Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is GR a wrong apparoach to gravitation?

  1. May 11, 2005 #1
    Some time ago I began my research in gravitation.

    Now I am actively working in GR and quantum gravity. I am sorry to say this but when I more study it, more I think that GR is not correct after all.

    For some criticism to GR, you can see the last part of my "paper" on string theory sited in www.canonicalscience.com.

    I would aknowledge debate. I will attempt for solve your doubts, questions, etc. in this hot topic :biggrin:.

    Please note that canonical gravitodynamics (it is finally correct one) fit also with experimental data, but corrects some flaws of Einstein GR. PLease, note that contrary to usual belief in GR, the speed of gravitational interactions is not bounde by c, like a series of recent experiments proved. That and the recent LIGO failure for see gravitational waves would open our minds to posible failure of GR.

    Note that i am not talking about posible Planck scale correction terms to classical action. I am talking of new approach in the macroscopic, classical regime.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 11, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I'm not familiar with your theory at all, and am not sure at this point how seriously to take it. What does it (your theory) predict for gravity probe B results?

    Also, has this theory been published in a peer-reviewed journal, or is it your personal theory that has only been published on the web?
    Last edited: May 11, 2005
  4. May 11, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I think that an "alternate theory of gravity" might receive more serious attention if the PPN parameters are worked out for it and compare well with experimental evidence.

    http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/node9.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  5. May 11, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What are those "some flaws of Einstein GR"...?At classical level,of course.

  6. May 11, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    He lists one of the flaws as: GR is different than Newton's equations.

    He also criticizes string theory for failing to deliver any practical benefits. But after patting himself on the back for the wonders of his new theory, he admits that he doesn't have anything specific yet either as the theory is still in its infancy.

    'Nuff said.
  7. May 12, 2005 #6
    if my work is interesting help me, if it is not ignore it!


    It is still in development. I have still some problem of interpretation of a factor that arise in the equation (possibly it will be related to the Q of cosmological models), but at least one can obtain new interesting ideas.

    When finished, it will be not published in a usual peer-reviewed journal. It will be published in a new form. See our proposals for changing usual system of scientific publication on (http://www.electrochemist2.narod.ru/index.html). You can see I prefer review proccess.

    Dear “DrChinese”

    Even in its infancy stage, it is sufficiently developed like for solving some of problems of quantum gravity like the problem of time of Hamiltonian gravity or for showing us that string or M theory does not work and they will do not work. Please read again my criticism to string theory. My emphasis is not in the obvious failure of string as a practical (working) theory, my emphasis is in the it is wrong even if some new "stringy revolution" solves the current problem with compactification and landscapes and all that uggly stuff. Perhaps you would prefer now my own speculation about a future full theory to quantum gravity and SM, why there are 3 families (it is not related to CY), etc. but I prefer to wait...

    If my theory is not interesting for you (or irritate to you). Simply ignore it. It is very easy!!


    There are many criticisms to usual GR. I am not sure of several of those criticisms. E.g. in some part I read that some people sure that GR does not explain Mercury perihelion, since that a special symmetry for the Sun is involved in the fit. However, I has quoted some flaws of Einstein GR that I think (of course I can be wrong) are true.

    I reintroduce them here (from the above pdf manuscript) for your valuation and criticism. Please read the manuscript for more information. E.g. the fact of that recent experimental work suggests that gravitation interaction is not bounded by c. This is easily explained in our approach (in fact it is predicted).

    - The first point is that Einstein field equations were not rigorously derived. Whereas the geometric part is “ constructed in fine marble” (here and
    below on own words by Albert Einstein), the material part (the energymomentum tensor) relies on many assumptions, like the strong equivalence principle, and is, therefore, “ low quality wood”. Of course, the true proof for the gravitational field equations does not rely on the original derivation by Einstein, but we would open the mind to a possible failure of the equations.

    - The second is that attempts to derivate Einstein field equations from canonical science rely on certain additional hypothesis (basically those used by Einstein) that break the beautiful mathematical structure of canonical science and contradict some of its basic principles: principles well proved in experiments and mathematically consistent. Of course, one could claim that Universe is mainly described by two theories: at one hand, Einstein gravitation and, at the other, canonical science. However, a dual structure is so strange as the current incompatibility between quantum mechanics and Einstein gravitation. The author’s idea is that canonical science would be also applicable to gravitational phenomena.

    - The third is that Einstein GR is not fully compatible with Newtonian theory. It is usually claimed that one recovers Newtonian theory in the linear regime, but one really obtains a non-flat geometry contradicting basic Newtonian
    principles. For example, time is not absolute in the linear Einstein regime since
    its variation is related to the time-time component of the perturbative
    component of the full metric. The situation is traditionally saved using a
    double approach. At one hand, it is officially assumed that Newtonian
    mechanics is the c infinite limit of special relativity but, at the other hand,
    Newtonian gravity is formally modeled from GR only when c is finite. This
    double criterion is inadmissible in science: either Newtonian theory is the c
    infinite limit of Einstein relativistic theory or is not.

    Note that the usual relativists’ argumentation on the small (unobservable)
    character of curved spacetime in linearized gravity does not invalidate this
    mathematical-epistemological argument here introduced. E.g. one cannot take
    the mathematical limit c -> infinite on a “kinetic term” and ignore it in a
    “potential term”. See the next point for further epistemological discussion.

    - The fourth point, and very important, is that spacetime curvature is never
    measured. The semi intuitive idea (the popular model of the elastic surface
    uses the concept of extrinsic curvature that is not Einstein curvature) of that
    gravitation is curvature is not convincing after all. For example, some authors
    attempt to convince us that curvature of spacetime explains by itself the
    deflection of light; since that spacetime around Sun is assumed to be curved,
    you would naturally think that ray lights move on a “geodesic manner”.
    It is just ignored that deflection is also predicted by Newtonian theory in flat
    space; deflection calculated by Soldner as early as 1803. The real problem with Newton approach is that predicts approximately the half of experimental value, but a new force that arises naturally from canonical science, exactly from the relativistic thermomaster equation (named super-thermomaster by Patricia Iglesias Pérez), permits us to compute the correct deflection (remember that this research is still on a first stage).

    What is more, a well-known epistemological principle says that if A is the
    cause of B, then the elimination of A eliminates also B (the effect). Imagine a
    hypothetical travel to other universe where the velocity of light is infinite: i.e. a Newtonian Universe. The standard linearized Einstein equations state that the curvature of the spacetime would be zero, whereas the Newtonian potential computed from relativistic gravitational potentials clearly is not. This
    mathematical limit indicates that curvature is not the cause of gravitation as
    officially assumed, since that elimination of curvature ( cause) does not
    eliminate gravitation ( effect). However, canonical terms –relying on the nature of time– disappear when one takes the limit of infinite light velocity and then one recovers the satisfactory Newtonian model exactly. Therefore, canonical science is backward full compatible with the nonrelativistic Newtonian theory.

    - The fifth point is that this canonical force can be unified with electrodynamic phenomena and permit us rethink (the always inconsistent!) Maxwell field electrodynamics. We obtain the so desired Einstein dream of unified electrogravitational field just when abandon the field theoretic approach and its divergent self-energies, unobservable fields, and inconsistent retarded fourpotentials!

    - A sixth point relies in an epistemological analysis of Einstein gravitation. From basic epistemology, one knows that a theory explains other when there are less principles and unexplained assumptions than in the original theory.
    General relativity is not clearly better than Newtonian gravitation from a
    conceptual point of view because the number of whys to be answered is the
    same in both cases.

    Newton equation permits us to calculate the gravitatory force but says us
    nothing about the underlying mechanism for the attraction between material
    bodies. Almost all popular books and specialized manuals leading with
    relativistic gravitation state that Einstein theory explains the mechanism: the
    curvature of the own spacetime. This argument is not solid.

    Of course, the mystery of a force-at-a-distance is eliminated but at price of
    substituting it by a new mystery: what is the mechanism of the curvature of
    spacetime? Centuries ago, Newtonian theorists asked, how does Moon know
    what is the force generated by Earth on it? In Einstein terms, the question may be reformulated as follow, how does spacetime around Moon know what is the curvature generated by Earth on it?

    Newton equation permits us only compute the force. In the same way, Einstein field equations permit just compute the curvature without an underlying mechanism for this curvature effect, and therefore, you are just substituting a mystery by other: force by curvature.

    Moreover, it appears that one can quantize gravitation directly.
  8. May 12, 2005 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If Newton's theory was superior to Einstein's, why was Einstein's developed in the first place...?
  9. May 12, 2005 #8
    I am not saying that

    I am sorry, perhaps i explained bad, but i am not saying that Newton theory is best that Einstein one, but my recent post-Newtonian approach appears to be very effective. I am sure many relativistic expertise agree with me that initial acceptation of Einstein GR was favoured by the technology of the epoque o:) .

    Today, it would be more difficult to accept Einstein GR since that experiments that validated GR now are below intense research. If i am not wrong my theory predicts all of classical effects usually atributed to curved spacetime and offers good answers to questions that GR do not. Examples:

    - Recent high precision tests of redshifts (limbo) contradices classical GR prediction.

    - Some extragalactic data does not fit adequately to GR. It is curious that MOND-type theories and similar ones arise naturally in my approach.

    - There are convincing proofs of that gravitation is not delayed by c. Especialists can offer us lot of papers and experimental data: absence of aberration, instability in binary stelar systems, etc.

    - Very recent work shows that usual field theoretic approach in electrodynamics is not correct. Maxwell field theory do not work. This is also predicted by my new theory, etc. It appears natural that GR (inspired in Maxwell) may be "wrong" or "almost wrong".

    - Posibly my approach can solve some of most difficult open question iun cosmology. E.g. there is not necesity for "dark matter" in my approach.

    - The square of Planck scale arises directly without additional asumptions. Note that the Planck scale is introduced by hand in suposed elegant TOEs like string theory.

    - My theory shows why one cannot wait for a quantum field approach in the ipirit of QED.

    - Etc.

    Moreover, even ignoring all of this (perhaps all of this is only "concidence" caused by a cosmic fluctuation :yuck: ), what is the flaw in my reasoning?

    1) does curvature explain gravity?

    2) is newtonian gravitation contained in GR?

    3) is there real gravitational waves?

  10. May 12, 2005 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That doesn't explain why it is a bad thing that GR is not completely consistent with Newton's Gravity.
    In that case, your approach would not be consistent with Newtonian gravity either.
  11. May 12, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Maybe you already addressed these points Juan R., but I didn't see them (apologies if I read too quickly):
    And if I may add a couple of (observationally-based) questions of my own ...
    - "Recent high precision tests of redshifts (limbo) contradices classical GR prediction" - would you be so kind as to provide a reference to these tests?
    - "There are convincing proofs of that gravitation is not delayed by c. Especialists can offer us lot of papers and experimental data: absence of aberration, instability in binary stelar systems, etc." - ditto; where is this experimental data published?
  12. May 12, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is strong observational evidence showing decay of orbits in binary neutrons star systems [e.g., PSR 1913+16, PSR B1534+12 and PSR J0737-3039]. The explanation for this behavior is provided by GR: loss of energy due to escaping gravitational radiation. In field theory, radiation is a consequence of the finite velocity of field propagation, so orbital changes via gravitational radiation are a damping effect due to its finite propagation speed. The calculation for the rate of damping is heavily dependent on the speed of gravity. In the case of PSR 1913+16, measurements indicate the speed of gravity is within 1% of the speed of light. Any candidate theory to replace GR must not only make new or different predictions than GR, it must also be consistent with the large number of observations that support GR. Some references to consider:

    Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16: Thirty Years of Observations and Analysis

    Studies of the Relativistic Binary Pulsar PSR B1534+12: I. Timing Analysis

    Binary-pulsar tests of strong-field gravity and gravitational radiation damping

    The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment

    Was Einstein Right? Testing Relativity at the Centenary
  13. May 13, 2005 #12
    Is GR wrong but computationally useful?

    Sincerely, I thought that in this forum I would receive a hard criticism. This is not a problem for me, since that each new idea may be tested. Perhaps I am correct, perhaps I am completely wrong, but without debate I cannot be sure. My research appears consistent. Debate is not a problem. When Einstein published his relativistic ideas many “respected physicists” did joke of him. Somewhat like highly “respected physicists and mathematicians” claimed that Newton was completely wrong. Somewhat like recently “expertises” did joke in recent approach to adsorption kinetics. Moreover, I simply ignore jokes because jokes are a symptom of no serious arguments against my own ideas :approve: .

    I thought sincerely I could open a serious debate in this forum, but several you misguided the point and posted many irrelevant comments (even infantile ones). I am perplexed. I am open to debate, to explain my ideas and to correct my possible errors. Fortunately, other members appear to be interested in a review of basic postulates of GR. Thanks!!

    Collective answer (including serious and joke posts)

    There is a basic principle of epistemology that says that a new theory may always explain previous theories. GR is not 100% compatible with Newtonian theory. Therefore, GR cannot be completely true and that is a bad thing.

    You are wrong, my approach is totally consistent with Newtonian gravity since one can derive exactly Newtonian gravity in the appropiate limit of c --> infinite. GR cannot. In fact, in the limit of instantaneous interaction, GR predicts flat spacetime and therefore (according to usual belief) no gravitation, since gravity is assumed to be curvature... Still one may obtain the correct limit of nonzero gravitational field on that limit. Conclusion: GR is wrong in its rejecting of gravitation like force.

    I am not a specialist on gravitation ( I began my research on this topic some month ago), but I can offer you some data. I plan to write a first manuscript in the last part of this year.

    GR predicts a constant redshift of 2.12 10^-8. However there are experiments demostrating variation in function of center to limb distance to the Sun.

    At the projected distance of 3 solar radii, the redshift is approximately the double of predicted by GR (Merat, P., et al 1974a. Astron. Astrophys., 30, 167.). See also Sadeh, D., et al 1968. Science, 159, 307 or Marmet, P. 1989, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 17, 238 for further discussion.

    From J.H. Taylor et al Nature 355 (1992) 132. One can observe disagreement between predicted and observed period changes for PSR1913+16 and 1534+12. PSR1534+12 indicates a lower limit to the speed of gravity of order of 10^3c.

    I am sorry, on gravity probe B results and PPN parameters I cannot say nothing serious still. As said I am still on a preliminary step of the research. However, redshifts, perihelion, time-delay, and deflection appear to be explained in this work.

    I can explain some things: exactly those I have worked out these days.

    Let me remark that my theory appears compatible with MOND (that is with departures from GR in galactic scales) and with the characteristic (1/r) behavior.

    Of corse it is necessary more work still. I have not a final theory but it is very interesting that if even it is only approximated (e.g. valid just to c^-2 order, etc.) it has been already cuantized and open a new interesting alternative to usual QG approaches, specially ST that is a waste of time.

    The quote on PPN is interesting but I believe that PPN research is more focused to generalization of GR, obtaining GR by taking the appropriate limits for the parameters (I suspect you may know this topic very well). I am asking if usual GR is wrong in the basis. I cannot sure it, but by this reason I opened this post days ago with a question: is GR wrong?

    Note that I am not saying that GR can be useful or not like a computational device. Somewhat like Dirac hole theory is still used in atomic physics and quantum chemistry like a “computational model” when all of us know (I wait!!!!) that the hole theory is completely wrong.

    Of course, any theory to supplant GR may explain experiments. I am focusing this basic epistemological principle since the beginning. My work is not "ELEGANT" (i.e. based in supposed elegance and beatiful "math" but with none or wrong links with reality) like ST is. If my theory cannot explain all of experimental data (just the classical tests), i wait can be useful like a first step in other better theory by my own or others.

    Let me say that I am not saying that we cannot see retardation effects. In fact, like say in some part I obtain a simulation of fields and the retardation of the effects of those fields on the masses is of course bounded by c, but there are also direct instantaneous interaction and this violates basic Einstein thinking.

    My theory “predicts” (really postdict because is newer) also as recent result regarding electromagnetism (PRE 1996, 53, 5, 53-57). It is usually asumed that the field theoretic approach based in retarded action is full compatible with experimental data. Canonical approach suggests that the field approach is not fundamental in electromagnetism and gravitation and therefore GR has already failed in its basic principles of overemphasize the field theoretic approach like Maxwell did on EM.
  14. May 13, 2005 #13
    It reads ambigous. I mean the (1/r) galactic force not explained (into the limits of my knowledge) by GR.
  15. May 13, 2005 #14


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You misunderstand that basic principle of epistemiology: new theories must always explain phenomena better than previous theories (otherwise, why bother?). GR was first conceived because Newtonian gravity is wrong. Newtonian gravity works in some cases, but fails to work in others. GR (so far) works in every case where gravitational interactions are important. Therefore if GR were completely consistent with Newtonian gravity, it would not represent a step forward in our understanding, it would represent a step backwards.
  16. May 13, 2005 #15

    You have misguided the point. :surprised

    If you say that Newtonian gravity is "wrong" is that you are newer studied epistemology. Theories (i am talking about verified theories nor about hypotesis) are not correct or wrong, are applicable or inapplicable. Newtonian mechanics is not applicable to high velocities, but it is physically applicable at low velocities (and mases of course) and exact in the limit c--> 0.

    Each new theory may coincide exactly with previous theories in the limit where the previous theory work perfectly. This is the reason of that taking the limit c --> infinite in the relativistic mass one obtains the Newtonian mass exactly.

    The same may be true for gravitation or for any other theory of nature. For this reason in the limit of alpha --> 0 one obtains the action for GR from the superstring action, if one obtained another thing, ST newer had been even studied like a candidate to quantize gravitation. Precisely the problem of ST is compatification or the failure to obtain a macroscopic 4D from the 10D. Or said in another form one cannot obtain exactly 4D-GR in that limit.

    It is more, there is another principle of epistemology of physics that says that in the mathematical limit where one obtains the special theory from the general theory, at least one constant of universe may disappear. I leave to you to discover what constant may disappear in the limit to newtonian physics.

    All of that does not imply steps backwards, simply imply that the new theory may contain to previous theory like a special case valid in a determined limit. Somewhat like a circle is a special limit of an ellipse. Take a book in geometry!!

    Moreover, my theory fits perfectly with Newtonian gravity in the limit of c--> infinite and explain (at least many) relativistic effects in the full regime. Sorry!! :devil:

    Precisely the main criticism of Einstein to QM was that it is not full backward complatible with classical mechanics because in the limit of h --> 0 one does not obtain exactly classical mechanics.

    Guy, have you heard about proposed modifications of QM for explaining correctly the classical word? Do you know the work of Penrose, Gell-Mann, Ownes, etc.? Has you heard about cats or about diagonal matrices?

    Moreover, your emphasis on that GR works perfectly contrast a bit (only a bit of course :biggrin:) with the current status of many specialists that attemtp to explain experimental data and GR does not work adequately.
    Last edited: May 13, 2005
  17. May 13, 2005 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That is not what you said before - you did not include the caveat about coinciding only where the previous theory works. Thanks for clarifying.

    However, that doesn't jive with your previous statement about GR not being fully compatible with Newtonian gravity. Where Newtonian gravity is correct, they do coincide - you can even derive Newton's laws from GR with the appropriate simplifying assumptions. But in the many cases where Newton's laws don't work, GR does work - so they quite naturally don't coincide. So quite, the flaw is in Newton's gravity, not in GR.
    Last edited: May 13, 2005
  18. May 13, 2005 #17
    GR does not contain to NG

    After your first post i said clearly (Wednesday) that was a post-newtonian approach. It is obious that I was refering to the derivation of NG in the limit of c--> infinite.

    Even ignoring now that GR does not explain all gravitational data exactly or that Einstein based his reasoning in Maxwell ideas -recently shows to be wrong in both physical and mathematical grouds (this indicated at least to me that GR cannot be correct)- GR explains very well many data: e.g. classical tests in solar sytem. My theory appears to obtain the same values that GR, but using flat spacetime, etc.

    Moreover I obtain exactly Newtonian gravity in the limit c--> infinite. From GR one cannot. One obtain in the linearized regime the correct poisson equation, etc. but one obtains:

    - c finite.
    - Curved spacetime.
    - A direct potential suposedly mediated by a retarded field!!!!

    Both of three points are incompatible with Newton gravity (NG). Taking exactly the correct limit of c--> on GR one obtains:

    - c infinite. (compatible with NG and classical nonrelativistic mechanic)
    - Flat spacetime. (compatible with NG and classical nonrelativistic mechanic)
    - The paradox of that one may obtain still -GMm/r with flat spacetime. Therefore curvature in not the source of gravitation.
  19. May 13, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks. I'll certainly check these out. In the meantime, I note that they are all rather old, and if - as you claim - the report inconsistencies with GR, I'd be astonished if they weren't followed up, and the observations repeated. Today, of course, much greater sensitivity is obtainable, so if you have more recent confirmatory observations, that'd be much appreciated.
    This too is 'old' (in the world of binary pulsar research), but nonetheless well worth looking into; thanks!

    BTW, do you know if more recent observations of binary pulsars reveal similar inconsistencies? I note that the papers Chronos cites are all much more recent than the one you cite.
  20. May 14, 2005 #19
    I read your newsletter. It jumps around the topics a bit. However, I like that you show the problems with mathematical concepts, especially of the infinitesimal, dx. You bring some very good points. We must start to expand our understanding of the infinitesimal and the infinite series of the calculus to generally to exactly match our requirements in physical theory. I would say that Dirac already introduces the problem with his delta function and in general his bra-ket notation starts to distinguish the difference between c-numbers and q-numbers which is what I guess that Connes is trying to expand upon from your comments. Can you give me a reference for Connes work that you are reading.

    I am currently working on the same mathematical problem. C. Flyte says that we simply can not view the transforms of the calculus as transforms from one c-number to another. We must expand our definition of the calculus transforms (integral and derivative) to be rotations to new types of numbers which are an expansion of the complex system and the entire theory of differential methods. These new numbers are just expansion of Dirac's definition of q-numbers and explains why the delta function can induct improper functions as 'proper'.
  21. May 14, 2005 #20
    This is just to tie the above post to the rest of the discussion: It is not Einstein's mathematics that is incorrect, because at the logic level of classical mathematics he is correct (the Lorentz transform). It is in the expansion of this idea that requires adjustment. Einstein makes his conclusion with SR that a fixed mass will rise to infinite energy as it approaches the speed of light. However, this lacks the detail analysis we require.....For this is true of every mass and we can not start to use his idea in the specific. Instead we are interested in a corrollary to his conclusion:
    What average velocity do 'real' objects of the same mass possess? And we start by saying that all photons have the average velocity of c and assign the entire mass of the universe as zero. This only means that we assume the universe is the maximum mass and has a constant center (center of mass) that does not move.

    In this way we have to eliminate the 'unreal' situation of infinite mass; and for that matter we are forced to also assign a mass to the photon, such that the zero of mass will only arise when there is no energy within a space at all.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook