Open Question on Quantization of Gravity

[Mike Strand]

Here is my latest attempt to get comments from Drs. Lee Smolin and Julian Barbour:

Dear Drs. Smolin and Barbour,

I would be grateful for a short, relevant response to my findings, sent to you in earlier, longer e-mails. Here they are again, more succinctly stated:

1. If time and distance are quantized, then the upper bound on the magnitude of acceleration is 2c/(kT), where c is the velocity of light, T is one time quantum, and k is the number of time quanta over which acceleration is measured. This is apparent in one dimension of space, and I verified it for three dimensions using vector algebra.

2. If time can be defined as Dr. Barbour proposes (emphemeris time), using the masses and displacements of the objects in a universe of N objects, then time quantization would follow from distance quantization.

3. Quantization of distance (and hence time) may be embodied some day in a theory of physics, or may be viewed simply as reflecting the limits in the precision of our measuring devices. If the former, both "true" and measured acceleration are bounded in magnitude; if only the latter, measured acceleration is bounded in magnitude.

4. True acceleration being bounded in magnitude suggests gravity would also be bounded. What would this say about black holes? And if only measured acceleration is bounded in magnitude because of our measurement limitations, could we ever directly verify or observe a black hole?

Are these results already well-known in the physics community? Or have I fouled up in my analysis?

Sincerely,
Michael Strand

I'll let you know what they reply, if they reply.

[Mike Strand]

Julian Barbour did reply briefly and politely to me several months ago:

I've looked at your notes but find they are too qualitative to make much of.
I do get quite a lot of requests to check out such proposals but come to the
conclusion that the authors fail to cross the chasm - and sadly it is one -
between qualitative ideas and something that one could call a well-defined
theory. Forgive me if I leave it at that.

Thank you for your kind comments on my essay. It seems to have been an
eye-opener to a lot of people.

Very best wishes, Julian Barbour.

I never got a reply from Lee Smolin. That's OK, I guess. I'm not in the center of activity in physics, just an armchair spectator and speculator.

My communications to Barbour and Smolin did mention I could show my conclusions mathematically, so Barbour's reply seemed a bit unfair to me. My aim was to state my results without plaguing them with the details, and see if they were interested in checking them out. If my conclusions were obvious, or already available from the work of others, I had hoped one of these gentlemen would have told me.

[Mike Strand]

Just to bring this to your kind attention again -- please see previous post.

[Arising_uk]

...
My communications to Barbour and Smolin did mention I could show my conclusions mathematically, so Barbour's reply seemed a bit unfair to me. My aim was to state my results without plaguing them with the details, and see if they were interested in checking them out. If my conclusions were obvious, or already available from the work of others, I had hoped one of these gentlemen would have told me.

I think this is your error Mike, as you should just give them the maths, not the philosophical metaphysics you've evolved, as physicists prefer this. I'm betting they'd reply if your maths looked up to scratch. If not then give them a theory they can test.

[Mike Strand]

Thanks for the advice, Arising_uk!
I'm used to writing for executives who don't care about the math, and they want a summary. Dummy me, Smolin and Barbour don't fit that description! If I can get up the ambition, I'll follow your advice and let you and the forum know what happens.

[Cerveny]

No math helps you with Gravity if you do not understand the structure of physical space (vacuum) or unless you have an acceptable model at least :(
Every attempt to describe some "Big bang" or some "black holes" is silly without it...
Let us recall "Black-body radiation" and "Ultraviolet catastrophe". It is very useful in this context :)

[Mike Strand]

Cerveny, you may be right. My math deals only with the basic definitions of velocity and acceleration and what happens to calculations of them if we assume quantized space and time in the first place.

I have no math to show that space and time are quantized based on more fundamental assumptions or scientific principles. So what I've done may not be of any interest to Smolin and Barbour or may already be obvious to them.

[tillingborn]

General relativity was given support by the bending of starlight during a total eclipse. The position of stars was a matter of record when viewed at night time from one side of the sun, the eclipse allowed their position to be charted from the other side and the two were found to be different. The photons that made up the starlight experienced a slight deflection towards the sun; in other words, their speed (c) adopted a component that was aimed at the sun. In general, anything that travels through a gravitational field experiences a deflection towards the source. Our atoms for instance; though as atoms they might be stationary, their components, the electrons and quarks that make them up are not.

[Cerveny]

No math helps you with Gravity if you do not understand the structure of physical space (vacuum) or unless you have an acceptable model at least
Every attempt to describe some "Big bang" or some "black holes" is silly without it...
Let us recall "Black-body radiation" and "Ultraviolet catastrophe". It is very useful in this context

See at attached picture again: http://wanna-be.in/pic/toroid.jpg
Is it possible to "black hole" being inside the massive toroid? As a photons' trap?
Is such model influenced by speed of rotation of the toroid?

[Mike Strand]

Cerveny: Interesting. I think you're suggesting that something that appears to be a black hole, which is assigned infinite gravity according to current models, can have finite gravity. Or have I misinterpreted you?

[Cerveny]

Cerveny: Interesting. I think you're suggesting that something that appears to be a black hole, which is assigned infinite gravity according to current models, can have finite gravity. Or have I misinterpreted you?

I only wanted to inspire for a new conceiving of gravity. The present one is counter-productive :(

[Mike Strand]

Thanks, Cerveny. I find the current conception of gravity mystifying and frustrating, and so I can appreciate your desire to motivate people to develop a new concept.

[Cerveny]

Thanks, Cerveny. I find the current conception of gravity mystifying and frustrating, and so I can appreciate your desire to motivate people to develop a new concept.

:)
There are several serious objections against the GTR unluckily:
- Concept of the "space-time" is nonsense: Minkowski metrics does not meet triangular inequality
- The time after the "now" does not exist yet - it is just only creating
- The antimatter certainly does not have the same gravitational behavior as a common matter has
- The physical space (vacuum) is not empty
- The physical space (vacuum) has a discrete structure
- The quantization of GTR is being failed for eighty years
- The "dark matter phenomena" signifies a wrong gravitational conceiving of the reality
Yet
- Singularities and infinities can be only the thought “things” only some ideas
- They cannot be the real subjects in any cases - from the essence, due to logical integrity of matter

[Cerveny]

Let us focus the Einstein’s Universe "expansion". What about the total number of so-called "planck-cells"?

(a) Either it stays constant and we are to admit that at least one of the basic physical constants is progressive changing during the time that has devastating impact at whole cosmology
(b) Or we are to consider:
(bb) Either some planck-cell-division mechanism (planck-cells multiplying)
(bc) Or some supplying of planck-cells from the outside, thus from the future

It is one example of many questions, which are ignored by the mainstream physics

[Arising_uk]

It is one example of many questions, which are ignored by the mainstream physics

Are you a physicist? If so write it in a way they can't ignore it, i.e. do the maths, propose testable experiments, show how it explains things better than the current theories, prove how it soles problems they cannot, etc. Otherwise they'll just hear philosophical metaphysics and ignore you.