QED, despite of in the QED the E/EM Force mediators are “virtual” photons, whereas photons, including in the SM, are real observable photons.

What is with a rather non-zero probability the real mediators of Gravity and Electric/EM Forces? – see 2007 initial model in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics ; https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems”.

“…Point 1 isn’t new. It’s a straightforward consequence of the Einstein-Hilbert action, as discussed, for instance in Weinberg’s book from 1972.….”

- in the GR, including in the Einstein-Hilbert action, there is no gravitinos fundamentally, for at least two fundamental reasons: first of all Forces mediators are purely quantum objects, whereas the GR is fundamentally incompatible with QM; and even in “classical” sense gravitational waves fundamentally differ from EM waves – whereas EM waves in classical ED are disturbances of some medium that has concrete “vacuum permittivity” and “vacuum permeability”, gravitational waves in the GR are really non-existent “ripples in the spacetime”.

More see the link

Cheers

under your discussion question, their graviton particle must be has some more specific properties, because it can to be a mediator of gravitational force.

Stam Nicolis stated that "Points 2 and 3 are wrong." WRT point 2, about the alignment of gravitational acceleration vectors, the best available data don't come directly from the GRT literature, they come from modern gravitational theory. Cliff Will is the foremost proponent of that theory. The specific datasets that support my Point 2 contention are based on analysis of binary pulsar orbits, which have been observed with remarkable precision. Please see the discussion in my main paper, sections 6.4.4.1 and 6.4.4.2 for the references and analysis regarding this point.

WRT point 3, it is a simple geometric argument.

graviton, postulated quantum that is thought to be the carrier of the gravitational field. It is analogous to the well-established photon of the electromagnetic field. Gravitons, like photons, would be massless, electrically uncharged particles traveling at the speed of light. Since gravitons would apparently be identical to their antiparticles, the notion of antigravity is questionable. Gravitons have not been directly observed; as of 2016, observations of weak lensing of distant galaxies have placed the tightest bound on the graviton’s mass as being less than 6 × 10−32 electron volts.(This article was most recently revised and updated by Erik Gregersen.)

“…graviton, postulated quantum that is thought to be the carrier of the gravitational field. It is analogous to the well-established photon of the electromagnetic field…”

- again – see the SS post above - the “well-established photon” really isn’t the Electric/EM Force mediator. That is evident – in the statics electric charges evidently interact, however at that no any “well-established photon” is observed. So really in official physics, including Standard Model, because of that is postulated in QED, this Force’s mediators are “virtual photons”, which differ from the “well-established” photons, including in that they aren’t observable, whereas the “well-established” photons are well observable; say, by human’s eyes, because of these photons are just “ordinary” particles, whereas so real mediators aren’t ordinary particles.

“…. Gravitons, like photons, would be massless, electrically uncharged particles traveling at the speed of light. Since gravitons would apparently be identical to their antiparticles, the notion of antigravity is questionable. Gravitons have not been directly observed; …..”

- real mediators of Gravity Force – and real mediators of E/EM Force as well – are so neither “well-established”, nor “virtual”, gravitons [photons], rather rational suggestion is postulated in the SS&VT 2007 initial Gravity and Electric Forces models – that are “circular photons” and “circular gravitons”, which aren’t particles, and so aren’t observable in typical physical experiments, in contrast to the particles “gravitons”, which are detectable as, say, gravitational waves – as photons are observable as EM waves.

However the quantum nature of Gravity, i.e. interactions of circular gravitons, practically for sure can be observed, as that is suggested in the again 2007 experiment proposal, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245583444_On_the_photon_spectrums_of_some_monochromatic_beams_in_Earth_gravitation_field

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.4657v2.pdf

http s://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”.

More see the SS post above.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko Re photons and EM, I have some thoughts along the same line as yours. I don't think that a photon is a 'fundamental particle', instead I suspect that a photon is a collection of more fundamental simpler particles that represent basic quanta of momentum. So, possibly, individual copies of these simpler particles are emitted by charges, and they propagate EM fields. A photon would represent a (large) arbitrary number of the simpler particles, and the larger the number the greater the photon's inertia and the lower the variability of the location of its center. When an atom absorbs a photon it swallows some or all of the photon's constituents, and as appropriate spits out the balance as a lower-energy photon. But I'm just speculating...

Dear Ronald Ian Miller,

You have started a very interesting discussion...

Actually onto the base of natural formulation of gravity described in the next articles:

Article Gravity a paradym shift in reasoning

Article Tényekkel igazolható a gravitáció valós oka

Research AZ ELMÉLETI TUDOMÁNY KÉNYES JELENSÉGE

it can be said that your approach using the erroneous concept of gravity, The LIGO discovery of gravity waves explanation same are staying on totally poisoned explanation:

Article A 2017. Fizikai Nobel-díj „gravitációs hullámai”

Another thing is that electromagnetic waves are manifesting on quantum and macro-level... Minimum one thing was good in LiGO explanation that their 'gravity wave discovered' had wavelength: in range of 100-1000 km, the radiowaves are between mm-and few 1000 km... it can already be said only the present assumption... that the gravity waves are not propagated with graviton particle!

I have formulated the graviton possible form and sent it to my American colleague last year. All of this was included in a few sentences... Soon, shortly I will report it in the short form.

Regards

Laszlo

Ronald Ian Miller,

“…I don't think that a photon is a 'fundamental particle', instead I suspect that a photon is a collection of more fundamental simpler particles that represent basic quanta of momentum. So, possibly, individual copies of these simpler particles are emitted by charges, and they propagate EM fields.….”, etc…”

- that is in certain sense correct – in that “well-established photon” isn’t the “fundamental particle”, since in Standard particle Model – and that seems is correctly stated – “fundamental particles” are the particles that, at least now, are base at construction of the “non-fundamental” particles in the known now a few hundreds of particles zoo; and so the fundamental particles aren’t consisting from other particles, i.e. of 3 origination of quarks and leptons,

- and of the known now fundamental Nature forces’ [Strong, Electric/EM, Weak, and Gravity Forces] mediators. That is another thing, again – see the SS posts above - that really the “well-established photon”, though are claimed in the SM as so fundamental particles/E/EM Force mediators, practically for sure aren’t the mediators, and so aren’t fundamental particles.

However really these photons are unique particles that are created in the events/processes, where the E/EM Force is involved; and, at that, the photons aren’t some collections “of more fundamental simpler particles that represent basic quanta of momentum” – concrete photons, as any real particles else, fundamentally have concrete energy E=ћω, and momentum P=E/c.

At that yeah - the “well-established photon” aren’t emitted by charges, they are emitted at interactions of charges [say, when some charges are accelerated by some other charges], and at interactions “annihilations of pairs “particle-antiparticle””.

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko , here's how I think about EM fields. Imagine that I am holding a bar magnet, and you are measuring its magnetic field's strength and orientation. Then I start to wave the magnet around. After a time lag based on the speed of light, you observe corresponding changes to the magnet's field.

That implies that the magnetic field is being continuously emitted, and that it propagates at the (local) speed of light.

If I waved the magnetic around at a high-enough frequency, you would perceive its changing magnetic field as an EM wave. But really you are just observing the changing attributes of the field, delayed because its propagators travel at the speed of light.

Whatever propagates the field, it appears to propagate in the same way that photons do. But unless my waving frequency is very high you won't perceive it as being composed of photons. So I would suggest that a static bar magnet is continuously emitting extremely low-energy photons, some sort of a lowest common denominator for a photon. (And, per this discussion's actual topic, that masses emit analogous particles... 'gravitons'.).

Best regards.

As shown in Figure 15, we have built a very simple Sun-Earth model. If the gravitational speed is equal to the speed of light, the gravitational force of the Sun will be delayed for 8 minutes, then the gravitational force of the Sun on the Earth will come from S1 instead of the true position S0, so there will be a component F1 that is opposite to the orbital velocity of the Sun, under the action of F1 , The Earth will move to the left, as shown in Figure 15(a). Finally, the Earth will follow S1, as shown in Figure 15(b), which is inconsistent with the real solar system.

If the gravitational speed is equal to the speed of light, using classical mechanics would lead to the conclusion that the solar system is no longer stable. So need to wait for GR scholars to explain how GR eliminates this gravitational delay and keeps the solar system stable.

Entire space, outside the most basic 3D matter-particles, is filled with an all-encompassing universal medium, structured by quanta of matter. Due to its structure, the universal medium is inherently under compression. A 3D matter-particle, in the universal medium, experiences compression from the universal medium. This property of the universal medium is gravitation. Magnitude of gravitation corresponds to extent of universal medium that exerts the pressure. Extent of universal medium between two 3D matter-particles is always less than extents of universal medium on their outer sides. Hence higher gravitational actions on outer sides tend to move the 3D matter-particles towards each other. This tendency is understood as gravitational attraction or gravity. Gravitational attraction (gravity) is the resultant (relatively a minor by-product) of separate gravitational actions on two 3D matter-particles by universal medium. Gravity is neither transmitted nor transferred from one body to another. Gravitation is an inherent property of universal medium and gravitational attraction is an apparent force. Gravitation is enormously strong pressure/force – constant of its proportion is about 2.2x10^37 m^3/Kg Sec^2. This is about 3.3x10^47 times of present value of G (gravitational constant). Compare this with present value of G=6.668x10^-11 m^3/Kg Sec^2.

Dear Ronald Ian Miller

“…here's how I think about EM fields. Imagine that I am holding a bar magnet, and you are measuring its magnetic field's strength and orientation. Then I start to wave the magnet around. After a time lag based on the speed of light, you observe corresponding changes to the magnet's field. That implies that the magnetic field is being continuously emitted, and that it propagates at the (local) speed of light.

If I waved the magnetic around at a high-enough frequency, you would perceive its changing magnetic field as an EM wave. But really you are just observing the changing attributes of the field, delayed because its propagators travel at the speed of light.…..”

- yeah, that is in certain sense so, however with fundamental correction. Besides, if you will wave an electric charge, then the same will happen with the charge’s electric field,

- however in both cases that will not be “true” EM waves, and so, say, that will be only “M-waves” and “E-waves”, whereas in true EM waves the both, E and M, strengths always co-exist, changing harmonically/[sinusoidally] each other.

Though “harmonically” isn’t the main parameter of the waves; and so, say, when Moon rotates around Earth, the Gravity field configuration – like at your waving of a magnet or a charge – changes also practically harmonically, and, say, if on Mars some observer will made some “LIGO”, he will detect corresponding “gravitational waves” with frequency ~ 4x10-7 Hz.

But, again – that are changes of the field configuration, not the true waves, which are coherent flows of the “ordinary” particles - “ordinary [“well-established”] photons” and “ordinary” gravitons,

- whereas the Gravity/Electric Forces’ fields are formed by mediators – “circular” photons and gravitons, which, again, aren’t “ordinary” particles, i.e. some point-like/local wave chunks of matter. That seems as rather probably are, in accordance with the SS&VT 2007 initial models of the Forces, some 2D space “rings”, which are radiated by electric and gravitational charges, and spread radially with the speed of light in the Matter’s [5]4D “ether” – [5]4D dense lattice of the binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE].

At statics the mediators’ FLE flip with some precession, which carries transmitted momentum, so at hitting of an mediator’s FLE into another charge this charge obtains the momentum, which is directed to the “radiating” charge, what results in the central Coulomb and Newton forces;

- however if a charge moves, this momentum increases because of the motion, and so the precession is changed; so at hitting of an such FLE into another charge this charge obtains the momentum, which has the orthogonal to the “static direction” component – what in physics is described as the magnetic force, and practically for sure really as non-existent in official physics, but really existent, gravitomagnetic force.

However, again, corresponding fields remain be the fields, including, say, at inertial motion of the charges we have constant EM – and GGM – fields.

- whereas, again, the “ordinary” photons and gravitons are radiated by accelerated charges, when, seems, the circular photons/gravitons obtain the momentums, which transform the circular photons/gravitons into the “ordinary” photons/gravitons, if the number of these photons/gravitons is huge enough, that are EM/gravitational waves.

More see the SS posts above and links in the posts.

Cheers

It is not proved that gravitons exist as particles. Gravitation in GR is linked to the flow of the observed time d\tau = (1 - w/c^2)dt, where t is the ideal (uniformly flowing) time. We see that the observed time flows uniformly if w = 0, while the observed time \tau is stopped if w = c^2 (the collapse condition). The stronger gravitation , the slower time.

Tony Yuan : There is a nice old paper: Van Flandern, Tom. “The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say”. Physics Letters A, Vol 250, Dec 1998, Pages 1-11. It describes the same issue that you do, with a historical perspective. That was the point I was trying to make in my introduction to the discussion- point 2.

The conclusion is reinforced by modern PPN gravitational solutions for binary pulsar systems, as presented in several of Cliff Will's publications: in order to accurately predict the orbits' precession and decay rates each of the stars' acceleration vectors has to be aligned PRECISELY with the current location of its partner. It's impossible for that to happen without instantaneous transmission of information about the stars' locations! So if gravitons are involved, they must be quantum-mechanically entangled with their parent stars.

Preprint Gravity and Velocity

Preprint Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves

My two gravitational papers, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, might be well unified.

I think the GRT based on the fact that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light will retire from the stage of physical history as a false theory.

Tony Yuan : I think we should distinguish between two different speeds here: 1) the speed at which gravitational fields propagate, and 2) the speed at which the information about the relative positions and velocities of an attracting mass and an attracted particle propagates between them.

Those two speeds might be identical, and if so the communication must be effectively instantaneous. My own opinion is that the speeds are different: propagation occurs at light speed, but once a propagator arrives the required information and momentum swap occur instantaneously. I know it sounds weird! But when LIGO gravitational waves were observed at the same time as the electromagnetic waves due to an inspiral collapse (Article GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary N...

I think that the solution to the apparent contradiction is that the propagators of a gravitational field (i.e. gravitons) travel at the speed of light, but they are entangled with the mass that emits them. When they interact with an attracted particle the entanglement enables an instantaneous communication. All the gravitons really do is to set up a direct, instantaneous interaction between the attracting mass and the attracted particle. It's a weird concept, but it's the only one I can find that works.

Ronald Ian Miller ,

1. The speed of the gravitational field is much greater than the speed of light

2. The disturbance of the gravitational field will produce gravitational waves, and the speed of gravitational waves is equal to the speed of light.

3. Water wave speed ---> gravitational wave speed; sound wave speed in water ---> gravitational field speed.

Ronald,

I recently posted my take on gravitons on one of my threads that I thought you might be interested in; questions that I have asked myself when trying to imagine how gravitons would actually work:

Gravitons: A Thought Experiment

The analogy that I like to use when explaining the absurdity of force carrying particles such as the graviton is this. Picture two astronauts (i.e. two particles) floating in empty space exchanging a football (i.e. graviton). Now put a blindfold over the two astronauts’ helmet and let them sense each other’s presence using the football. Are you ready?

1. How do they ‘know’ which direction to throw the ball? And don’t say they sense any fields because the football is being used to describe this so called gravitational ‘field’! In the case of two electrons (which are point particles) the aim would have to be extremely precise (especially if they are both moving relative to each other).

2. How do they know when to throw the football?

3. How do they know how many footballs to throw?

4. How do they keep track of how many footballs they have thrown or received?

5. When they receive footballs, how do they know who they came from?

6. How do they know what direction they came from?

7. How do they know how fast the other particle is moving and what direction it is headed so that it can send out an exchange football, making sure to predict and aim the ball such that it will be intercepted by that particular particle/astronaut and not some other?

8. How does getting hit with a fast-moving football cause you to move ‘towards’ the thrower? The exchange of momentum would predict the opposite.

9. Additionally… in the case of the photon particle (describing the EM force), are there positive photons and negative photons? The receiver needs to know so that it can decide whether to move towards or away from the thrower.

This thought experiment shows how absurd it is to use the exchange of particles (used in Feynman Diagrams) as a description for the gravitational field (or any kind of field for that matter). This is precisely why I created my Foamy Ether Theory. Particles and fields can all be described as distortions of the foam. Don’t want to sound like I am touting my own theory, but in my opinion, the search for the graviton is a waste of time and resources.

Dear Tony (Tony Yuan) The gravítition has no speed only in the first impulse or its changing... Another thing the image perhaps is not god because, as If we consider the Earth-Moon system there is not such an example.

Regards,

Laszlo

Peter Hahn : I liked your list of the conceptual problems we face when we try to explain gravitational accelerations. You concluded that they effectively ruled out a particle-based mechanism, and developed an alternative concept. (I'll send you an email with some comments on it).

I more or less tried to stick with Sherlock Holmes' guidance: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”. My own conclusion was that a particle-based mechanism of gravitation is not impossible, but it requires some quite specific, and unexpected, attributes for the particles. If you're interested in an overview of the result have a look at my preprint: Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Have you ever seen ants carry an elephant? If you saw it and you made a movie about it I believe you... Actually, this story can be better demonstrated with a professional cartoon made by Wall Disney Studio...

The essence of this discussion is very well analyzed by Daoism

Regards,

Laszlo

“….[abstract of the paper] “….Laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the ``speed of gravity'' yield a lower limit of 2x1010c.”……

- [Tony Yuan]… 1. The speed of the gravitational field is much greater than the speed of light…”, etc. …”

- both points in the quote above are commented in today SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_you_were_to_look_for_a_new_theory_of_gravity_to_replace_general_relativity_GR_what_criteria_would_that_theory_have_to_meet#view=61d860c794aad47d3c2eccf0

Cheers

The graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory . If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless (because the gravitational force appears to have unlimited range) and must be a spin https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-gravity-a-graviton-and-gravitational-waves

Check https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/gravitons

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=87760

It has not been possible to make general relativity theory consistent with quantum mechanics because the strength of the gravitational potential varies inversely with the separation of the objects which is explained by your paragraph 3.

Ronald Ian Miller

Dear Ronald,

Any force comes from an impact or pressure gradient. Gravity is a force from the external environment. The force is equal to the pressure gradient of the medium.

The Earth does not attract the Moon. The pressure of the interplanetary medium pushes the Moon towards the Earth.

Today we consider that Ether is Maxwell’s Electromagnetic field. An invisible dispersed gaseous medium fills all space. The smallest particles of the field – gravitons – continuously move at the speed of light.

One should distinguish between the concepts of the field medium as a whole and the specific manifestations of this medium in the form of flows and disturbances. The rotational flows of gravitons is a magnetic field. The translational flow of the electromagnetic field we consider an electric field. Divergent vortex flows we know as transverse radio waves. The white noise of the field medium we record as microwave background radiation. Longitudinal waves in the medium arising from accelerations and shock perturbations of space objects, we now call gravitational waves. We are convinced of the existence of an electromagnetic field as a global environment whenever we bring a mobile phone to our ear.

The medium exists in the form of vortices. Galactic vortices create gravity without mass. We call this the "Dark Matter Effect".

Around each body there is a vortex of the electromagnetic field. Due to the Bernoulli effect, a pressure gradient of the external environment arises in the vortex, i.e. gravity force. I believe that all particles consist of neutrinos - a vortex of the medium of the electromagnetic field. The neutrino whirlwind entrains the boundary layer of the medium. When fragments are formed, the attached neutrino layers are forced out. The earth is surrounded by its own attached vortex of the electromagnetic field. We call it the gravitational field. Due to the Bernoulli effect in the vortex of this field, a radial pressure gradient of the external environment arises - the force of gravity.

All particles are moving. They push each other apart as they move. Repulsive forces are primary. Particles (including gravitons) do not have the inherent property of attracting. Therefore, your assumption about gravity by gravitons is (alas!) incorrect. The flow of gravitons will PUSH, not ATTRACT the passive mass. Gravity is the pressure gradient of the external environment of the electromagnetic field. More details see in my profile.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

‘…It has not been possible to make general relativity theory consistent with quantum mechanics because the strength of the gravitational potential varies inversely with the separation of the objects which is explained by your paragraph 3.….”

- and in “your paragraph 3” one reads:

“…3). Additionally, the radial flux of gravitons from a distant mass would decrease with the square of the distance, while the gravitational potential only decreases linearly with distance. Yet the potential determines the observed rate of slowing of clocks and the amount of reduction in the speed of light within gravitational fields. At large distances the graviton flux would be very low, but its effects would be quite strong. This argues against particles as the mediators of gravitational fields.….”

- what isn’t correct, if we say about “gravitons”, i.e. principally beyond the GR [don’t mention the transcendent, and really physically strange, mental constructions “string”, ”M”, “loop-quantum gravity”, etc., theories, where “the GR is quantized”], i.e. say about the real fundamental Nature force “Gravity”, which in a number of traits is similar to the fundamental Electric/EM Force.

Including in this case the Forces’ mediators “photon” and “graviton” are similar in that both mediators provide [at least at the statics] the Forces’ fields’ potentials being ~1/r, and strengths ~1/r2; and at that forthe Electric/EM Force the problem that “the photon flux is very low” doesn’t exist in both – “classical” and “quantum” electrodynamicses.

Correspondingly that isn’t problem for classical and quantum gravitodynamicses even in the official physics; that is another thing, that in QED the E/EM Force mediators aren’t the real “ordinary photons” , but that are “virtual photons”, which, in contrast to the ordinary photons, aren’t observable; though despite this evident difference in the Standard particles Model the “ordinary photons” are postulated as the real E/EM Force mediators.

Correspondingly really the QED – and possible official physics GED, if will be developed similarly to QED, is/will be based fundamentally on a few also ad hoc postulated additional mathematical tricks, whereas it is evident that really scientific rational E/EM and Gravity quantum theories must be based on real Forces’ mediators.

For example, the development of all the Gravity and Electric Forces theories with a rather non-zero probabilities will be made basing on the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial the Gravity and Electric [really “magnetic force” isn’t a Force] Forces models, more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics; https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657, section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems”.

Cheers

Preprint Gravity and Velocity

Comments from a professor of mathematical physics from Brazil: Bastante interessante, esta visão entre força gravitacional e velocidade. Do ponto de vista e com as condições de contorno adotadas parece bem plausível.

Dear Ronald Ian Miller

Dynamical basic quantum fields have intermediating force particles. That means that a force must represent a basic quantum field otherwise it has no intermediating particle. Therefore you have to answer first the question if gravity is a basic quantum field or an emergent quantum field. The latter has no basic quantum field on its own.

There are 2 accepted theories about gravitation. The first one is Newtonian gravity. The influence of the force of Newtonian gravity is instantaneous and the nature of the force is an attracting force. The latter has no theoretical evidence because it was just Newton’s choice. He knew that he could choose for a push force too. But Newton didn’t know a cause that could explain the origin of the “push”.

Einstein’s theory of general relativity is thought to extend Newtonian gravity. Unfortunately the theory doesn’t incorporate the basic properties of Newtonian gravity because the influence of Einstein’s gravity is bound to the constant speed of light and Einstein’s theory isn’t a pull force nor a push force. Einstein’s gravity represents the geometrical properties of space itself because of the existence of (local) matter. The only similarity between both theories is that both theories describe macroscopic reality. In other words, Einstein’s theory of general relativity doesn’t extend Newtonian gravity because it has no relation with Newtonian gravity. The gravitational constant G in the theory of general relativity is an experimental constant without a theoretical foundation.

In 2011 Eric Verlinde published “On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton”. Journal of High Energy Physics 4, April 2011. DOI: 10.1007/jhep04(2011)029 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785). The paper proves that Newtonian gravity is an emergent force field.

In 1920 Einstein stated exactly the same: “Without matter in the universe there is no theory of general relativity”. (https://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html).

In the Standard Cosmological Model matter didn’t exist at the “beginning” of the universe, although the basic quantum fields existed at that moment: the Higgs field (scalar field), electric field (topological field) and the magnetic field (vector field). The last 2 fields are corresponding fields.

The consequence is that gravity cannot have an intermediating particle on its own (the proposed “graviton”). In other words, gravity as an emergent force field can only be mediated by one of the basic quantum fields, mentioned above.

The whole discussion about the proposed existence of a intermediating gravitational particle originates from the wishful thinking of theorists that the quantum nature of gravity must show some similarity with the electromagnetic field.

With kind regards, Sydney

There have been a lot of interesting contributions to this discussion, and a lot of assertions have been made about how gravity works.

In general, I don't think that a deeper understanding will arise from mathematical representations of reality. An equation, or a field, or a theory, has the same relation to reality that a photograph has to the object that was photographed. Equations, and fields, and their associated theories, are just simplified and aggregated descriptions of the behaviors of the real entities that populate the universe.

We can, for example, talk about temperatures, and we have useful equations that describe temperatures, but temperatures aren't real things. They are just convenient descriptors of populations of particles. If we really want to learn more about how heat flows, and how it is stored, we have to study the attributes and behaviors of the particles that are involved.

I have a very object-oriented mental model of the universe, and that leads me to expect that gravity (and electromagnetism, etc. etc.) will eventually be understood as a particle-based phenomenon. A gravitational field will be seen as something similar to a temperature field: a useful description of the attributes of specific as-yet undiscovered particles.

Dear Ronald Ian Miller

Nice you have a very object-oriented mental model of the universe. But because the evolution of the universe had a period when there was no object to be find in the whole universe your object-oriented mental model is just an illusion if you pretend that your model can explain observable reality.

At the moment the general concept in theoretical physics is that the structure of the basic quantum fields create observable reality (inclusive all the particles). So maybe it is wise to think about the probability that your very object-oriented mental model can envelope everything in the universe.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear All,

I have the 'graviton'... The first part of small presentation article is ready...:

the second update:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/A-new-formulation-of-the-possible-nature-of-the-graviton

With the next title:

Why could the graviton not be discovered?

In the formulation in sentence, I used the expression of Sydney Ernest Grimm

The original text is signed with a quotation!

'There are 2 accepted theories about gravitation. The first one is Newtonian gravity. The influence of the force of Newtonian gravity is instantaneous and the nature of the force is an attracting force. (...) Einstein’s gravity represents the geometrical properties of space itself because of the existence of (local) matter.'

They helped me to express myself easier...

Regards,

Laszló

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

Thanks for your response. But as I said, I don't think that a deeper understanding will arise from considerations of fields, because fields are just abstractions.

I would suggest that the only thing about the early universe that we can have much confidence in is the fact that it was extremely hot, a state that is described as consisting of "pure energy".

So, what exactly does "pure energy" mean? I think the answer is some form of radiation. If it was too hot for mass particles to be stable, the only thing left is massless particles of some sort- high-energy photons, perhaps, or some more primitive massless particles. They might have some wavelike properties, but they would be particles, and once the universe started to cool they would be the building blocks that more complex particles are comprised of.

So, that's my perspective. I have no idea how the universe got to that early state, but at that early time its contents were high-energy massless particles.

What do you think?

Regards, Ian

Dear Ronald Ian Miller

Every student is told that a measurement can only show a relation between detectable phenomena (like particles, etc.). Thus everything we know in physics about observable/detectable reality are mutual relations. We have no knowledge about the underlying mechanism that creates observable/detectable reality.

Nevertheless, there are conclusions about some measured relations. For example that energy is quantized (Planck’s constant), that the total amount of energy in the universe is conserved and that the linear velocity of quanta is a constant (the speed of light), etc. But these are not the only conclusions we have made with the help of the data of the observations and measurements. We have also concluded that “empty space” isn’t empty at all and that measurements show that “empty space” has variable properties. These variable properties are categorized and the categories are termed electric field, magnetic field, Higgs field, gravitational field. In other words, fields are not abstractions, fields represent dynamical properties we have measured in “empty space”.

If the whole community of physicists is convinced that theoretical physics is in trouble because of a stagnation for about 70 years (some say 50 years) you can draw the conclusion yourself that the text books must be partly wrong. In other words, you have to be careful what kind of theory – or part of a theory – you want to use for your research if the aim of your research is to understand the origin of observable/detectable reality. There is no “grand theory” that isn’t violating one or more of the other grand theories.

With kind regards, Sydney

I do not believe so. How would particles stop the earth from escaping its orbit? There must be a "mechanical" force that keeps both the earth in orbit and people fall on earth...

The Fibonacci based Menorah Matrix which produces clear predictions of all physical structures and phenomena that have been studied: It predicts atomic and subatomic structures, further predicting three subquarks for each quark. It predicts the quantized structure of the atomic structure with energy levels and sublevels. It predicts why we have a 64-codons basis for the genetic code, why 20 amino acids, why the DNA double helix, why the two base pair system, and so much more.

The MM naturally produces a toroidal/dual-toroidal dynamic motion, which predicts also numerous physical structures and phenomena.

Based on that I came out with a different approach to gravity. The universe being a closed system in the shape of a dual-torus, has no "emptiness" at any location in it. For simplicity let's call this filled space (our space out there) aether, or even space-time, quantum foam or whatever (not essential at this point but the fact that there is "something" there and on which the electromagnetic force travels though).

Now in the middle of the dual-torus there is a black-hole-like structure around which the "aether" spins with inner and outer flows in it.

Velocity of spin is the fastest near the dual-torus center/axis and decreases away from the center: r1, r2, r3,...

Per Bernoulli's principle, as the velocity increases pressure decreases.

Therefore closer to the center of the dual-torus pressure decreases

Flow velocity at any given point is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center (1/r^2).

Decreasing pressure at the center of the dual-torus creates a force ( we call gravity) that attracts all things to itself.

This characteristic of vortex dynamic is practically the gravitational force.

“…I do not believe so. How would particles stop the earth from escaping its orbit? There must be a "mechanical" force that keeps both the earth in orbit and people fall on earth...…..”

- in Matter every "mechanical" force is the action of some “particles”, which are mediators of the [at least four known now] fundamental Nature forces; and fundamentally not by some other mystic ways and “forces”.

That is another thing, that the Forces’ mediators aren’t “typical” particles, including the, though “virtual”, but typical, particles that are indicated as the Forces’ mediators in Standard particle Model.

More see the SS post above and the paper that is linked in the post.

Cheers

Dear Ronald Ian Miller .

There is the prove the existence of graviton 'particle'

I need honest and constructive opinion about the next imagination of graviton like an elementary irrational particle (attached file) also is present with Hungarian version at the next project:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/A-new-formulation-of-the-possible-nature-of-the-graviton /last update

Regards,

Laszlo

Ronald Ian Miller, László Attila Horváth et. al.

Instead of gravitons and their stated properties could we look at Gravitation through the Quantum entanglement theory?

How Gravity is propagated, including at a test mass free fall motion, and what are “gravitons”, which are two types – the “circular gravitons”, which compose Gravity fields, and “ordinary” gravitons, which are radiated by accelerated gravitational masses – as that happens when Electric Force acts, and an accelerated electric charge radiates “ordinary” photons,

- since fundamental Nature Gravity and Electric forces are similar, the electric circular and ordinary photons are similar to the circular and ordinary gravitons,

- see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365318464_The_informational_model_-Gravity_and_Electric_Forces .

Cheers