my dear Esakki Thirugnanam do work on quantum gravity so that you will be benefited. there is no acceptable theory of Quantum gravity right now. so try to understand GR, QM, QFT, from the basic level first. good lecture ;;;

https://www.youtube.com/user/StanfordUniversity/search?query=general+relativity

The theory of the Relativity is inconsistent with Quantum Mechanics, especially about the hypothesis of a variable space-time in function of the speed of the frame. Yet we live in a single world, which means that one of the two theories should be wrong. So why not to consider another proposal?

"Let's free Newtonian Mechanics from the equivalence 'principle'! "

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/7499

Here's one https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-replaces-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics It is a model the reduces to both GR and QM, explains many cosmological observations and predicted the outcome of diffraction experiments that reject wave models. THE problem: it is a continuation of the QSSC model and is, therefore, outside the box of standard models. That is, if your career depends on status quo funding, you should avoid. Otherwise it is new and the modeling and research possibilities are wide open.

John

If I were you I would try something a little less ambitious that STOE

Diffraction that does not follow from waves?

Olivier,

In SR there is a fair amount of coordination with QM, the usuall QM operators transform the same as (E,p) in SR. But there are still problems.

Juan Weisz

Why? I'm retired. So, I do what pleases me. Years and Years ago when I was peer reviewed published, The societies trend was unexciting.

Yes, photon (particle ) diffraction model and experiments to reject wave models. But the wave model's Fresnel-Huygens method can be derived from the STOE model.

It is just that replacing both QM and relativity by some new theory sounds farfetched.

Otherwise do whatever you wish.

Maybe sticking to diffraction of light or particles sounds more practical.

(there always is a wave involved in diffraction, the particles are quantum)

Im also retired.

Regards, Juan

Juan Weisz

Yeah. It is farfetched. But it corresponds to both GR and QM, explains observations not explained by GR and QM, has prediced observation other models didn't (Pioneer Anomaly), diffraction of photons, explained spin of particles, explains the coulomb force speed, explains the "moving magnet and conductor problem" with Maxwell's equations, and the problem with he Biot-Savart Law, and more.

The GR explanations include rotation curves without dark matter, asymmetric rotation curves, redshift without the Doppler effect (the standard model has a low correlation with Cepheid stars), discrete redshift, and correlation of the central galaxy parameter with outer galaxy parameters and calculates a theoretical temperature of the microwave background.

Well, enough of y plugging the model. It is farfetched and is not likely to be accepted by the status quo folks. But if correct they will have to come around eventually like the tectonic plates thing.

Do you like just following the herd?

Dear Thirugnanam,

1. What do you mean it is not complete?

2. if you check for example the loop quantum gravity (LQG), quantize the gravity in the context of GR, considering a B-F theory in a compact manifold that is SL(2.C) in the bulk and SU(2) on the boundary. The GR is complete, in fact is one of the theories with the minimum of constants, (only G and the cosmological constant), on the other hand the standard model use several constant putting on hand to describe it.

John

Yes, I see science as basically as a social and collective historical process. Only in very rare instances is someones work recognized

50 or 100 years after his time, if it did not catch on before.

Important stuff seems to break out all of a sudden on several fronts, because many understand, not only one.

Also these times are not revolutionary, just a slow questioning time.

regards, juan

In fact, it is wrong that there exist no consistent theory of quantum gravity. Such a theory is even quite easy to construct:

1.) Break relativistic symmetry by introducing a covariance-breaking term.

2.) Develop field theory, Hamilton formalism and so on following standard field theory techniques.This is straightforward because if was relativistic symmetry which has created a degeneracy which prevented standard approaches, lead to problems with local energy conservation and so on.

3.) Regularize the theory by using a spatial lattice theory on a large cube with periodic boundary conditions. This gives a classical Hamiltonian theory with a finite number of degrees of freedom. Standard quantization will work as usual.

See https://ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/Schmelzer,%20I.%20(2017).%20Quantum%20Gravity%20as%20a%20Metaphysical%20Problem,%20Phys%20Astron%20Int%20J%202017,%201(5):%2000029.pdf for details.

Such a theory is, of course, completely unacceptable for any believer in the relativistic dogma, thus, unacceptable for the mainstream for the obvious metaphysical reasons.

Comparison of New and Old Thermodynamics

1. Logic of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Subjectivism, Logical Jump, Interdisciplinary Argumentation.

2. New thermodynamics pursues universality, two theoretical cornerstones:

2.1 Boltzmann formula: ro=A*exp(-Mgh/RT) - Isotope centrifugal separation experiments show that it is suitable for gases and liquids.

2.2. Hydrostatic equilibrium: applicable to gases and liquids.

3. The second and third sonic virial coefficients of R143a derived from the new thermodynamics are in agreement with the experimental results.

3.1. The third velocity Virial coefficient derived is in agreement with the experimental data, which shows that the theory is still correct when the critical density is reached.

4. See Appendix Pictures and Documents for details.

as we know general relativity deal with curved space time, this curvature is due to the mass of the particle. Quantum field theory deal with flat fields. So to work in quantum gravity you need to deal with: 1- particles without mass and has long distance effect to avoid curvature ( which is impossible) or 2- massive particles with short distance effect to ignore the curvature. Then I recommend you to learn more about sting theory.