Chian Fan

Thank you, Chian Fan, for your detailed and insightful questions on the energy-momentum of the gravitational field in general relativity (GR). Your queries touch on some of the most profound and complex aspects of GR. Here’s a detailed response to each of your questions:

The challenge of expressing and localizing the energy-momentum of the gravitational field in GR stems from the nature of gravity as a manifestation of spacetime curvature rather than a conventional field with localized energy.

• Energy-Momentum Complexes: Historically, various approaches have been proposed to address this issue. For example, Møller’s energy-momentum complex and the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor provide methods for estimating localized energy-momentum in GR. These constructs are coordinate-dependent and often criticized for their lack of general covariance. The Einstein tensor GμνG_{\mu\nu}Gμν​ in the Einstein field equations Rμν−12gμνR=GTμνR_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}R = G T_{\mu\nu}Rμν​−21​gμν​R=GTμν​ reflects how the distribution of matter and energy influences spacetime curvature, but it does not directly provide a localizable measure of gravitational energy-momentum.
• Spacetime as a Medium: Considering spacetime as a medium with properties like density and elasticity introduces a different perspective. While GR does not traditionally describe spacetime in these terms, modern theories like quantum gravity or string theory might offer insights into such properties. For instance, in loop quantum gravity, spacetime is discretized, which could relate to your idea of spacetime as a medium with specific properties.

The exchange of energy-momentum between gravitational fields and other forms of energy-momentum occurs through the spacetime metric.

• Spacetime Covariates: In GR, the interaction between gravitational fields and other forms of energy-momentum is mediated by changes in the metric tensor gμνg_{\mu\nu}gμν​, which encodes the curvature of spacetime. This interaction reflects the influence of energy-momentum on spacetime curvature and vice versa. Dark matter and other forms of energy-momentum, while interacting with spacetime, might not have straightforward representations in terms of the metric alone, but their effects are captured by how they influence and are influenced by spacetime curvature.
• Unified Description: The idea that all forms of energy-momentum should relate to spacetime covariates aligns with the general relativistic framework. However, integrating dark matter and other components remains an area of active research. Approaches such as effective field theory or modified gravity theories explore how different forms of energy-momentum might be represented in a unified framework.

The conservation of energy-momentum in GR is more nuanced than in classical mechanics due to the nature of curved spacetime.

• Quasi-Local Conservation: In GR, global conservation laws for energy-momentum are not well-defined due to the dynamic nature of spacetime. Instead, quasi-local definitions of energy-momentum, as discussed by Szabados, provide a framework for understanding energy distribution in localized regions of spacetime. These definitions help in studying gravitationally dominated systems, like galaxies, by offering insights into how energy and momentum are distributed and transferred.
• Galactic Evolution: The lack of a global conservation law does not undermine the dynamics of galaxy formation and evolution. GR accommodates the evolution of galaxies through the Einstein field equations, which describe how the distribution of matter and energy affects spacetime curvature and gravitational interactions.

Your questions highlight fundamental issues in the understanding of gravitational energy-momentum. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on how emerging theories or alternative models might address these challenges. For example, how might recent developments in quantum gravity or other theoretical frameworks provide new insights into these issues?

Looking forward to your thoughts and further discussion on this fascinating topic.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

It's expressed in terms of waves-gravitational waves and that's how it's transferred. Gravitational waves are non-linear waves, so they do interact among themselves, in addition to interacting with matter, through the latter's energy-momentum tensor.

Dear Chian Fan ,

Without answering your very complicated statements I will ask a question first, which is related to the problem you raise.

Here is a experiment in more forms:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381796210_Addendum_to_'A_Simple_Experiment_to_Support_an_EM_Gravity_Theory'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5dZ3VQXf6A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C219qZU9dOU

What do you think about my prediction about the imaginary (testable in real conditions) experiment, is it true or not?

Regards,

Laszlo,

P.S:

If my prediction about the final result of the experiment is wrong, then my concept of gravity is wrong, just like Einstein's concept of gravity is wrong.

Dear Sandeep Jaiswal

Thank you for your kind words on the topic. It is clear that you possess a comprehensive and deep knowledge of the subject, including the history, current status, and direction. I have benefited from your detailed response.

It is not surprising that we do not know the expression for spacetime energy-momentum; in fact, we do not know what energy-momentum is at all [1]. Instead, the notion that spacetime has an energy-momentum gives us two extremely important references. One is that all other energy-moments must have a spacetime covariance; and the other is that the relationship between the energy-moments in all other forms of energy-momentum must be fixed [2]. This is because in relativity, the time and space relationships are fixed; the energy and momentum they express respectively must therefore also be fixed.

Like many, I am a perpetual learner and never dare to call my views insights. Thank you for your inspiration, with my limited knowledge, I pose two further questions involving the foundations of physics:

Firstly, if all problems arise from the concept of ‘spacetime curvature’, why do we not doubt the validity of this concept? Isn't the information of spacetime curvature richer than the information of the energy-momentum of matter? If so, this implies that there is an undesirable redundancy, that they do not match. Is there not a more compatible way of describing the structure of spacetime without changing the Einsteinian causal relationship of ‘matterenergy - causes -> spacetime structure’?

Secondly, we turned to the study of quantum gravity rather than extending the Einstein field equations directly to the microscopic realm probably for these reasons: 1) Gravity has not been found to play a role in microscopic scenarios, and its magnitude is too small compared to that of electromagnetism. 2) The two sides of the Einstein field equations are structurally asymmetric, with the right side of the equation being of a discrete nature, and the left side of the equation being of a continuous nature. 3) We cannot avoid an important property of quantum mechanics, the ‘uncertainty principle’, when we use GR directly on quanta. If gravity is generated directly from quanta, then quantum gravity must also have uncertainty. 4) GR has many unanswerable problems that require revising it or replacing it. Such problems include, the singularity, black hole evolution, the unification of forces, the big bang, and so on.

The corresponding questions for these issues are: 1) Is the electromagnetic force so much greater than the gravitational force that it remains unchanged when r is small? If gravity is emergent, what is the ‘mechanism’ and ‘threshold’ that determines emergence? Is there a ‘force’ that determines the emergence and extinction of gravity? 2) Why can't ‘discrete’ affect ‘continuous’? Isn't the wave caused by a discrete stone thrown on the surface of the water continuous? 3) Is the indeterminate force of gravity actually an indeterminate ‘graviton’? Similarly, when we describe the electromagnetic force in terms of transmitting ‘photons’, do we take into account the uncertainty of the photons? 4) We know that the concept of ‘quantum’ is basically defined in terms of spatial and temporal scales. A black hole, which we can think of as an immense object on the energy scale, can also be considered as the smallest ‘quantum’ on the spatial scale. So, in the case of black holes, do we need two theories of gravity? Macroscopic and microscopic?

These questions seem to relate to various areas of physics, but actually focus on two issues. The first relates to the physical reality, and that is that we essentially don't know what the quantum, the photon, the electron ...... are. If we could stop expressing the structure of the quantum in terms of ‘point particles’, and the behaviour of the quantum in terms of ‘operators’, would all the problems be solved? This is the case with one of the current attempts in physics, such as string theory*. However, we must understand that any question can be answered if we make enough and enough arbitrary assumptions. It's just that it can't be the right path. The correct path can only be one that relies on the fewest, unique assumptions, and on which it is able to evolve all of the phenomena we observed, from the micro and macro, then it can be correct. The second concerns the philosophy of physics**. Physics has been fruitful in explanations involving observable problems. However, physics has now entered an unobservable phase, inaccessible at the macro level and invisible at the micro level. At this point philosophy of physics should be able to provide effective guidance. Philosophy of physics and physics are not in conflict. Microscopic and macroscopic physical theorems can be different, but their philosophical foundations must be the same, such as causality, existence, infinity, reduction, and so on. If we easily dismiss these philosophical principles with seemingly successful but actually incomplete explanations of physics, it may lead to the risk of taking many detours or even dead ends.

These are just some of my random thoughts. I hope you and everyone else will not hesitate to comment.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

---------------------------------

* At the ‘2024 International Congress of Basic Sciences’ being held in China, Witten was asked how you would compare string theory with the loop quantum gravity theory. Witten replied: We need to learn to recognise whether a theory is ‘serious’ or not.

** Many physicists despise philosophers and even dislike them. But they do not oppose their own philosophy. This may be one of the reasons for the current predicament of physics.

----------------------------------

[1] Chian Fan, e. a. (2023). Can different forms of energy be unified? . ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO10_Can_different_forms_of_energy_be_unified

[2] Fan, C. (2023). Should an Object at rest have Rest Momentum? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO12Should_an_Object_at_rest_have_Rest_Momentum

Dear László Attila Horváth

I am interested in your ‘A Simple Experiment to Support an EM Gravity Theory’, but unfortunately I can't see a specific definition of ‘EM Gravity’. I'm sorry I have no access to youtube.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Stam Nicolis

Thanks for the reply from a professional physicist.

We need to further clarify a question. If ‘Gravitational waves are non-linear waves’, and energy is superimposable, do gravitational waves obey the superposition principle?

Best Regards, Chian Fan

No, gravitational waves, because they're non-linear, don't obey the superposition principle. That's not a problem, however, because how to calculate the contribution to their energy due to their interaction is known.

The statement that ``energy is superimposable" is misleading. There's a contribution that comes from the interaction, that can't be ignored.

Even for linear waves, like electromagnetic waves, in the presence of sources that aren't simply external, but react, the superposition principle doesn't apply; but that's no problem, either, since the contribution of the interaction energy can be computed.

In fact that free spacetime contains no energy or momentum is incorrect: It's flat spacetime that has this property. Spacetime that's not flat does have energy and momentum.

Dear Chian Fan

Thank you for your insightful follow-up questions. They address profound aspects of both classical and quantum theories of gravity. Here are my thoughts on each:

The concept of spacetime curvature in GR provides a richer description because it encapsulates the dynamic geometry influenced by mass-energy. Alternative descriptions, like Teleparallel Gravity and Emergent Gravity, offer different perspectives by describing gravity through torsion or entropic forces.

The challenges of extending GR to quantum scales arise from the continuous nature of spacetime versus the discrete nature of quantum particles. String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) explore these realms by suggesting that spacetime could be higher-dimensional or quantized, respectively.

Specific Questions on Gravity and Electromagnetism:

If gravity is mediated by gravitons, their quantum properties, including uncertainty, must be considered, paralleling the role of photons in electromagnetism.

Philosophical principles such as causality and reductionism provide a foundational framework for exploring physics' unobservable realms, guiding the formulation of coherent models.

Your questions beautifully encapsulate the interplay between fundamental physics and philosophical inquiry. Integrating theoretical and philosophical insights will be essential in advancing our understanding.

Thank you for prompting such a rich discussion. I look forward to your thoughts and any further questions you may have.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

Dear Chian Fan ,

you can find some info in the thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_non-locality_of_the_gravitational_energy_a_serious_problem_for_General_Relativity

Dear Chian Fan ,

Why are you trivially deviating from the answer.

There are three links in my previous comment. It's pretty much the same thing.

You can access one:

Research Proposal Addendum to 'A Simple Experiment to Support an EM Gravity Theory'

And here is an attchement to it for better understanding.

And the proposed result if is true is compatible with Einstein gravitational concept!

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear László Attila Horváth

I'm sorry that my previous reply disappointed you.

‘EM Gravity’ is indeed a topic of great interest to me, and just taking it literally is a view I support. However, I have not found a clear definition or explanation of it from you. The literature [1] you cite in the first sentence of the opening paragraph is non-English, [The further thought of ‘A simple experiment to support an EM-gravitational theory’[1]]. It is therefore difficult for me to comment on the experimental scheme you simply described.

I am happy to learn about other people's views, even very odd ones; I am pleasantly surprised to be able to learn from others what I don't know or understand; and I am more than happy to engage in more in-depth communication with anyone. However, we are dealing with the most fundamental things in physics, with unanswered scientific questions, and it is difficult, even rash, to fully understand and make judgements in a very short time. I personally have a very limited scope and depth of knowledge, as well as a language barrier. Often times I feel overwhelmed and therefore either go silent or my replies seem pale and rushed. Even those points that resonated deeply with me had to be put off for further in-depth discussion when more learning had to be done.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Stam Nicolis

Thank you for correcting the flaws in my description.

My description is based on my understanding and may not meet the standards of physics. We can try to analyse it again.

You said, ‘The statement that `’energy is superimposable' is misleading. there's a contribution that comes from the interaction, that can't be ignored.’ and I meant based on the principle of conservation of energy. Energy is conserved in interactions, don't their energies obey superposition? The disagreement may lie in the assignment of ‘the interaction energy’.

I am not strict about the distinction between ‘free spacetime’ and ‘flat spacetime’. Moreover, I have always wondered whether we can theoretically construct a ‘flat spacetime’ or ‘uniform spacetime’ out of matter. If so, does this flat spacetime contain energy-momentum?

Best Regards, Chian

I'll answer the last question first: We can construct flat spacetime. It's the solution of Einstein's equations when the effects of matter on the spacetime geometry can be neglected-which occurs in many situations of interest.

Flat spacetime does not carry energy and momentum, because it doesn't have curvature or torsion. Gravitational waves can propagate in flat spacetime, but they are perturbations of spacetime.

Regarding superposition of energy, the problem lies in the fact that it's not possible to separate the interaction energy from the ``non-interaction energy" in a well-defined way. That's why it's not useful. Total energy and momentum are conserved and that's what matters, not how they're split up.

Dear Sandeep Jaiswal

Thank you very much for the rich background knowledge and valuable perspectives.

The comparison of electromagnetic and gravitational forces introduces us to a very symmetrical scenario that helps us think about whether they are closely related. This is demonstrated first of all by the consistency of Coulomb's theorem and Newton's law of gravitation. When we analyse an electrically charged dust particle (assuming it is a macroscopic object, avoiding quantum gravity for the moment), its electromagnetic and gravitational forces are expressed by the same equations and occupy the same space-time, the only difference being that the ‘electric charge’ is replaced by a ‘mass charge’. When the dust's electricity is ‘neutralised’, the electromagnetic force disappears, but the gravitational force remains.

The introduction of discrete space-time or higher dimensional space-time into physics should be the last option when physics is desperate. They should not have any priority. Classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and the theory of relativity are all based on four-dimensional continuous spacetime. However, the explanation and imagination of many physical phenomena, such as the Uncertainty Principle, the Grand Unified Energy Level, the Space-Time Foam, the Singularity ...... , naturally lead the whole theoretical physics towards the Planck scales. It seems that only at this scale the most fundamental principles of physics are hidden; it seems that physics determines the hierarchy according to the scale, not by the structure.

I have always had a question that has not been clearly answered. The Planck scale is a consequence of the composite of the natural constants h,c,G. Can it behave in a more fundamental way than h,c,G? How is it that in physics we can ignore h,c,G and base our investigations solely on the Planck scale? Does the Planck scale still have a special meaning when taking h=c=G=1?

The mutual disdain between string theory and LQG suggests that at least one of them is wrong. Their over-complexity also reveals a potential problem, which is a departure from the principle of ‘simplicity’. The world is structural. All structures move from simplicity to complexity, not the other way round, except in terms of statistical properties, or external attributes.

I look forward to the opportunity to clarify and revise my thinking.

Best Regards, Chian

“【NO.43】Doubts about General Relativity (8) - How is Energy-Momentum of Gravitational Field Expressed? How is It Transferred? How is It Exchanged?

Really, as that is rigorously scientifically shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model,

- where the fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter” , “Space” , and “Time” , “Energy”, which were/are till now fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics [and so really everything in the mainstream – particles, fields, etc. are really transcendent/etc.], including for authors of physical theories, are rigorously scientifically defined,

- Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), which fundamentally cannot be impacted by anything in Matter and fundamentally cannot impact on anything in Matter, including cannot be “curved”, “bend”, etc., by any “mass” , and cannot impact on any “mass”, forcing “mass” to move along some “geodesics”;

- what is fundamentally illusory postulated in the GR, and so in the GR spacetime curvature contains energy-momentum, etc., what is described by corresponding energy-momentum, stress-energy, etc., tensors – analogously to the set of such tensors in classical electrodynamics.

Really Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, the charge of which isn’t some mystic “mass”, but concrete this Force charge “gravitational mass”, which, as that rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the SS&VT models of Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces, more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

- as also the charges of at least Electric and Nuclear Forces, constantly and always radiates the Force mediators that aren’t particles, and so don’t contain energy.

At that all what is postulated in mainstream electrodynamics, the GR , and QFTs, in this case, including that the tensors describe real “energy density”, “flows of energy-momentums”, “stresses”, etc. in EM field and “curved spacetime”, “virtual mediators” that are particles and so carry real energies-momentums; and all that is radiated/formed constantly and always by Forces charges and by “mass” in the GR,

- evidently really violates the energy conservation law; and can be real only if the charges and “mass” contain infinite energies. What is evident mystic.

So really the thread question has no relation to the objective reality, there is no any scientific sense to study/discuss what are really senseless “tensors” above and how they are expressed, transferred, exchanged.

Including [a note to some posts in the thread] really Forces mediators for sure are real, and by no means virtual, while really photons and gravitons are particles and so aren’t Electric and Gravity Forces mediators. They don’t compose Electric and Gravity fields, flows of these particles form EM and gravitational waves on macroscale, which, say, can move on arbitrary distances without essential decreasing of strength, etc.

Real physics can be only if it will base, first of all, on scientific definitions of the fundamental phenomena/notion above, and in many cases concretely on the whole SS&VT model, in this case – on concrete initial the Forces models; at that mathematical formalism of macro theories of Gravity and Electric Forces with a well non-zero probability will contain some tensors, but the tensors will have quite different physical sense then that are now.

Cheers

Dear Chian Fan ,

Your previous answer did not disappoint me.

What upset me the most was that you, as a professor in a high-ranking position, do not understand what the gravity is. So it is understandable that what you wrote could represent your frustration.

Here js a simple question (The ancient Greeks also knew the answer to this question):

:

At home, you go out into the yard, you can find many pieces of stone... These pieces of stone can prove that what you wrote in the introduction of your discussion is erroneous.

The simple question is: why?

Regards,

Laszlo

The answer to this question is that there is actually no General Relativity, because there is no "spacetime". The Lorentz relations (light cone &c.) describe the offsets and corrections to the light rays -only-, such that space and time are left Absolute.

The reason why we know, for certain, that we have an Absolute character to space and time, is because the "Relativity of Simultaneity" has been demonstrated to be a logical impossibility. Confer above, tilting-mirror demonstration, and also the proof by Kılıç below :

Preprint Precis of the proof we have an Absolute character to time an...

Article The incompatibility of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity...

Chian Fan

Thank you for your insightful response. Your exploration of the symmetry between electromagnetic and gravitational forces and your thoughts on the Planck scale and theoretical physics offer a stimulating perspective. Below are some of the key points:

Your questions and insights push the boundaries of our understanding and highlight the ongoing debates within theoretical physics. I look forward to exploring these topics further and hearing more about your thoughts on how we can address these fundamental issues.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

Dear Stefan Bernhard Rüster ,

but as a first order approximation (Newtonian) such energy has a negative definite density...

The scientific answer to the thread question is in SS post on page 2, 6 days ago now, so more see the post; here a few comments to some points in some post on this page, which really relates to what is written in this SS post:

“…Electromagnetic vs. Gravitational Forces:…The comparison highlights the underlying similarities in the mathematical descriptions of these forces. Are there specific theoretical or experimental scenarios where this symmetry could provide new insights or testable predictions? For instance, could advances in quantum gravity or high-energy physics reveal deeper connections between these forces?…..”

- the fundamental Nature Electric and Gravity forces are indeed similar; moreover they are similar also at least to Nuclear Force, since act by the same scheme [more see Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s initial the Forces models in the pointed SS post], and that can be useful at development and experimental support of the development, of the Forces really scientific theories. Say, some experiments can be well easer at some specific Electric Force “similar” interactions, and the results rather probably can contain some hints that clarify some points in other Forces theories, including, in high energy physics, and real Gravity QM.

“…Discrete vs. Continuous Space-Time:….”

- again, as that rigorously proven in SS&VT “The information as Absolute” conception, real spacetimes of anything, including Matter, are fundamentally continuous.

“… Planck Scale and Fundamental Constants:The question of whether the Planck scale has a more fundamental role than the constants hhh, ccc, and GGG is intriguing. How might our understanding of fundamental physics change if we find that the Planck scale itself has emergent properties or deeper significance? What implications would this have for our current theories and for potential new frameworks? ….”

About what are fundamental constants see SS post , March 17, page 6 in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/No28The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_4-Could_All_Physical_Constants_be_Unified_to_a_set_of_Fundamental_Constants_of_Nature/6

- that are really ultimately fundamental physical Planck scale constants. Including if “hhh, ccc, and GGG” means h, c, and G, than the really fundamental constant is reduced Planck constant ћ=h/2π, and in this case the really ultimate Planck scale base of Matter reveals itself on QM scale, while the speed of light, c, and gravitational constant, G, are derived constants, c=lP/tP, G=lP5/ћtP3, and in this case the Planck scale reveals itself on macroscale.

Again, the implication of this is in that real fundamental physics development can be only on the way “classical physics”→ QM→ Planck scale physics, the last should be, and so really will be, based on initial SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

“…Simplicity vs. Complexity:The critique of the complexity in string theory and loop quantum gravity (LQG) is well-taken. Finding a balance between simplicity and complexity is crucial for the progress of theoretical physics. How can we ensure that our theoretical models remain both elegant and comprehensive? Are there approaches or methodologies that can help us achieve this balance more effectively?….”

- in real physics any “Simplicity vs. Complexity” problem doesn’t exist. Some theory is really scientific one, if is in accordance with a few criteria, the theory must:

- be in accordance with reliable experimental data,

- its postulates must be really scientifically grounded,

- from the postulates no senseless consequences must follow,

- mathematical formalism of the theory must be correct mathematically, and must not contain ad hoc ungrounded mathematical tricks.

All existent mainstream physical theories on fundamental level aren’t in accordance with these criteria, and are based essentially on really transcendent illusory assumptions, that introduced in theories as postulates; what happens, first of all, since in physics all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, “Matter”– and so really everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc. are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

So any really scientific theory must be based also on rigorous scientific definitions of these phenomena/notions, that are given in the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception and the Plank scale model above.

Cheers

About Electromagnetic vs. Gravitational Forces Sandeep Jaiswal wrote: “Your analogy between electromagnetic and gravitational forces is thought-provoking. The comparison highlights the underlying similarities in the mathematical descriptions of these forces. Are there specific theoretical or experimental scenarios where this symmetry could provide new insights or testable predictions?"

In the articles [1], [2] and [3] it is shown that the analogy between electromagnetic and gravitational forces can be understood by starting from an alternative view on the nature of het gravitational (and the electromagnetic) field. The idea is developed that “information” is the substance of these fields and that the constituent element of that substance is a mass and energy less granular entity, called “informaton”.

In [1] the concept of “gravitational information” (g-information) is defined, the gravitational field of a mass particle at rest relative to an IRF is identified as an expanding cloud of g-information characterized by a vector field Eg and Newton’s law of universal gravitation is deduced.

In [2] it is shown that moving mass particles and mass flows generate an expanding cloud of g-information characterized by a vector field having a field- and an induction component (Eg and Bg) and the Lorentz law describing the interaction between moving particles is deduced.

And in [3] the Maxwell-Heaviside equations are deduced from the kinematics of the informatons.

[1] Acke, A. (2024) Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation Explained by the Theory of Informatons. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2024.103056

[2] Acke, A. (2024) The Gravitational Interaction between Moving Mass Particles Explained by the Theory of Informatons. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2024.103060

[3] Acke, A. (2024) The Maxwell-Heaviside Equations Explained by the Theory of Informatons. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2024.103061

Dear Sandeep Jaiswal

Thank you very much for taking the question further into deeper thought. There is nothing I can do to answer such an important question by me personally following the current advances in physics. All I can say is that the foundations on which Planck's physics is based, the Planck scales and the interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle, are insufficient and inappropriate. However, if you are interested in my personal specific programme, you can look here: Preprint Supersymmetric Standard Model (SSM)

BTW, in addition to being thoughtful, I really appreciate the standardisation of your writing and use it as a model for my English studies.

Best Regards, Chian

Chian Fan

Thanks for the appreciation note about my answer and the extra help and a model role I can provide to you regarding the English language teachings.

I will definitely review your paper on SSM as I also do agree that the foundations on which Planck's physics is based, the Planck scales and the interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle, are insufficient and inappropriate as stated by you. I would definitely like to talk to you later on on this particular subject when time permits.

Till then cheers, take care and enjoy the rest of your day,

Sandeep Jaiswal