1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Theory of graviation for lazy people

  1. Oct 28, 2012 #1
    Today I stumbled on a paper in Foundations of Physics that seems to successfully extend SR to include effects from gravitation:

    On Relativistic Generalization of Gravitational Force
    Anatoli Andrei Vankov

    Basically what he does is to improve on Nordstroem; the theory has higher mass at higher potential. That allows him to obtain the correct perihelion of Mercury, so that its predictions are approximately the same as GR for little gravitation. The theory is still not really finished but it looks promising to me, if only because of its simplicity (elementary mathematics, good for lazy people like me!). It also seems to naturally fit well with quantum mechanics.

    What I suspect may need correction is the way he deals with the speed of light; I consider his choice to set c0 instead of c as limit speed (if I understood him correctly) to be a mistake.

    Any other comments? (Are there other obvious weaknesses?)
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2012
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 29, 2012 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is no discussion of gravitational waves or the orbital decay of binary pulsars. It is possible that quantitative predictions are already precluded by experiment.
  4. Oct 29, 2012 #3
    Thanks! Could you elaborate why you think that binary pulsars are a more severe test than Mercury?
  5. Oct 29, 2012 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Binary Pulsar orbits slow by exactly the amount predicted by decay through gravitational radiation. It is a precise, strong field, test. Essentially every other candidate theory that matches on the weak field tests fails to make any or an accurate prediction for this decay. While GW have not been detected directly, the success of this prediction is extremely strong indirect evidence.
  6. Oct 29, 2012 #5
    OK, that will be interesting to compare!
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook