Is the Nexus Graviton a Thing?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gort
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graviton
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
4 replies · 2K views
Gort
Messages
46
Reaction score
8
Let me preface my question with the observation that I'm not an expert in either GR or QFT. But I do know enough to realize how much I don't know. I'm merely an aging Ph.D. physicist. That said, I viewed a ResearchGate preprint and was invited to comment on it. While I don't believe I'm qualified to comment on it in detail, it struck me as gibberish (but that could be my ignorance about the subject). The preprint in question is: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321489442_Probing_Quantum_Gravity_Through_Strong_Gravitational_Lensing. I found more about the Nexus Graviton (or Nexus Theory), but all by the same author. And no critical comments! Some even appeared to be peer-reviewed. So am I missing something, and the Nexus Graviton is really a Thing (the apparent answer to dark matter and dark energy)? Or are my instincts correct, and this is merely gibberish surrounded by a few equations?
See additional sources: https://phys.org/news/2015-03-black-holes-dark-sector-quantum.html
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1142/S0219887815500425
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=36510
http://independent.academia.edu/StuartMarongwe
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gort said:
no critical comments!

This doesn't really tell you anything. The most common response of experts in a scientific field who believe that someone's pet theory is nonsense is to ignore it, not to make critical comments about it.

Gort said:
am I missing something, and the Nexus Graviton is really a Thing (the apparent answer to dark matter and dark energy)? Or are my instincts correct, and this is merely gibberish surrounded by a few equations?

The abstracts in the links you give strike me as closer to the latter than the former. However, I have not looked into it in any detail.
 
It's just amazing to me that pseudo-science is appearing (at least to me) to be so semi-legit. Can anyone present at the "28th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics", for instance?

But I just found out that the "International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics" is a scam publication - https://aardvarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/scam-publisher-fools-swedish-c/

Anyway, thanks for your input. I'll certainly be more wary in my choice of reading materials!