Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Saturday, April 01, 2006

Professor Phil Anderson has sense:

'the flat universe is just not decelerating, it isn’t really accelerating ... the “phlogiston fallacy” ... I even conditionally accept inflation, but how does the crucial piece Dark Energy follow from inflation? – don’t kid me, you have no idea.'

We already know Professor Anderson isn't a fool, because he talks hard facts: “string theory is a futile exercise as physics” - http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_10.html#andersonp

The big bang is the mechanism behind gravity and the contraction of general relativity, which means the whole of the Einstein-Hilbert field equation. Gravity is an effect, not a universal law.

Let me make this clear: you see a car coasting along. Is that 'evidence' that the driver is pressing the accelerator with one foot and the brake with the other?

Nope. But if you are stuck in a paradigm which believes the brake is always on (gravity) without a calculated mechanism for quantum gravity, then you have to invent a false 'dark energy' to overcome that braking (gravitational retardation), giving the coasting observations you see from distant supernovae redshift data. It's an epicycle, it's false.

See my response here.

The mainstream approach is to take GR (general relativity) as a model for the universe, which assumes gravity is not a QFT (quantum field theory) radiation exchange pressure force.

But if you take the observed expansion as primitive, then you get a mechanism for local GR as the consequence, without the anomalies of the mainstream model which require the cosmological constant, and its dark energy.

Outward expansion in spacetime by Newton's 3rd law results in inward gauge boson pressure, which causes the contraction term in GR as well as gravity itself.

GR is best viewed simply as Penrose describes it:

(1) the tensor field formulation of Newton's law, R_uv = 4Pi(G/c^2)T_uv, and

(2) the contraction term which leads to all departures from Newton's law (apart from CC, cosmological constant).

Putting the contraction term into the Newtonian R_uv = 4Pi(G/c^2)T_uv gives the Einstein field equation without the CC: R_uv - ½Rg_uv = 8Pi(G/c^2)T_uv

Feynman explains very clearly that the contraction term can be considered physical, e.g., the Earth's radius is contracted by the amount ~(1/3)MG/c^2 = 1.5 mm

This is the way to unify general relativity and quantum field theory. Forget special relativity, and accept the reality of the absolute coordinate system of general relativity. See the recent review of quantum field theory:

Klaus Fredenhagen, Karl-Henning Rehren, and Erhard Seilerpp, Quantum Field Theory: Where We Are, arXiv:hep-th/0603155, v1, 20 Mar 2006, pp. 18-19:

'Classical gravity being a field theory, QFT is expected to be the proper framework; but QFT takes for granted some fixed background spacetime determining the causal structure, as one of its very foundations, while spacetime should be a dynamical agent in gravity theory. This argument alone does not preclude the logical possibility of perturbative quantization of gravity around a fixed background, but on the other hand, the failure of all attempts so far which split the metric into a classical background part and a dynamical quantum part, should not be considered as a complete surprise, or as a testimony against QFT.

'Taking the geometrical meaning of gravitational fields seriously, it is clear that the framework of QFT has to be substantially enlarged in order to accomodate a quantum theory of Gravity. It is an open question whether this can be done by formal analogies between dieomorphism invariance and gauge symmetry.'

Mario Rabinowitz, A Theory of Quantum Gravity may not be possible because Quantum Mechanics violates the Equivalence Principle, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601218, (revised v3): Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:56:21 GMT:

'Quantum mechanics clearly violates the weak equivalence principle (WEP). This implies that quantum mechanics also violates the strong equivalence principle (SEP), as shown in this paper. Therefore a theory of quantum gravity may not be possible unless it is not based upon the equivalence principle, or if quantum mechanics can change its mass dependence.'

The mainstream approach to seeking quantum gravity at the abstract level is vacuous:

'We cannot help it because we are so constituted that we always believe finally what we wish to believe. The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it and become blind to the arguments against it. The moment we want to disbelieve anything we have previously believed, we suddenly discover not only that there is a mass of evidence against, but that this evidence was staring us in the face all the time.' - George Bernard Shaw.

Above, I included a diagram which shows that from our observable frame of reference in spacetime (where time past increases with observable distance of stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc.) - which is the correct frame of reference for calculating gravity because gravity goes at light speed just like light - galaxies and sueprnovae occurring near the visible horizon of ct, i.e., close to say 15,000 million light years away and 15,000 million light years past, will not receive any vector boson radiation pushing them towards us. Hence they will not be slowed down by gravity. This was predicted via EW in Oct 1996, and confirmed experimentally about two years later by astronomers with automated CCD teelscope observations of distant supernovae.

The facts also predict the strength of gravity accurately. I want to do something wicked here, by commenting on heresy. Take Mark McCutcheon's book The Final Theory that is being advertised via Lubos Motl's blog and the top bar on my internet page. First thing, I'm not interested in McCutcheon's book or his theory, mainly because he is secretive about it and wants people to spend money to get his stuff. Lubos Motl, a Harvard professor of 'string theory' (horseshit), has attacked McCutcheon for being critical of science.

McCutcheon says he has a masters degree in physics while Motl has a PhD, so the matter is settled by 'might is right' fascist philosophy which is the one surviving piece of Nazism - namely propaganda - which wasn't defeated in World War II. I have to say, that however much horseshit McCutcheon's 'theory' is, and however much money he makes from selling it, I certainly admire his attack on the drivel of special relativity (which is obsolete via 1. the hard fact that quantum field theory vacuum looks different for observers in different frames of reference and 2. general relativity discredits the principle of relativity in SR and instead has the much weaker - and absolute motion compatible - principle of general covariance) and vacuous 'string theory'.

The bottom line is, McCutcheon doesn't have any predictions, or doesn't promote any science. So I have zero sympathy with him on that score. I think the reason McCutcheon doesn't put any science on the internet for free is because he doesn't have any. I wish people like him would try selling the correct facts here. String theory crackpots won't develop quantum field theory, so perhaps others will. Dr Peter Woit is locked into the abstract geometric representation of quantum field theory using Lie spinors and Clifford algebras, and trying to understand gigantic Feynman integrals. Woit is certainly not on to a dead end, as he has already shown that he can represent the Standard Model in a simple way. However, the public - and particularly the physics community - never want to know reality. This is why fiction like string theory is loved.


At 8:51 AM, Blogger nige said...

I found the following comment on Dr Lubos Motl's blog and thought I would copy it here in case it should be deleted by accident by Dr Lubos Motl. No idea who the author of the comment is:


McCrutcheon's attack on string theory is praiseworthy, but his theory is plain wrong, which is in Pauli's eyes a step closer to science than string theory (not even wrong).

The only reason string theory is more respectable is because it contains advanced mathematics which - for no more scientific reason than fashion - has popular acclaim.

I love the review on Amazon that says:

"And the person behind this campaign turns out to even be an assistant physics professor who himself admits he hasn't read the book. Check it out for yourself! Amazon doesn't allow specific mention of other reviewers or websites I believe, or I'd include the information here, but you won't have to search too hard. I couldn't believe my eyes! Good old-fashioned ignorant book burning, not by radical members of the church anymore but, embarrassingly, by unprincipled members of my own scientific community. This is appalling scientific misconduct, if not even illegal activity, though my education is in science, not law."

I'm copying this comment to my own blog so you can delete it
Custard soup | Homepage | 04.30.06 - 11:48 am | #

At 1:14 AM, Blogger nige said...

McCrutcheon's theory is that there is no gravitational force, which is an illusion due to the expansion of all masses. Thus, in McCrutcheon's theory, "gravity" is due to the surface of the earth accelerating upward at 9.8 ms^{-2}.

In a non-mathematical sense it looks pretty because the universe is expanding, so the expansion of matter and expansion of the universe seem to go together.

Unfortunately it fails mathematically: it predicts that need a different arbitrary expansion rate for every mass in order to get rid of gravity, so the theory is contrary to the empirical confirmations of universal gravitation and is thus wrong. But that is better than string theory which is not even wrong.

At 1:15 AM, Blogger nige said...

second paragraph of previous comment should begin:

Unfortunately it fails mathematically: it predicts that you need ...

At 1:16 AM, Blogger nige said...

Whoops, I should have just written "final paragraph" not "second paragraph"

At 10:54 AM, Blogger nige said...

copy of a comment:


As mentioned in a comment on the original version of this post,


there are two factors to take account of in dealing with the lack of deceleration of galaxy clusters at extreme redshifts predicted in 1996. See


This shows one simple mechanism: the calculation is made for the spacetime reference frame we are observing, so masses which appear to us to be near the visible horizon will also be near the visible horizon for calculational purposes in working out their recession. You can't muddle up reference frames: in the reference frame we observe, objects at extreme red-shifts are near the boundary of the observable universe and we must calculate their gravity accordingly:

we are only interested in calculating what we can observe from our reference frame, not in taking account of masses that may be at greater distances, which don't contribute to what we are observing because they are beyond the visible horizon caused by the age of the universe dropping toward zero as radius approaches 13,700,000,000 light years.

In addition to this mechanism by which recession velocities at high red-shifts are affected (asymmetry of gauge boson radiation due to location of galaxy with respect to observable centre of mass of universe being where we are, in our frame of reference [this not a claim that we are in the centre of the universe, just that the surrounding mass of the universe is uniformly distributed around us, so gravitational deceleration of distant galaxies can be calculated simply by assuming the entire mass of the universe is where we are; similarly, in calculating gravity at Earth's surface from Newton's law, we can quite accurately assume that the entire mass of the Earth is located at a point in the middle of the Earth]) there is another mechanism at work:

See my comment to:


Louise, this is very good. This “dark energy” groupthink is mainstream mythology, mob culture in physics. It was always like this.

Back in 1667, Johann Joachim Becher “discovered” a substance later called “phlogiston”, in order to explain how some things (but not others) could burn. This idea caught on, with German chemist Georg Ernst Stahl naming it phlogiston after the Greek word for fire, and applying the idea to all sorts of problems in chemistry, finding it a useful descriptive model in many ways.

The “phlogiston” was supposed to be released when something burns, and the fact that some things don’t burn was simply “explained” by posulating the absense of “phlogiston” inside them. All problems with the theory were automatically new discoveries; instead of writing that the theory was wrong, people would write that they had discovered that the theory needed such-and-such modifications to make it account for this-and-that.

You see, once this was given a name, it entered science because it was “needed” to explain why certain things burn.

Then “phlogiston theory” was taught in scientific education, as the only self-consistent theory of combustion (just like string theory is supposed to explain gravity today, because it’s self consistent).

Unfortunately, although it was wonderfully self-consistent and it was easy to cook up a lot of maths to describe certain aspects of combustion based on this “phlogiston” theory, there was no experimental evidence for it. It became a self-propagating fantasy. How can something be named by a scientist if it has never been discovered? Absurd, people thought, so they believed that the “evidence” for it (so indirect that it didn’t rule out alternative ideas) and the consensus behind it made it scientific.

If you burn wood, the ash is lighter, and the loss in mass was attributed to a loss of phlogiston from the wood. (Actually, the wood has simply released things like CO2 gas to the air during combustion, which accounts for the decrease in mass.)

This was supposedly the proof of phlogiston theory. It was debunked by Antoine Lavoisier (the French chemist who was beheaded in the Revolution) in 1783, who showed that fire is primarily a process of oxidation, the gaining of oxygen from the air. (This had previously been obscured in studies of fire by the natural production of gases like CO and CO2.)

Sadly, Lavoisier’s discovery that the air contains a vital ingredient for combustion, oxygen, and his dismissal of phlogiston, were both negated by his claim in his 1783 paper Réflexions sur le phlogistique that there is a fluid substance of heat called caloric.

This caloric was supposed to be composed of particles which repel one another and thereby flow from hot bodies to cool ones, explaining how temperatures equalize over time.

Sadi Carnot’s heat engine theory (which is quantitatively correct) was also developed from the false theory of caloric. Caloric as a fundamental fluid of conserved heat was disproved in 1798 by Count Rumford who showed that an endless amount of heat can be released by friction in boring holes in metal to make cannons. Caloric is not conserved.

The “dark energy” theory is far worse than phlogiston and caloric.

I think “aether” is an interesting thing to compare to dark energy. The problem is that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate in the conventional analysis which assumes that the field equation of general relativity describes the cosmological expansion, not quantum gravity.

Problem is, quantum gravity accounts for the observations without a cosmological constant:

(1) the mainstream general relativity model says that a cosmological constant (describing dark energy) causes a repulsive effect that offsets gravitational attraction at very long distances (large redshifts).

(2) quantum gravity (gravity due to gravitons of some sort exchanged between receding gravitational charges, i.e., masses) implies a very different explanation: gravitons are red-shifted to lower energy in being exchanged between masses over long distances (high redshifts).

So in (1) above, otherwise unobservable “dark energy” provides a repulsive force that offsets gravity at great distances, thus explaining the supernova red-shift data.

But in (2) above, the same supernova red-shift data can be explained by the loss of energy of red-shifted gravitons being exchanged between masses which are receding at relativistic velocities (large red-shifts).

Hence, general relativity needs to take account of quantum gravity effects like graviton red-shift weakening gravity and decreasing the effective value of gravity constant G towards zero as red-shift (and distance) increase to extremely large figures.

If general relativity is corrected in such a way, we get a prediction of the supernova results which allegedly (in the current uncorrected general relativity paradigm) show “acceleration”. Actually that “acceleration” is an artifact of the mainstream data processing, which assumes gravity constant G is not affected by large distances (when quantum gravity suggests otherwise; this fact was censored off arXiv).

The entire mainstream theory is built on brainwashing, prejudice, groupthink, consensus, politics, and similar. Any effort to get those people to listen leads them to think that the person with the facts is just ignorant of the “beauty” and “elegance” of the mainstream model. It’s hopeless.


Updated summary at top of the blog:


Standard Model and General Relativity mechanism with predictions

Galaxy recession velocity v = dR/dt = HR. (R is distance.) Acceleration a = dv/dt = d(HR)/dt = H.dR/dt = Hv = H(HR) = RH^2 = 6*10^-10 ms^-2. Outward force: F = ma. Newton's 3rd law predicts equal inward force: non-receding nearby masses don't give any reaction force, so they cause an asymmetry, gravity. It predicts particle physics and cosmology. In 1996 it predicted the lack of deceleration at large redshifts.


Post a Comment

<< Home