Possible.

Thank you, Haradhan. Best wishes

I don't think that the Lagrangian approach has something more to give us in the future, we have to change out tools as soon as possible.

Putoff, Rueda and Haisch have a long running series of papers on deriving inertia not gravity from vacuum fluctuations.  It is very complicated and so far electromagnetic based.  Rueda told me in an email they can extend it, but there has been resistance from reviewers.  Putoff has in my opinion gone off the deep end, joining the ranks of those who would peddle "vacuum energy" in a 21st century perpetual motion scheme.  I think he no longer publishes with Rueda and Haisch.

It is probably possible to derive gravity from inertia.  I have got very close.  But there is still some work to do in fully justifying apparent curvature.  When you do it this way, the curvature is only apparent.  It is a "constructive" theory.  That is, such things as wormholes would not be possible.  There is a choice as to whether to maintain Newtonian compatibility in the 1/r potential form (most natural for an inertia based theory) or the 1/r2 force law form (which is actually what GR does).  In the potential form, one gets what I call "black dots" instead of black holes.  I have not published this.  You can find my ideas on gravity from inertia in two papers I have posted here, and my ideas on deriving curvature in a more recent posting.  The curvature derivation has an error that I need to fix, so I do not recommended downloading it at present.

I am skeptic about obtaining Einstein's equations solely from vacuum fluctuations.

My belief is that Poincare invariance is behind Einstein's equations.  In  general relativity one  loses standard conservation laws as outcome of Noether's theorem since isometries of empty Minkowski space behind them are lost because space-time becomes curved in presence of masses. 

My proposal is that space-times at microscopic level are 4-D surfaces in M^4xCP_2. At this level Poincare invariance  is an exact symmetry but lifted to the level of 8-D imbedding space. The space-time of general relativity is long length scale idealisation is obtained by replacing the sheets of many-sheeted space-time with single piece of Minkowski space with Minkowski metric replaced with its sum with the deviations of the induced metrics of sheets from Minkowski metric. Poincare invariance would be broken for this idealisation but Einstein's equations implying covariant conservation of energy momentum tensor would be a remnant of the underlying Poincare symmetry. At microscopic level field patterns associated with basic building bricks of space-times would be extremely simple, kind of  geometro-dynamical  archetypes. They would relate e  to GRT space-time like atomic physics to thermodynamics before quantum mechanics.  

that's what i though sakarov was saying - that it is possible...

@Demetris, Robert, Mark, and Prof. M. Pitkanen: thank you for your answers.

@Robert: please kindly let me know if your paper on curvature derivation appears. Thanks

 I believe that exact Poincare invariance at fundamental level is necessary. This leaves my own  proposal and also   the  possibility that quantum fluctuations for   QFT in empty Minkowski space could somehow lead to  effective metric with Einstein's equations realising the remnant of   Poincare invariance.  Mathematical poorly-definedness is the problem.   Spontaneous compactification in string models was an attempt to get space-time via effective metric  although fundamental objects were strings. The outcome was landscape catastrophe. 

@Victor, OK I will let you know.  It was withdrawn because of a problem that is easily fixed, but I have another deadline at the end of the month.

@Robert: thanks, do you mean the problem is caused by difficulty to define curvature from vacuum fluctuation? Or any other problem? Thanks

@Luiz: thanks for your answer, it would be nice if you can give an url of your paper, so i can download and read it. Btw i am not a supported researcher, so i do not subscribe to any journal. Thanks

English translation of Sacharov's paper

http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~akempf/sakharov.pdf

@Rogier: thank you so much for this link. Yes i was looking for the english version of Sakharov's paper while i found only the russian version. Best wishes

@Rogier: do you know other english version of Sakharov's papers? Please share if you know. Thanks

@Victor  Tip: I googled it on the "ordinary" web.  It sometimes gives better results than google scholar :-( , maybe for copyright reasons.  

@Rogier: thanks, yes I also use google and bing sometimes, but can only find Sakharov's papers in Russian. best wishes

@Rogier: now i try to find Sakharov's original paper where he described Sakharov oscillation. Would you mind to give your advise where i can find that paper ? Thanks

You mean this paper? (A. Sakharov, JETP 49, 345 (1965))

http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_022_01_0241.pdf

once you know which paper you want,  I just googled "A. Sakharov, JETP 49, 345 (1965)"  and got it as the third hit, YMMV. To find the reference I just took the first paper that came up with Sachorov oscillations and looked in the list of references. 

@Rogier: thank you so much, you are so quick :-) Btw, do you know other paper, perhaps not by Sakharov, suggesting that there is classical oscillation as counterpart of Sakharov oscillation?

It is very good if you can find it, but if you cannot it is okay. Thanks

Puthoff's Polarizable Vacuum is not equivalent to Einstein's General Relativity. With only one adjustable parameter there is no expectation that it should be. PV Is the simplest cosmology representing a low energy approximation. The absence of frame dragging has been the largest criticism of PV. Todd Desiato has argued for evidence of frame dragging in his interpretation of PV. I found frame dragging in my addition of high speed engineering devices to localized PV. Todd and I differ mainly in the frame of reference where he measures in distant flat space and I measure in the frame of a high speed traveler.   

No. It is not possible. Vacuum fluctuations are a thing, gravity another one.

But if you consider the vacuum as a superfluid you can replace the space-time deformation with pressure forces acting in that superfluid. This way general relativity becomes a quantum hydrodynamic theory and gravity is not anymore a fundamental force but an apparent force. All relativistic effects would remain respected (and better justified, on a quantum basis).

Also note that what we currently define "vacuum polarization" could be nothing but a hydrodynamic current of quanta through it, whose anisotropy is interpreted as polarization.

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01423134v6/document

It is amazing that no one ever looked at the sectional curvatures themselves, given the fact that it seems odd that their average in any one direction, the Ricci tensor, R, less one half the scalar curvature that gives the Einstein tensor, G, should be associated with a directional force, or even a density.

Consider the Einstein equations for the Friedmann model with the space curvature k=-1. 

-The density is negative, and

-the pressure times surface area does not correspond to the Weber force; it misses it by a negative sign in the sectional curvature of S2.

Moreover, for a stationary metric, like the Schwarzschild one, there is  a contradiction between Einstein's condition of "emptiness", e.g. the vanishing of the eigenvalues of the Ricci tensor, and the fact that  Ampere's law is non-zero for the same choice of the warping function  in Schwarzschild's solution.

The problem lies with G, i.e., the necessity of satisfying the conservation condition that div G=0. Once the scalar curvature is subtracted from R, there is no longer any correspondence between sectional curvatures and the forces they should create, cf. my latest blog at www.bernardhlavenda.com. See also Poincare', Electricite et Optique, Ch III, who seems to have missed the connection of sectional curvatures with Ampere's and Weber's forces yet supplies all the necessary ingredients for such an association.

42