A Is the Nexus Graviton a Thing?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gort
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graviton
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.
 
Gort said:
and this is merely gibberish surrounded by a few equations?

Yes.
 
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!
 
Gort said:
Can anyone present at the "28th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics", for instance?

It was a poster, so maybe.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top