- #1

- 660

- 0

Thanks in advance

AB

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Altabeh
- Start date

- #1

- 660

- 0

Thanks in advance

AB

- #2

- 5,428

- 292

Hi Altabeh,

the most recent one I've got is attached. There are references within. Work in this area is discouraging because one always ends up with the same field equations as GR. Some people think there is no difference in the predictions made by field theory gravity and GR, but some disagree.

For the casual reader here is a quote from the introduction

the most recent one I've got is attached. There are references within. Work in this area is discouraging because one always ends up with the same field equations as GR. Some people think there is no difference in the predictions made by field theory gravity and GR, but some disagree.

For the casual reader here is a quote from the introduction

There is a common statement both in scientific publications and popular literature dealing with General Relativity (GR) that geometrical description of gravity is the only logically consistent generalization of the Newtonian classical theory of gravitation. However, a reader, non-aligned to general relativity may put a natural question why it is impossible to consider gravitation in the same way as other physical interactions, i.e. as a quantum field in flat space-time background.

Indeed, such a field approach to gravity has been discussed in the literature and known since the works of Poincar´e in 1905-1906 on the special theory of relativity. The Field Theory of Gravitation (FTG) was considered in classical works of Birkhoff, Moshinsky, Thirring, Kalman, Feynman, Weinberg, and Deser. The history of FTG is full of misleading claims and it demonstrates the hard way of creation and development of scientific ideas.

- #3

- 660

- 0

Hi Altabeh,

the most recent one I've got is attached. There are references within. Work in this area is discouraging because one always ends up with the same field equations as GR. Some people think there is no difference in the predictions made by field theory gravity and GR, but some disagree.

For the casual reader here is a quote from the introduction

This was very helpful, though I'm not so fond of such theories because it can never be something possible physically, but since they lead to the results of GR one can think they provide a good and simpler framework for the mathematics of GR!

AB

Share: