Since 1998 general relativity has failed to account for dark energy. Perhaps instead a theory of dark energy is needed to account for gravity. John James Waterston in 1845 in the early days of thermodynamics suspected that motion, via a 4/3 vis viva, might account for gravity. The 4/3 law appears to account for dark energy. The 4/3 law arises in connection with thermodynamics, as in Clausius’s mean path lengths, the 4/3 scaling of wind eddies of Lewis Fry Richardson, 3/4 metabolic scaling due to the 4/3 power scaling of the circulatory system, and the 4/3 fractal dimension of Brownian motion. Perhaps the 4/3 law might help account for gravity.
I think so too. In a paper I wrote I found that the relationship between the disc, the hemisphere, the volume of a sphere (4/3) and the surface of a sphere can exactly calculate the mean surface temperature on earth. Not only that, it also produces the effective temperature, the tropopause temperature and possibly core temperature. In addition, accounting for gravity as thermodynamic work in units Nm^2 which is used for thermal resistance, stress and pressure, I found that 4g^2 is equal to surface emission, 4/3*g^2 is equal to tropopause temperature, 4/3*4g^2 serves as source power to the whole troposphere heat or the power needed for the force of gravity, and TSI(total solar irradiance, 1360.8W/m^2) is equal gravity in TSI/(4/3)=4/3*8g^2. This is the same relationship as for the electric field inside a hollow sphere. The relationships can be found on mars and venus as well, and it also works for mean surface temperature on the moon.
You can download it here: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0112
It has been very hard to get any response on my calculations, I suspect it has something to do with the implications they cause for climate science, more precisely the doomsday-agenda of climate change, which turns out to be fake if I´m right. My calculations clearly show that the greenhouse theory is wrong, in my opinion. But not only the calculations, we seem to have ignored our scientific history in the thermodynamic discoveries made over a hundred years ago.
The Relativistic Alpha Field Theory (RAFT) predicts the positive gravitational force at the extremely strong field ( Planck's scale) that could be the source of dark energy. This is because no singularity in RAF theory. This does not mean that no black holes, because the black holes can exist without its own singularity.
@C. Y. Lo
My theory is a dynamic 5D Spacetime. That said, it not an expanded GR. It shows that Reality is incompatible with GR!
I created a theory called the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU).
You can read selected postings here:
https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Selected-Postings
The EVIDENCE that is supersede General Relativity is here:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_I_get_this_simple_discovery_independently_verified
No ifs nor buts.
I supersede General Relativity simply because GR missed both that the Universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypershell and that matter is directly and simply made from deformed space.
The evidence is manifold. The topology and the model for matter allow for the derivation of a velocity and epoch dependent Law of Gravitation (from first principles).
Topology also allows for the derivation of the Cosmological Ruler d(z). Since Gravitation is epoch-dependent, SN1a also become epoch-dependent and not Stellar Candles. Correcting for the Absolute Luminosity G dependence (Chandrasekhar Mass Limit has a G^(-3/2) dependence), we confirm HU perfect predictions.
My work gave new impetus to experimental researchers. Up to now, everyone was afraid to say anything against Einstein Almighty..:). Attached is an experimental work that ascertains that Gravitation is velocity-dependent.
Using the d(z), I was able to create the map of the CURRENT UNIVERSE (as if the Universe had taken an instantaneous snapshot):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytuEctnD334
This data has being in the hands of SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey) for some ten years. They couldn't see the map because Einstein wouldn't allowed that..:) so they missed seeing the Many Bangs below.
These are plots of the galaxy density as seen perpendicularly to the angular space. You can see a profiled (quantized, not exactly but close) galaxy density that is consistent with the periodic seeding by sloshing density waves during the Neutronium Phase.
You can learn about the Big Pop and Many Bangs Cosmogenesis here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r54AQc2BR5c
You can also reproduce and check my work here:
######################################################
Data Trove - Here you can check my calculations and recreate the Map of the Universe following simple instructions.
https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Universe-Trove
######################################################
In Summary
- My theory superseded General Relativity
- it also proved the Big Bang to be wrong and so the Singularity
- it also added an extra spatial dimension to space and place the whole Universe traveling at the speed of light along the radial direction.
- its model for matter should be mapped into the salvageable parts of Quantum Chromodynamics
- it also proved that Dark Matter nor Dark Energy are not required to explain Cosmology
I would say GRT + dilaton which can be viewed in lower and higher dimensions. This includes 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory and recently a proposed quantum gravity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity#Dilaton.
“What theory can supersede general relativity?”
- the answer on this question is evident: the general relativity is evidently non-adequate to the objective reality theory since in this theory a few evidently unreal things are postulated, first of all that the real Matter’s spacetime is rather strange pseudo Riemannian space, where either the space or the time are imaginary and an uncertain [since that depends on rather banal sets of clocks, rules, and observer; all of them seems aren’t some omnipotent Creations that can make space/time imaginary] part of the distances are imaginary also. Besides the sets above evidently aren’t omnipotent so that can “contract the space”, “dilate time” in whole Matter; and gravitational masses evidently aren’t omnipotent so that can “bend ” the spacetime as well.
That is clear for anybody who understand – what are the notions/phenomena “Space”, “Time”, “Matter”; when these notions/phenomena indeed are Meta-mainstream notions [and so the authors of SR/GR, who didn’t understand what they are, postulated such strange properties of the space/time/spacetime], and so can be properly defined/rationally understandable only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904
where it is shown that the Matter’s spacetime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian manifold in physical theories/ [5]4D Euclidian “empty container” in the objective reality, where Matter exists and changes; and this container cannot be changed by anything in Matter that exists and interacts well above the Planck scale.
Thus in the reality Gravity is nothing more then the fourth fundamental Nature force, which, besides, is rather similar to other fundamental Nature, i.e.,the EM -force. Correspondingly theory that will study Gravity more thoroughly then Newtonian theory must, and let hope will soon enough, supersede the GR
But that seems will not relate to that
“…Since 1998 general relativity has failed to account for dark energy…”
the dark energy effect, if indeed exists, is outside possibilities of human’s science to analyze it basing on known the Nature laws ,which are known as results of controlled experiments. In this case only some ad hoc guesses are possible, up to, and what seems rather plausible, that Matter is a stable residence of some Consciousness [as human’s body is the stable residence of human’s consciousness], and Baby simply yet grows. How that proceeds – the answer is outside human’s ability to test, nonetheless some suggestions about this process are possible; as that is possible, for example, for the case when the spacetime “was expanded” at Beginning, see the link above, the section 6.1.3. The problem of Beginning and evolution of Universe.
It is useful to read https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265509276_The_informational_model_-_gravity also.
Including, of course, the gravitational interactions must be quantized, as that is in every other fundamental Nature force, and to discover the quantum nature of Gravity seems is possible yet now, 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…
Cheers
Thinking about the unthinkable. My approach is to go back to 1687 and to start over using just Newton's Laws within the context of the Galilean Transform. I have created a new atom to replace the quantum mechanical model for the atom as well as classical explanations for charge, photon, line spectrum, electric current.... This work is presented in an orderly fashion on my website www.jmkingsleyiii.info
Robert,
We don't give a sparrow which is in our hand for a peacock on the fence. General relativity explained many things, and we won't replace it with something that explains the dark energy but fails to explain all those things explained by the general relativity.
In explaining things about our universe we don't use only the general relativity, but input in this theory a couple of hypotheses about things that we cannot directly test. So, the inputs have to be checked again.
Given the large empirical success of GR, a theory which supersedes GR has to have, in some limit, the Einstein equations of GR. It does not mean that it has to accept the spacetime interpretation of GR. It may be based, for example, on a more Lorentz-like interpretation, where clocks and rulers do not measure space and time but are distorted by the gravitational field.
It also have to be compatible with quantum principles, so that it can be easily quantized.
Such theories are not that difficult to construct, essentially all one needs is to give up the quasi-religious belief into some metaphysical principles of GR, which are in sharp contradiction with QT.
For an example of such a theory, see http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity (It is, btw, published in a peer-reviewed journal. This makes some difference.)
dear Robert, the theory which re-considers relativity is published here on research gate. I am using distributions theory for complex set functions to repair GR. first remarkable thing: singularities are differentiable.
Dear All,
In my opinion the theory that we need could be the Relativistic Alpha Field Theory (RAFT). The related articles you can find in my Research Gate Page. Here is an Abstract from one of the article:
General Relativity Theory (GRT) cannot be applied
to the extremely strong gravitational field at the Planck’s scale,
because of the related singularity. Here we show that
Relativistic Alpha Field (RAF) theory extends the application of
GRT to the extremely strong fields at the Planck’s scale. This is
the consequence of the following predictions of RAF theory: a)
no a singularity at the Schwarzschild radius, b) there exists a
minimal radius at r = (GM/2c2) that prevents singularity at r =
0, i.e. the nature protects itself, c) the gravitational force
becomes positive (repulsive) if (GM/rc2) > 1, that could be a
source of a dark energy, and d) unification of electrical and
gravitational forces can be done in the standard four
dimensions (4D).
If RAF theory is correct, then it could be applied to the both weak and
strong fields at the Universe and Planck’s scales giving the new
light to the regions like black holes, quantum theory, high
energy physics, Big Bang theory and cosmology.
Dark energy-in the form discovered in 1998-is perfectly well described by the cosmological constant, that's as much a part of general relativity as anything else.
Where general relativity provides an incomplete description is with regard to the resolution of singularities-the past singularity, that describes the emergence of the Universe and the future singularities that describe gravitational collapse to black holes.
While general relativity implies that these singularities are inevitable, a theory of quantum gravity is needed to describe their resolution. So it doesn't make sense discussing classical modifications of general relativity for this topic-like the proposals mentioned here. Higher dimensional extensions must explain how a four-dimensional spacetime emerges, for instance and how their singularities appear in four dimensions in ways that evade the assumptions of the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem. Since the proposals discussed here don't even address these issues, they don't have anything to do with extending general relativity.
It suffices to actually read the relevant-technical-papers, e.g. Article Gravitational Radiation from Post-Newtonian Sources and Insp...
to learn that general relativity describes observed effects, that necessitate going beyond the linear approximation.A physical theory describes natural phenomena, using a mathematical formalism, in which statements are formulated and proved. These then have implications for experiments. As usual.
The same mathematical formalism can be relevant for many, apparently different, physical systems; and many, mathematically equivalent, formalisms can be used to describe the same physical system.
And the cosmological constant, that is a property of any theory, that generalizes Lorentz invariance to non-inertial frames is sufficient to explain, quantitatively, dark energy, as measured. If it turns out that dark energy requires an equation of state, this would mean the existence of new forms of matter-but this generalization, still classical, can be acommodated by general relativity-and such models are being studied.
Incidentally: there's nothing to general relativity that isn't, also, relevant for describing the properties of any non-linear elastic medium; so any claims about general relativity can immediately be checked in such situations-and this has been done. So it's known that the quantitative description of the dynamics of fluids and elastic media is an application of the framework of general relativity.
Any theory that ``supersedes'' general relativity, contains it as a special case; just like general relativity contains Newtonian gravity as a special case.
Stam, you wrote "Any theory that ``supersedes'' general relativity, contains it as a special case; just like general relativity contains Newtonian gravity as a special case."
This is wrong. First, Newtonian theory is not contained in GR. It can be obtained only in some limit. So, NT is only an approximation, not a special case. Moreover, GR has a completely different interpreation, and nothing in the NT interpretation is a special case of GR spacetime.
Similar for theories which supersede GR. They will have the GR equations as some limit. So, the GR equations will be useful only as approximations. Not as a special case.
And, even more, in GLET (my own proposal for a theory to supersede GR, see http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity ), not all GR solutions do appear as approximations. So, solutions with nontrivial topology or with causal loops end in the dustbin, without any use. And all the spacetime interpretation is rejected too.
It's not sufficient, or necessary, to proclaim-the math must be consistent. The difference between ``approximation'' and ``special case'' is irrelevant and the only statement that matters is the mathematical procedure that allows to obtain Newtonian gravity from general relativity.
``Interpretations'' are empty of content-there are many ways of stating the same things-and that only matters.
Any proposal that claims to replace, not supersede, GR-but implies that certain properties of GR are absent-must describe in mathematical terms, not words, how this comes about. And if it doesn't describe spacetime geometry, in particular, it's not good for anything relevant to the subject, which is the description of spacetime. There's no notion of ``rejection'' or ``acceptance'' in mathematics-just the quantities that can be shown to be invariant under the transformations are of any relevance. (Newton-Cartan theory, that is now, once more, the topic of recent studies, goes back to... Cartan and isn't in contradiction with GR, cf. http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/34926446/Complete_thesis.pdf for one review.)
To compute the precession of Mercury's (or any other planet's) perihelion, it isn't necessary to linearize Einstein's equations. And it shouldn't be surprising, that it isn't described by them, if they are linearized: they describe a situation, where the precession is absent in that case and this is a standard exercise.
There's no meaningful difference between the term ``direct'' and the term ``indirect'' as pertaining to any measurement, beyond denoting the degree of familiarity of the person, making the distinction, with the subject. The apparatus and the calculations any experiment is based on are completely indifferent to the distinction. All measurements are indirect, in fact-they rely on approximations.
General relativity (or any mathematical description) doesn't ``deny'' anything-it describes spacetime and how matter affects it and is affected by it. The general coordinate invariance that's the defining property of general relativity is, also, the property of the equations that describe the dynamics of elastic media. Spacetime is just one example of a (non-linear) elastic medium.
That took some time to get noticed, but is, now, a straightforward statement to prove. The hard part was noticing it.
If one does a wrong calculation, one shouldn't be surprised in getting a wrong answer. One can then claim all sorts of things but they're irrelevant. For test particles, the notion of ``linearized GR'' is meaningless. One is solving the geodesic equation, not Einstein's equations.
What's relevant is learning to do the correct calculation, e.g. Article Complete calculations of the perihelion precession of Mercur...
The statement that there is precession of the perihelion in flat spacetime, i.e. in the Newtonian approximation, since the motion is anyway non-relativistic, is, simply, wrong, that's all.
And the reason is obvious, just by looking at the potential-the trajectory remains closed. Precession of the perihelion means that the trajectory's, in fact, open, that the motion isn't periodic. The reason this occurs in GR is that the metric outside the Sun, in which a planet moves, is the Schwarzschild metric and in that metric the potential is such that the motion can be non-periodic. Since it is very close to being periodic it is, perhaps, useful to describe this in terms of the Newtonian trajectory, the ellipse; but this is just a picture, nothing more. It's completely straightforward to solve the geodesic equation of a test particle in the Schwarzschild metric.
Cf. also: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1977CeMec..15...21R&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
Once more: it doesn't make sense to talk of ``interpretations''-in particular, there's no such notion as a GR interpretation of the speed of light.
And it's interesting that people that claim the theory is useless, apparently have nothing better to do, in particular provide any alternative; which should be consistent with everything's that's known and predict new, measurable, effects-not new words for the same effects. GR already provides a framework for calculating effects in rotating reference frames, so there's no point going on about that. And the graviphoton is, already, known, as part of supergravity, so there's no point in going on about gravimagnetism, either; how to describe vector boson exchange as part of supergravity was worked out forty years ago.
To come back to the question of the thread, a quantum theory of gravity supersedes general relativity. Any classical theory, in fact, doesn't, because it has the same properties. It might be useful to define general relativity as the classical field theory of the metric tensor and consider additional fields, that can't be redefined as matter, obeying the weak energy condition, as extensions; but the fundamental properties don't really change.
How a quantum theory of the metric tensor can be formulated is, for the moment, not clear. But none of the proposals discussed here can be of any use in this regard.
Stam, approximate solutions are not consistent solutions. GR is a consistent theory, NT too, but the Newtonian approximation is not a consistent theory, but only an approximation. And it does not give exactly NT predictions, but only approximately.
Then, you write "The general coordinate invariance that's the defining property of general relativity is, also, the property of the equations that describe the dynamics of elastic media." That's wrong. It has been an objection by Kretschmann, E. (1917). Über den physikalischen Sinn der Relativitätspostulate, A. Einsteins neue und seine ursprüngliche Relativitätstheorie, Ann. Phys. 53, 575-614. that all physical theories allow a presentation in a general covariant way, so that this is not at all something defining GR.
Thierry De Mees, you write "it is proven that SRT (Minkowsky's metric) accounts for 14 arcsec/century to Mercury's perihelion". This makes not much sense, given that SR is not a theory of gravity, and therefore cannot tell us anything about the Mercury perihelion. So, this is, at best, a sloppy description of something computed in the Newtonian approximation of GR, where one can use the approximately defined Minkowski background to compute some part and name it "SRT part", but nothing serious.
Again, in SR there is no gravity described, thus, that means, there is also no Mercury perihelion at all, because without gravity Mercury would fly away in a straight line. So, you cannot compute any Mercury perihelion shift without a theory of gravity. The theory of gravity compatible with SR is GR, nothing else.
If some GR approximation allows to split the effects into "SR part" (which is probably what is caused by velocity) and "gravity part" (which is caused by gravitational time dilation), fine. But the size of the parts of such a split are completely irrelevant, because there is nothing observable they have to agree with. So, I do not claim that such computations are somehow weird. What seems weird is that you think that this would be somehow an argument against SR or GR or so. You ask "How are you going to fit that in the total picture?" Very simple, no reason to fit anything, take the computation, which has to be some approximate GR computation (else you can freely ignore it). And this computation has a general result, all the artificially splitted parts taken together, and this general result has to agree with observation. That's the whole "fit".
Dear Thierry,
Of course, SRT can be valid only as an approximation. Once there exist mass, and therefore gravity, it is wrong, point. But as an approximation it can be, nonetheless, excellent.
So, I do not question the validity of such approximations. They are completely fine - as approximations.
Even your argument uses approximation. Gravitational attraction is ideally perpendicular only in an ideal circular orbit, that means, in an orbit without a perihelion. So, all you have is that it is approximately perpendicular.
What I don't understand is what is your pretense to this approximation? If it is inaccurate, so what - this is what one has to expect from approximations.
Approximations are not "allegedly correct" in general, but under certain circumstances. These circumstances have to be specified and checked, and once they differ in every particular case, this has to be done in every case separately. Flat Earth theory would be fine for the football game, but not "allegedly correct" in general.
I see no reason to expect that some particular approximation of GR, which restricts itself only to SR effects, would be an appropriate approximation for the Mercury.
The only think one could say(write) is that we try not to think that ALL "classical" theories are backuped by an army of numerous soldiers(scientists) behind them, each one adding a small(tiny) piece of evidence that would improve, confirm or even approve these. It is at least unfair for a new-appearing theory, product of only one un-conformist person, trying to prove its superiority over any of the "approved" theories (how-ever strange, complex, incomprehensible and inconsistent these "classical" theories (CTs) could be) to get unreasoned hard criticism from the very beginning. Of course almost any experimental data (none of them proved as unconditional physical truth) has been explained by these CTs and it should be expected from any scientist, that wish to put its own contribution to the existed knowledge, to try to express his(her) ideas on the very few unresolved and difficult issues. At this very weak and sensitive point of their attempt, CT's soldiers are attacking and they proudly antagonise for the bloodier and aggravate knock.
Time (existent or not) will exclude any fault theory, whatever fighting strength is based on, and humanity as a whole will follow its way to progress by ever proposing new ideas by its (at least) brave members.
theories are and will be based on prior theories.
new: just try to describe physical terms by using functionals and then apply distributions theory. for instance: mass is to express as M(m0/Square-root(1-v²/c²)), a functional depending on function f(m0;v)
Hello everyone,
The theory of general relativity can not be replaced, but only "extended" or more "generalized". Finally, the existence of dark matter and dark energy is only a hypothesis, nothing more! Who tells you that one of them exists?
Erik Verlinde's theory of entropy gravity has already been proven. I quote: "A team led by astronomer Margot Brouwer (Leiden Observatory, The Netherlands) has tested the new theory of physicist Erik Verlinde (University of Amsterdam) for the first time through the lens of gravity, distribution of gravity around more than 33,000 galaxies Verlinde's prediction to the test. "It concludes that Verlinde's theory agrees with the measured gravity distribution."
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_a2jWYk8A0
Personally, I work on the concept of Verlinde for 3, 4 years, and I try to generalize its equation to the Einsteins equations, and that without relying on the theory of the strings. I rely only on information theory, thermodynamics and information theory.
Here are related my articles.
Energy Pulse Tensor Study in Fluid Mechanics: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327669456_Energy_Pulse_Tensor_Study_in_Fluid_Mechanics
Entropic description of gravity by thermodynamics relativistic fluids and the information theory: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327233806_Entropic_description_of_gravity_by_thermodynamics_relativistic_fluids_and_the_information_theory
Regards,
BAUDRIMONT Roman
Baudrimont Roman,
How exactly do you prove Verlinde's Theory? Did it make predictions?
My theory made predictions of all SN1a distances from their redshifts z.
Below is the predictions and the observations. Verlinde's theory cannot do this and neither can General Relativity.
The Team of the Supernova Survey "proved" my theory correct since I parameterlessly predicted the Supernovae distances and got them right. No other theory was able to do it. Not Verlinde's, not L-CDM, certainly not General Relativity.
Hence you blank and baseless statement that General Relativity can only be generalized is wrong.
By the way, I also provided evidence that the Universe has one extra spatial dimension and that was "proved" by the team of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS):
https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Proof-of-an-Extra-Spatial-Dimension
So proofs are a dime a dozen. The question is failures and Verlinde's Theory fails a lot....to much to be called a successful theory.
dear Roman, as one changes axioms (such as speed of light always is less than c, not equal c) then a new theory emerges. that is: it is not a generalization of RT. for instance: euclid`s 5th axiom was reconsidered, so non-euclidean geometries were developed. ergo: RT must be replaced (that is what I already did).
Hello
"By the way, I also provided evidence that the Universe has one extra dimensional dimension and that was" proved "by the team of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)"
Would you have the friendliness to give me the link of your article?
PART 1 - ENTROPIC GRAVITY
Concerning your answer on Verlinde's theory, it's about prediction.
Cosmological observations using available technology can be used to test the theory, and a team of Leiden observatory statistically observing the lensing of gravitational fields at large distances from the centers of more than 33,000 galaxies, found that these gravitational fields were consistent with Verlinde's theory. Using conventional gravitational theory, the fields implied by these observations can not be ascribed to a particular distribution of dark matter.
Another team, bringing together researchers from Italy, France and Switzerland, compared the observations and the material distribution calculated from the Verlinde theory for the Abell 2142 and Abell 2319 galaxy clusters, and here again , the agreement is good.
Source: https://motherboard.vice.com/en/article/wngnb5/ne-new-theory-of-gravitation-by-debarrasse-de-conccept-de-matiere-noire
Source (French): https://www.pourlascience.fr/sd/cosmologie/la-matiere-noire-is-elle-une-un-usion-12511.php
The article on Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269.pdf
My article is not based on the same model as Verlinde. A French source from a blog showed another formulation, simple, which allows to obtain the famous equation of Verlinde from the basic laws of thermodynamics:
Gradient of S * T = GmM / d²
With S the entropy, T the temperature in Kelvin, G the gravitational constant, m and M two distinct masses and a distance.
My theory is therefore based on Verlinde's theory, validated by experience: But my theory generalizes Newton's equation in the context of Einstanian gravity. As a result, it takes into account the gravitational wave effects, red shift etc ... And like the theory of entropic gravity and also an emerging theory, we can define a kind of "quantum gravity", a " duality "between the probabilistic functions (Von Neumann entropy) and the thermodynamic entropy associated with the curvature of space.
A first formulation of my theory is present here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327233806_Entropic_description_of_gravity_by_thermodynamics_relativistic_fluids_and_the_information_theory
PART 2 - GENERAL RELATIVITY
May I have been poorly expressed about general relativity. I said that general relativity could only be generalized. By "generalizing" I simply mean to incorporate new concepts or axioms. For example, in my opinion, Einstein's equation is a generalization of Newton's equation. These are two totally different equations, but Einstein's equations derive from Newton's equations.
If a new equation of gravity is to be written, it must be a "generalization" of the Einsteinian gravity concept. In other words, from this equation, some equations of Einstein must be derived.
Now, what is certain at the moment is that the constant of the speed of light is not known "perfectly". We have only an approximation of it via laboratory experiments.
If the speed of light were to vary, then c (the speed of light) should be replaced by the function c (t) (speed of light as a function of time). Then, we should see if such a "variance" in the speed of light has positive (or negative) points on current observational measurements of energy and dark matter.
If it turns out that the variance of the speed was a problem, then yes, we should review Einstein's equations. But the newly introduced gravity equation can be a generalization of Einstein's equation, in the sense that we can "solve" it and fall back on some Einstein solutions that have been validated by the experiment.
Moreover, and what poses a serious problem to Einstein's equations, is the very nature of his equation. Many question the validity of a geometric equation determining the nature of gravity.
It turns out that there is a much simpler interpretation and especially that could help to solve some physical systems. It is actually the pulse energy tensor, which is nothing other than a generalization of the stress tensor in fluid mechanics. What needs to be done, at present, is to interpret Einstein's equations as a non-Newtonian fluid equation. Everything is described and explained in my article:
Energy Pulse Tensor Study in Fluid Mechanics: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327669456_Energy_Pulse_Tensor_Study_in_Fluid_Mechanics
Dear Roman,
“…My article is not based on the same model as Verlinde. A French source from a blog showed another formulation, simple, which allows to obtain the famous equation of Verlinde from the basic laws of thermodynamics:
Gradient of S * T = GmM / d²
With S the entropy, T the temperature in Kelvin, G the gravitational constant, m and M two distinct masses and a distance.»
would you be kind to calculate motion in a system of two distinct masses, where m is Earth, M is Sun, d is near 150 000 000 km; and to point at that what are “S” and “T” in this example and what are their [S and T] concrete values in this system?
Cheers
Hello Sergey Shevchenko
Excuse me, but to answer your question, I direct you to the link of mathematical development. The link is in French, but you can use online translation services if you want to translate to English. Your answer is in the link:
https://sciencetonnante.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/la-gravite-une-force-emergente-dorigine-entropique/
Hello, @Roman Baudrimont
“…Excuse me, but to answer your question, I direct you to the link of mathematical development. The link is in French…”
Excuse me, but the situation in physics now is as such: in spite of that in last 30 years in all, including very respectable, official physical journals [and not only, though] a hundreds of thousands of papers were published; and in every case the authors claim that they discovered a next fundamental things in Matter, physics-2018 practically doesn’t differ from physics-1980. By another words all the published above is, in the reality, nothing more then a secondary paper.
So I read physical papers usually only if papers possibly contain something, what can be interesting; and for that is necessary to have some initial information.
Your last post doesn’t contain corresponding information, you didn’t answer on the question in the SS post above, at least on what are “S” and “T” in the gravitational system Earth+Sun and what are their [S and T] concrete values in this system?
So let be possibly more simple question: if somebody will repeat the Cavendish experiment, however instead of the lead spheres he will use spheres that are made from some rather perfect crystal, and the system will be cooled to, let, a few Kelvins, then what are “S” and “T” [and Gradient of S*T] in this gravitational system; and the spheres will attract each other or not, if will attract, then with what gravity constant “G” [lesser/larger/equal to the standard value; besides, it seems as rather probable that the inertial masses will not be affected by the entropy] ?
Cheers
Hello
I send you an image that shows how we go from the Verlinde equation to the Newtonian equations.
It comes from this article: http://tpcsf.ihep.ac.cn/xinwen/ppt/mabq.pdf
There she is :
Hello
Thanks for the picture. I had rather small free time, so briefly.
On the Fig. in your post a number, as that seems to me, of rather questionable ad hoc premises are given, which have no some rational physical grounds. Examples:
The T=TU seems as have no relation to the gravity problem. TU, as that follows from the Diapositive 2, is a [rather questionable also, though] temperature of some unknown in this case medium [as the parameter “temperature” is used in the rest physics];
besides, if even such temperature indeed relates to some medium, then, for example in the Cavendish experiment, the small spheres have rather small acceleration after the big spheres are put in the experiment’s positions. Moreover, after the accelerations and corresponding motions, all system is static, thus the “heat because of the acceleration” above, in accordance with thermodynamics, will dissipate in the medium and the local temperature above will decrease; correspondingly the gravity force between spheres, which appeared because of the temperature /acceleration, as that follows from the Fig, must, as that correspondingly follows from the equations on the Fig., decrease also. What seems nobody observed till now;
The formulae in “Newton’s second law of motion” seems aren’t applicable here. Again, a huge number of bodies on Earth, including the Cavendish masses above, don’t move at all, being fixed at that just by gravity force.
Formula Mc2=E=1/2kTN, where N=A/lP2, seems as rather strange also, The energy Mc2 is nothing more then the kinetic energy of a body with mass M that moves with 4D speed of light [everything in Matter always moves so] in the 4D sub-spacetime of Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime, which [the spacetime] is nothing else then some 4D empty container
[more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494]. In the emptiness one can define some arias “lP2”, however these arias have, of course, no energy.
Thus the formulae on the Fig. have a sense only if they relate to some medium, “ether”, that fills the container above; and that is one of main postulates in the informational physical model [the link above]; and the “sizes” of the ether/lattice’s 4D fundamental logical elements in the model are indeed equal to the Planck length. From such premise indeed the model for gravity follows [see the link above], which was presented in 2007 [see http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0703/0703043.pdf].
. This gravity model can be tested experimentally yet now, the experiment, where, besides, the QM nature of gravity could be observed, was suggested yet in 2007 also [https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657v2]
Etc.
Cheers
Dear all,
In my opinion, one of the possible answer to the question:
what theory can supersede general relativity?, is as follow.
We do not need a theory that will supersede general relativity (GR). We need a theory that will extend GR to the Planck's scale and solve the dark energy problem. This new theory is Relativistic Alpha Field Theory (RAFT) that has been presented in ten articles in my research-gate page.
Best regards to all,
Branko