Dear George:

Thanks a lot for reading my paper and providing thoughtful comments as well as questions. Responses are provided below. I would greatly appreciate your feedback if I have adequately addressed all your questions/comments:

1. I completely agree with your statement – “……. I happen to believe the General Relativity Theory is a better theory of gravity than Newtonian...

view entire post

Dear George:

Thanks a lot for reading my paper and providing thoughtful comments as well as questions. Responses are provided below. I would greatly appreciate your feedback if I have adequately addressed all your questions/comments:

1. I completely agree with your statement – “……. I happen to believe the General Relativity Theory is a better theory of gravity than Newtonian theory, and this is supported by solar system tests such as observations of the perihelion of Mercury and gravitational lensing observations, as well as by the necessity of the use of GR corrections in GPS devices. Effects in your theory such as the lack of black holes follow from the use of an incorrect theory of gravity (i.e. one not supported by experiment). “

However, in spite of the well-known successes of the General Relativity (GR) Theory in all those near-field (solar system) areas you noted above, it has been unable to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe without using a Fudge Factor – Cosmological Constant that still remains unexplained (dark energy) on a mechanistic basis. Similarly, on galactic scale, the observed flat rotational velocities and its unknown source –dark matter remain unexplained by GR. Both these unexplained Dark Energy and Dark Matter presumably constitute 96% of the universe that still remains mysterious and paradoxical. The Gravity Nullification Model based Universe Expansion (GNMUE) theory proposed in my paper provides a solution to these paradoxes via including the missing physics of the spontaneous particle decay. The predictions of the proposed GNMUE theory successfully predict the observed data on galactic rotational velocities (figure 9) as well as the accelerated universe expansion exhibited by supernova data (figure 5), which GR fails to predict without a non-zero Λ. These successful predictions vindicate the GNMUE theory on a universal scale, in spite of the demonstrated correctness of GR at solar scale.

Secondly, the so-called Big bang Singularity is caused by confining the entire mass of the universe in a point like (zero) volume leading to an infinite density. GNMUE demonstrates that the root cause of this singularity is the missing physics of spontaneous mass decay or evaporation that dilates mass as the size decreases and radiates the resulting energy as described in the Hawking’s Radiation mechanism. While I agree that the Newtonian gravity model used as part of the GNMUE is not as sophisticated and detailed (event horizon) as GR, it is sufficient to demonstrate the impact of the physics of the particle decay in eliminating the singularity paralyzing cosmology today.

Thirdly, in “The New Physics, edited by Paul Davies, Cambridge University Press, 1989”, which uses a similar Newtonian mechanics based universe expansion model, it is stated (p. 54) that – “…we will derive the value (critical density) in the context of Newtonian Mechanics, but the answer we will find will agree exactly with the answer implied by Einstein’s general relativity.”

2. Clarification of the Cosmological Constant:

Below is a response to your comments.

The cosmological constant Λ was proposed by Albert Einstein as an extraneous addition to and modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary. Equation (7) in my paper does not represent an extraneous addition to the original GNMUE equation (6) but only a translation or restatement of the particle decay kinetic energy in the form of a pre-defined constant Λ=3H2/C2 (equation 7) to demonstrate the governing mechanistic physics behind Λ. The kinetic energy term is simply replaced by the term (ΛmC2R2/6) to demonstrate their physical equivalence. While Einstein added an extraneous fudge factor term to his GR equation, GNMUE only replaces the equivalent terms keeping the original governing energy equation (6) intact, howsoever in terms of Λ. Hence, equation (10) is simply translation or restatement of the kinetic energy of the particle decay from equation (6) into the coordinate of the constant defined as Λ=3H2/C2. Hence, KE from equation (6) translates (without any extraneous addition of extra fudge term) into equation (7), which then translates into equation (10) following the definition of the constant Λ=3H2/C2.

In summary, equation (10) is a derivative of equation (6) without any extraneous addition or fudge term. The need for Λ is shown to be entirely eliminated via substituting equation (10) into (6), wherein the universe mass m can be described in terms of radius r and H as in the attached pdf version of equation (6-A) without the need for any extraneous cosmological constant Λ.

3. Response to your comment – “Finally I am unable to see how your model as states in (1)-(6) causes a reformulation of quantum theory, as claimed in section 6.”

There is not enough room in the paper but detailed mathematical descriptions of the extended wave-particle model, wave-function collapse, Heisenberg uncertainty, and inner workings of quantum mechanics resolving its paradoxes such as the measurement problem, multiverses, antimatter, quantum gravity etc. are described in Chapter 4 thru 7 (see attached Pdf for Contents of the book). GNM bridges the gap between GR and quantum mechanics explaining the inner working of quantum mechanics in relativistic physics.

Thanking you again for your time to review paper and provide comments. Please let me know if I answered all your questions satisfactorily.

Regards

Avtar Singh

view post as summary

Dear Michael:

Thanks for your time in reviewing my paper and providing thoughtful comments.

While undoubtedly GR has been proven to be a successful theory for explaining (as George Ellis pointed out) Solar System level observations, the fact remains that it lacks some major physics that paralyzes it with the black hole singularity and two major unexplained paradoxes - dark energy...

view entire post

Dear Michael:

Thanks for your time in reviewing my paper and providing thoughtful comments.

While undoubtedly GR has been proven to be a successful theory for explaining (as George Ellis pointed out) Solar System level observations, the fact remains that it lacks some major physics that paralyzes it with the black hole singularity and two major unexplained paradoxes - dark energy and dark matter. In spite of its flagrant successes against selected set of data, it fails to explain 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe. Hence, I would buy into yours and George’s arguments in favor of GR if this major deficiency of GR is removed which prohibits it from being only a 4% universal theory. My paper demonstrates that while the Newtonian theory alone may not explain the cosmic observations, when combined with the missing physics of spontaneous mass-energy conversion, it does a great job in predicting the observed galactic and universe accelerated expansions without any black hole singularities. Such a wide ranging proof and evidence for the proposed GNMUE model in my paper are hard to ignore merely to hold the GR as a superior theory on its past 4% track record. Obviously, as you have suggested a lot more work has to be done to fix GR to remove its deficiencies to claim it as a superior theory from cosmological point of view.

Secondly, the – “…the right sort of radial dependence for the cosmological term L(R)” comes from the mechanistic physics of the spontaneous decay as described in my paper. I would welcome GR experts to integrate this physics into GR and demonstrate that it can explain the 96% of the missing universe (dark energy and dark matter) without a singularity at R=0. Only then, one could claim the validity of GR from the universal or cosmological point of view. Until then, there is no evidence – “ …. to view GR as a *physical* theory” And also, until then GNMUE is a demonstrated model correctly predicting the observed universal behavior in spite of the fact that it is based on Newtonian gravitational potential.

I am attaching the following two files to provide additional information from references [15] and [18] of my paper to show how GNM resolves the quantum paradoxes and explains its inner working:

[15] A. Singh, The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality, AuthorHouse, 2003. (Chapter 4,6,7 and 8)

[18] A. Singh, Quantum Non-Locality Explained by Theory of Relativity, Physics Essays Vol. 19 No. 1, 2007.



I would greatly appreciate your comments on these references.

Best of Luck & Regards

Avtar Singh

view post as summary

Dear Avtar,

Technically dark matter is a particle physics problem, not a GR problem. I note that you have posted on Johann Weiser's essay and so would have seen that Johann claims to have found a non-singular black hole solution by including the distribution of matter that gives rise to the metric. If true that would imply a black hole singularity is not necessarily a real thing. Similarly...

view entire post

Dear Avtar,

Technically dark matter is a particle physics problem, not a GR problem. I note that you have posted on Johann Weiser's essay and so would have seen that Johann claims to have found a non-singular black hole solution by including the distribution of matter that gives rise to the metric. If true that would imply a black hole singularity is not necessarily a real thing. Similarly if there are extra dimensions and GR is extended to describe them, then black holes are also non-singular. That just leaves the remaining problem with GR that you identify - dark energy, and I agree that is a problem.

Dark energy is directly related to what the cosmological 'constant' in GR means, and here the standard presentation is simply wrong - the cosmological term *must* depend upon the radial scale factor of the universe in order for GR to be a *physical* theory (see attachment for a simple toy model that illustrates this). So I agree with your dispute of GR up to the point that the standard presentation of GR with an artificially 'constant' cosmological term does *not* constitute a *physical* theory. This provides the background for my earlier comment that I wonder to what extent your usage of a variable cosmological term is responsible for your results.

From the attachment you will see that a *physical* GR is likely to also possess a gravitational constant and speed of light that depend upon the radial scale factor as well. This scale factor dependence of c is perhaps also captured by your model. There is a further feature of a *physical* GR model that is not emphasised in the standard presentation of GR - the *definition* of energy is *not* constant in a time dependent metric. So in an expanding universe the *definition* of energy within the time dependent metric will be varying. For a model with a constant definition of energy, this changing energy definition effect could possibly be captured by adding an effect that changes the energy terms in the model, which your model does. So I wonder to what extent the results generated by the features of your model are due to approximately including the sort of effects that should be present in *physical* GR.

I have looked at the attachments you gave with regards to QT. The dominant issue is that QT has a weird illusion of non-locality that isn't real - I call it a non-locality of identity that isn't accompanied by non-locality of causation. Standard QT presentation is not always clear on this issue and can give a misleading impression of it. The difficulty of alternative approaches to QT, is capturing this illusion of non-locality without actually capturing real non-locality, and like other such models in this essay contest, yours doesn't quite pull it off. It is extremely difficult and rather subtle, but without a theory will conflict with known experimental results.

Despite your anti-GR stance, I think your model may provide a background basis for constructing an argument in favour of adding the features which would turn GR as it has been presented into *physical* GR.

Michael

view post as summary

Dear Sergey:

Thanks for reading my essay and asking thoughtful questions. Below are the answers:

1. Why according to your Gravity Nullification model (GNM) in essay you find (7) and (8) where cosmological constant attached to kinetic energy of universe substance?

First of all, the cosmological constant is a fixed universal constant and not a variable. So, it cannot be...

view entire post

Dear Sergey:

Thanks for reading my essay and asking thoughtful questions. Below are the answers:

1. Why according to your Gravity Nullification model (GNM) in essay you find (7) and (8) where cosmological constant attached to kinetic energy of universe substance?

First of all, the cosmological constant is a fixed universal constant and not a variable. So, it cannot be proportional to a variable density of a substance. Secondly, when one compares the Einstein’s cosmological term (left hand side of equation (7)) with the GNMUE (6), the KE term is the equivalent term that also dominates the far-field energy term of the universe expansion. The gravitational energy term dominates only the near-field hence is not associated with the accelerating universe expansion demonstrated by Supernova observations. Hence, eqn (7) or (8) correctly represents the physics of the cosmological constant which was introduced by Einstein only as a fudge factor without any physics describing it in mathematical terms.

2. “Also there is a paper Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. in which supernova data explained in another way.”

GNMUE not only explains the redshift and dark energy, but also provides a complete solution to many of the singularities, paradoxes and inconsistencies of physics – GR and QM. It also explains the inner workings of QM resolving its paradoxes, predicts star velocities and galactic expansion, and provides a timeless solution to the universe expansion. Other possible explanations or theories predict only limited or isolated observations or behavior of the universe expansion and do not provide universal and complete solutions to all what is ailing physics today. For example, some theories only explain the supernova data but no solution to black hole singularities or QM paradoxes such as quantum gravity or quantum time. Most of the papers lack such holistic or universal approach to resolve the overall cosmic conundrum.

3. What do know about mechanism of transformation of mass in energy in your theory?

The easiest and direct way to think about the mass-energy conversion is that it represents the most fundamental process of creation of mass from the Zero-point energy of the so-called vacuum state. Any theory of the universe that does not include this fundamental mechanism of the creation of matter would fail to predict the observed universe since this mechanism is the bridge between the vacuum state and the matter state. Without such a matter-energy conversion model (GNM), the universal behavior cannot be predicted in totality and only partial predictions may be possible without a complete solution. Particles as such are not fundamental, but the process of creation of particles or mass is fundamental to any universe model.

I hope the above provides satisfactory answers to your questions and comments.

Best Regards and wishes

Avtar

view post as summary