If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 5/13/20 at 16:12pm UTC, wrote f we analyse with our actual model in cosmology, so we have a time before...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 5/13/20 at 16:06pm UTC, wrote If we analyse with our actual model in cosmology, so we have a time before...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 5/13/20 at 15:43pm UTC, wrote Dr Beckwith, this analysis , cosmological is interesting, but even if we...

**Andrew Beckwith**: *on* 5/13/20 at 15:19pm UTC, wrote oops, I am adding one more set of lines to the complete answer: Author...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 5/13/20 at 14:59pm UTC, wrote In fact these photons , finite series coded also of 3D spheres sent are...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 5/13/20 at 14:57pm UTC, wrote It is logic that the mass is zero at this origin because the 3 main systems...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 5/13/20 at 14:54pm UTC, wrote see that the mass and the weight so appear due to these two fuels merging...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 5/13/20 at 14:51pm UTC, wrote I must probably improve this intuitive equation , maybe in puting ( ) for...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**jim hughes**: "I'm not a mathematician. So what I see here is some smart people who..."
*in* Consciousness and the...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hello FQXi, the members and all, I try to do my best to unite and convice..."
*in* Global Collaboration

**Lorraine Ford**: "The idea of a smooth mathematical evolution of “the wave function”, and..."
*in* Consciousness and the...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Broken machine: What do[es] I see next? The I that was, E.I, has not been..."
*in* The Room in the Elephant:...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Hi Stefan, I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is..."
*in* The Present State of...

**Lorraine Ford**: "We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy,..."
*in* The Present State of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "I've copied the comment to the thread where it belongs. This orphan can be..."
*in* The Room in the Elephant:...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Thank you John. What did you think about the questioning whether altitude..."
*in* The Nature of Time

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Good Vibrations**

Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

**Reconstructing Physics**

New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

**The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves**

Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

**The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI**

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

**Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel**

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

FQXi FORUM

September 28, 2021

CATEGORY:
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020)
[back]

TOPIC: How to obtain a mass of a graviton. Does our formulation lead to Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability issues ? What are the implications of such Issues ? by andrew beckwith [refresh]

TOPIC: How to obtain a mass of a graviton. Does our formulation lead to Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability issues ? What are the implications of such Issues ? by andrew beckwith [refresh]

Using the Klauder enhanced quantization as a way to specify the cosmological constant as a baseline for the mass of a graviton, we eventually come up and then we will go to the relationship of a Planck Length to a De Broglie length in order to link how we construct a massive graviton mass, with cosmological constant and to interface that with entropy in the early universe. We then close with a reference to the possible quantum origins of e folding and inflation. We argue though that in making these determinations that there is a real undecidability, uncomputability and unpredictable issue as to if Quantum physics will emerge as the genesis of inflation, due to the variance as of input parameters. We submit that while the linkage to quantum gravity and entropy is very suggestive, but that making the case for an exact linkage may force us to rely upon experimental inputs along as to the mass of a graviton which may be frankly not computable from theory as we know it, but would be direct experimental inputs, hence satisfying the question raised by the context. i.e. in a purely theoretical sense, the linkage we seek between massive gravity and e folds may due to experimental inputs be classic “undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability would be defacto and not purely a theoretical modeling endeavor. A summary of what I think this entails is in section 5, at the end of this essay.

I am 65 years old, with a PhD in physics from the U of Houston, in 2001 (December) who until the Cornavirus interfered was a frequent traveler to DICE, Rencontres De Moriond, and also 3 of the Marcel Grossman conferences (last one in 2018). I have a visiting professor linkage to Chongqing University Department of physics with an abiding interest in cosmology, gravitational physics and the limitations and also possible benefits of a working TOE of cosmology. The topic in this FQXI piqued my interest due to its foundational question of just what are the limits of logic.

Hi Andy,

Nice Essay,congrats.

You know that I strongly appreciate your previous works on massive gravitons, early universe and quantum gravity. This Essay seems to be an interesting summarizing of your ideas on the above cited issues with some interesting speculation on Unpredictability. Eq. (5) is intriguing. Do you think that this can mean that it exists a third massive gravity wave polarization arising from the cosmological constant? This is also endorsed by the issue that the final addendum of yours Eqs. (4) and (5) is nether else than the cosmological Ricci scalar! I will think about these two interesting points. I am also honored that you cited my MPLA paper in ref [12], thank you very much.

My global judgement is that you wrote a remarkable Essay which deserves a high score that I am going to give you. Good luck in the contest!

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Nice Essay,congrats.

You know that I strongly appreciate your previous works on massive gravitons, early universe and quantum gravity. This Essay seems to be an interesting summarizing of your ideas on the above cited issues with some interesting speculation on Unpredictability. Eq. (5) is intriguing. Do you think that this can mean that it exists a third massive gravity wave polarization arising from the cosmological constant? This is also endorsed by the issue that the final addendum of yours Eqs. (4) and (5) is nether else than the cosmological Ricci scalar! I will think about these two interesting points. I am also honored that you cited my MPLA paper in ref [12], thank you very much.

My global judgement is that you wrote a remarkable Essay which deserves a high score that I am going to give you. Good luck in the contest!

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Dr Beckwith,

I liked your general essay trying to unify this inflation, cosmology and this quantum gravitation. Congratulations.

Personally I have reached it and I work about the mathemtical formalisation, I renormalize this puzzle and I have quantized it in all humility,I have thought beyond the box if I can say.

My main approach was to consider a Before this inflation in...

view entire post

I liked your general essay trying to unify this inflation, cosmology and this quantum gravitation. Congratulations.

Personally I have reached it and I work about the mathemtical formalisation, I renormalize this puzzle and I have quantized it in all humility,I have thought beyond the box if I can say.

My main approach was to consider a Before this inflation in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

“Note that the Standard Model of Particle physics has scores of experimental inputs. It is a dazzling success in many ways but we are finding it extremely tough going to develop further beyond that model. We may have a similar situation with respect to massive gravity and its purported linkage to inflation …”

How might the massive graviton hypothesis be compatible with Lestone's theory of virtual cross-sections?

Those who are interested in the hypothesis of a massive graviton might want to study the following:

Bachas, Constantin, and Ioannis Lavdas. "Massive Anti-de Sitter gravity from string theory." Journal of High Energy Physics 2018, no. 11 (2018): 3.

arXiv preprint, 2018

I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology — on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence. Banik and Kroupa have recently suggested a rather decisive (but difficult) test of (non-relativistic) MOND.

Banik, Indranil, and Pavel Kroupa. "Directly testing gravity with Proxima Centauri." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 487, no. 2 (2019): 1653-1661.

arXiv preprint, 2019

report post as inappropriate

How might the massive graviton hypothesis be compatible with Lestone's theory of virtual cross-sections?

Those who are interested in the hypothesis of a massive graviton might want to study the following:

Bachas, Constantin, and Ioannis Lavdas. "Massive Anti-de Sitter gravity from string theory." Journal of High Energy Physics 2018, no. 11 (2018): 3.

arXiv preprint, 2018

I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology — on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence. Banik and Kroupa have recently suggested a rather decisive (but difficult) test of (non-relativistic) MOND.

Banik, Indranil, and Pavel Kroupa. "Directly testing gravity with Proxima Centauri." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 487, no. 2 (2019): 1653-1661.

arXiv preprint, 2019

report post as inappropriate

Hello Mr Knight,

I can understand , but if these strings are false , so the gravitons cannot be the answer because they come from the strings. All seems a question of philosophy about the origin of our physicality and these foundamental mathematical and physical objects at this planck scale. We can tell all what we want , the gravitons don t permit to renormalize and quantize this quantum gravitation, see my reasoning above , it seems more logic when we consider main codes farer and that we change the distances and mass considering that our actual standard model is just emergent. We must Think beyond the box to reach it at my humble opinion,Regards

report post as inappropriate

I can understand , but if these strings are false , so the gravitons cannot be the answer because they come from the strings. All seems a question of philosophy about the origin of our physicality and these foundamental mathematical and physical objects at this planck scale. We can tell all what we want , the gravitons don t permit to renormalize and quantize this quantum gravitation, see my reasoning above , it seems more logic when we consider main codes farer and that we change the distances and mass considering that our actual standard model is just emergent. We must Think beyond the box to reach it at my humble opinion,Regards

report post as inappropriate

lol oops sorry I confound the name Mr Brown, I am sorry, I cannot change , regards

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrew Beckwith,

I always enjoy your essays and papers, most of which I have read, but I generally fail to understand them satisfactorily.

I keep several of your papers handy on gravitomagnetism, as I believe that this is where we most overlap. As you know, the linearized equations are based, not on mass flow, but on mass flow**density**, and the beautiful thing about 60 efolds is that flow density is as big as you want it to be!

I see the gravitational field as a super fluid, in the manner of Volovik (*The Universe in a Helium Droplet*) and Kerson Huang (*A Superfluid Universe*). I believe that turbulence in a superfluid can shrink to a vortex, hence electrons and quarks. Those vortices that fail to go toroidal become solitons, probably neutrinos. I am unsure how these traveling gravitational waves differ from ‘gravitons’.

Of course, the LHC, expected a quark gas from nucleus-nucleus collisions but found a perfect fluid (as I had predicted) and the energy densities in this little corner of the universe should behave as I state above. When people get tired enough with the stasis of the Standard Model, there is a whole new theory waiting to be explored.

In any case, I only deal with the easy problems, and I hope you will enjoy my current essay: Deciding on the nature of time and space.

My warmest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

I always enjoy your essays and papers, most of which I have read, but I generally fail to understand them satisfactorily.

I keep several of your papers handy on gravitomagnetism, as I believe that this is where we most overlap. As you know, the linearized equations are based, not on mass flow, but on mass flow

I see the gravitational field as a super fluid, in the manner of Volovik (

Of course, the LHC, expected a quark gas from nucleus-nucleus collisions but found a perfect fluid (as I had predicted) and the energy densities in this little corner of the universe should behave as I state above. When people get tired enough with the stasis of the Standard Model, there is a whole new theory waiting to be explored.

In any case, I only deal with the easy problems, and I hope you will enjoy my current essay: Deciding on the nature of time and space.

My warmest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

This essay is focused upon the idea that certain inputs into physical models cannot be LOGICALLY deduced but have to be used to get connections to the actual physics. It is an old argument which is a repose to Hilbert who really believed that physics could be made purely axiomatic , with logic thereby removing the need for experiment. Godel pretty much destroyed that argument, on the part of Hilbert, and I am raising it again as to the issue of the graviton itself and e folds of inflation

I will go to your essay later, but that is what I am thinking Edwin

I will go to your essay later, but that is what I am thinking Edwin

These gravitons cannot answer because the philosophy considering that all is made of fields like in the theory of strings don t consider the evolution and a kind of infinite consciousness creating this physicality, there is a problem philosophical, we are probably inside a physicality made of coded particles.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Steve, what do you mean by "infinite consciousness creating this physicality" ?

I am not disputing what you said. I am merely asking for clarification

I am not disputing what you said. I am merely asking for clarification

Hi Andrew, Interesting essay. The major violation of the maths percentage didn't matter as measured in absolute terms it passed! But your limited text did get your propositions across well.

I certainly agree a good marriage of experimental data with theory built from on sound logic is the ONLY way ahead, and often forgot. But is that not a problem when logic itself is beset by paradox? I suggest how that can be overcome in my own essay, with improved foundations.

I confess I'm no fan of 'gravitons'. Are they not just a dubiously founded theoretical 'placeholder' substitute for a better derivation of 'action-at-a-distance'? Again I suggest a more consistent option, and using your own methods!

I agree your excellent analysis that using the approach you outline does mean the limitations you identify are, in terms of advancing understanding;*"all we can do"* and "the best we can hope for" and certainly that we need a "*fundamental re-think"* of how we relate data and thoeretical models, using *"robust experimental platforms"* to avoid, or rather; *escape from current! * ..dead ends.

But do you not think the data is there when we chose to search? I did and found it! much buried in massive sets, but lets just take the peculiar CMB anisotropies. Will not a theory producing those as well as more familiar data be 'a priori' likely to be correct? That's what I've done but ignored or dismissed in our current belief based system! Nice you seem to agree that needs changing but how is it done?

I think you'll like my essay, though an entirely different approach and theoretical construct to yours. I'll be interested in your comments.

Luckily content isn't a scoring criteria so that won't affect me scoring yours well.

Best of luck in the contest.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I certainly agree a good marriage of experimental data with theory built from on sound logic is the ONLY way ahead, and often forgot. But is that not a problem when logic itself is beset by paradox? I suggest how that can be overcome in my own essay, with improved foundations.

I confess I'm no fan of 'gravitons'. Are they not just a dubiously founded theoretical 'placeholder' substitute for a better derivation of 'action-at-a-distance'? Again I suggest a more consistent option, and using your own methods!

I agree your excellent analysis that using the approach you outline does mean the limitations you identify are, in terms of advancing understanding;

But do you not think the data is there when we chose to search? I did and found it! much buried in massive sets, but lets just take the peculiar CMB anisotropies. Will not a theory producing those as well as more familiar data be 'a priori' likely to be correct? That's what I've done but ignored or dismissed in our current belief based system! Nice you seem to agree that needs changing but how is it done?

I think you'll like my essay, though an entirely different approach and theoretical construct to yours. I'll be interested in your comments.

Luckily content isn't a scoring criteria so that won't affect me scoring yours well.

Best of luck in the contest.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Thank you, Peter. And if you wish to find the mother of all dead ends, view Hilbert's presumed axiomization of physics, which he thought eliminated the need for experimental data

Godel destroyed Hilbert over it, and a lucky thing too

However, Peter, this virus as to axiomization of science has gone back and forth since the Aristotle- Plato exchanges and shows no signs of slowing down

Godel destroyed Hilbert over it, and a lucky thing too

However, Peter, this virus as to axiomization of science has gone back and forth since the Aristotle- Plato exchanges and shows no signs of slowing down

Andrew,

Your answer was exquisitely clear:

“This essay is focused upon the idea that certain inputs into physical models cannot be LOGICALLY deduced but have to be used to get connections to the actual physics. It is an old argument which is a repose to Hilbert who really believed that physics could be made purely axiomatic , with logic thereby removing the need for experiment. Godel pretty much destroyed that argument, on the part of Hilbert, and I am raising it again as to the issue of the graviton itself and e folds of inflation.”

That is a much deeper goal than is apparent in the equations themselves. I certainly agree with you, and toast your smoking of Hilbert.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Your answer was exquisitely clear:

“This essay is focused upon the idea that certain inputs into physical models cannot be LOGICALLY deduced but have to be used to get connections to the actual physics. It is an old argument which is a repose to Hilbert who really believed that physics could be made purely axiomatic , with logic thereby removing the need for experiment. Godel pretty much destroyed that argument, on the part of Hilbert, and I am raising it again as to the issue of the graviton itself and e folds of inflation.”

That is a much deeper goal than is apparent in the equations themselves. I certainly agree with you, and toast your smoking of Hilbert.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrew,

I am very happy to see you continuing your program to apply Klauder's enhanced quantization in an original way. Very interesting and topical your connection between the e-folds and Gödel's incompleteness theorem. I wish you good luck with the contest!

Cheers,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

I am very happy to see you continuing your program to apply Klauder's enhanced quantization in an original way. Very interesting and topical your connection between the e-folds and Gödel's incompleteness theorem. I wish you good luck with the contest!

Cheers,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Your paper is interesting, and it would be curious if the mass of the graviton were related in some ways to the entropy and maybe efolds of the inflationary cosmos. Of course detecting the mass of a graviton m_g ≈ 10^{-62}g is a daunting proposition. I think the putative mass of the photon in a Proca equation is bounded below 10^{-80}g at this point. The QED field is relatively strong...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

This is a bit abstruse Andy...

However I'm somewhat familiar with your research program and sources. So I'll begin by explaining first that you are working in a framework where the graviton is minimally-massive. That is; it has a vanishingly small mass, but this contributes to things like cosmic expansion and the reheating phase where by assuming the graviton has mass, you can explain the missing piece of the universe normally attributed to dark energy and dark matter. I should also mention that this work ties in to Jack Ng's infinite quantum statistics, and employs Klauder's enhanced quantization as a kind of CFT.

It is brilliant to connect the graviton's mass in this case to uncertainty. But the way you connect it back to the organizers' questions is tenuous. You do not clearly explain how the one regime connects back to the other, although to me it is fairly clear. The reader would need familiarity with your prior work, or to be conversant in minimally massive gravity, to grasp some of your points. So you get a high grade from me but not full credit. I hope these comments will help you or your readers to clarify some of the issues.

Is there something more you can add here, to help us connect the dots?

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

However I'm somewhat familiar with your research program and sources. So I'll begin by explaining first that you are working in a framework where the graviton is minimally-massive. That is; it has a vanishingly small mass, but this contributes to things like cosmic expansion and the reheating phase where by assuming the graviton has mass, you can explain the missing piece of the universe normally attributed to dark energy and dark matter. I should also mention that this work ties in to Jack Ng's infinite quantum statistics, and employs Klauder's enhanced quantization as a kind of CFT.

It is brilliant to connect the graviton's mass in this case to uncertainty. But the way you connect it back to the organizers' questions is tenuous. You do not clearly explain how the one regime connects back to the other, although to me it is fairly clear. The reader would need familiarity with your prior work, or to be conversant in minimally massive gravity, to grasp some of your points. So you get a high grade from me but not full credit. I hope these comments will help you or your readers to clarify some of the issues.

Is there something more you can add here, to help us connect the dots?

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I should add this..

There is a crucial insight here, in your essay, that I'd like to highlight. Your main point speaks to the notion that the Math can't tell us everything we want to know; we need physical input. I like the example Mary Boas gives in her Math for the Physical Sciences book, on the Calculus of Variations. If you observe that the 1st derivative of the equation goes to zero; you know it will be a maximum, a minimum, or an inflection point. But you can't tell which from the Math alone. You need to know the physical parameters - the set-up - or all you know is it's one of the above. Is this relevant to your analysis?

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

There is a crucial insight here, in your essay, that I'd like to highlight. Your main point speaks to the notion that the Math can't tell us everything we want to know; we need physical input. I like the example Mary Boas gives in her Math for the Physical Sciences book, on the Calculus of Variations. If you observe that the 1st derivative of the equation goes to zero; you know it will be a maximum, a minimum, or an inflection point. But you can't tell which from the Math alone. You need to know the physical parameters - the set-up - or all you know is it's one of the above. Is this relevant to your analysis?

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Here is my example

Here is a story I can share which had to do with what is called the Clausius - Clayperon model of Dark Matter and Dark energy

It has, roughly density = - constant/ [(pressure)^alpha]

Starobinski whom I have met repeatedly in Marcel Grossman 13 and 14 in about 2000 or so did research with the Clausius - Claperyon relationships in early universe conditions and matched data sets with an alpha = .857 or so.

In String theory, if alpha = 1, it is in fidelity with respect to that theory.

Starobinski had a different value which matched experimental conditions, but was off from the String theory mandated alpha = 1

What you missed is that although our models are in certain cases useful that we do NOT have the ability to avoid experimental inputs, and that this one about the Clausius - Claperyon relations as to a joint Dark Matter - Dark Energy model is a classic mis match between string theory predictions and data sets.

If the alpha were = 1 in early universe conditions, the early universe in terms of Dark Matter and Dark energy would be very different

See Introduction to Cosmology 3rd Edition

by Matts Roos

Here is a story I can share which had to do with what is called the Clausius - Clayperon model of Dark Matter and Dark energy

It has, roughly density = - constant/ [(pressure)^alpha]

Starobinski whom I have met repeatedly in Marcel Grossman 13 and 14 in about 2000 or so did research with the Clausius - Claperyon relationships in early universe conditions and matched data sets with an alpha = .857 or so.

In String theory, if alpha = 1, it is in fidelity with respect to that theory.

Starobinski had a different value which matched experimental conditions, but was off from the String theory mandated alpha = 1

What you missed is that although our models are in certain cases useful that we do NOT have the ability to avoid experimental inputs, and that this one about the Clausius - Claperyon relations as to a joint Dark Matter - Dark Energy model is a classic mis match between string theory predictions and data sets.

If the alpha were = 1 in early universe conditions, the early universe in terms of Dark Matter and Dark energy would be very different

See Introduction to Cosmology 3rd Edition

by Matts Roos

It seems to me there are various problematic aspects with the ideas discussed here.

For one, it has long been known that theories of a massive graviton suffered from serious pathologies, including a Boulware-Deser ghost and a discontinuity with general relativity in the limit where the graviton mass goes to zero.

Nowadays when considering such a thing one is drawn to rely on specific schemes that manage evade those problems such as de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley model or bi-metric gravity theories ( i.e. theories with two spacetime metrics). In any event, all those proposals are based on specific action functionals which differ substantially from the standard Einstein Hilbert action with a cosmological term, as used in eq. ( 1) and eq. ( 2) in the present work. In fact nowhere do we find any hint of what the "new action principle of the massive gravity" under consideration here is supposed to be.

On another hand, and on a different aspect I am also quite puzzled by the following statement:

"I also argue that this limit (i.e. a question concerning the link between experimental results and the actual number of inflationary e- folds) and is a physics counter part to the Godel incompleteness axioms, i.e. where in [14] the emphasis is upon the incompleteness of axiomatic logic, which Godel stated doomed Hilberts dream of a fully axiomatic treatment of physics [15] ."

The point is of course that as far as I know Hilbert never dreamt of a fully axiomatic treatment of physics ( which in contrast with math requires complex interpretative discussions involving ontological as well as epistemic issues). Hilbert certainly dreamt of a fully axiomatic treatment of mathematics and that dream was shattered by Gödel's famous results.

report post as inappropriate

For one, it has long been known that theories of a massive graviton suffered from serious pathologies, including a Boulware-Deser ghost and a discontinuity with general relativity in the limit where the graviton mass goes to zero.

Nowadays when considering such a thing one is drawn to rely on specific schemes that manage evade those problems such as de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley model or bi-metric gravity theories ( i.e. theories with two spacetime metrics). In any event, all those proposals are based on specific action functionals which differ substantially from the standard Einstein Hilbert action with a cosmological term, as used in eq. ( 1) and eq. ( 2) in the present work. In fact nowhere do we find any hint of what the "new action principle of the massive gravity" under consideration here is supposed to be.

On another hand, and on a different aspect I am also quite puzzled by the following statement:

"I also argue that this limit (i.e. a question concerning the link between experimental results and the actual number of inflationary e- folds) and is a physics counter part to the Godel incompleteness axioms, i.e. where in [14] the emphasis is upon the incompleteness of axiomatic logic, which Godel stated doomed Hilberts dream of a fully axiomatic treatment of physics [15] ."

The point is of course that as far as I know Hilbert never dreamt of a fully axiomatic treatment of physics ( which in contrast with math requires complex interpretative discussions involving ontological as well as epistemic issues). Hilbert certainly dreamt of a fully axiomatic treatment of mathematics and that dream was shattered by Gödel's famous results.

report post as inappropriate

First of all you are incorrect as to Hilbert. he ws NOT a fan as far as experimental physics. I have read his correspondence, and he did try to largely axiomize physics. So you are factually incorrect

Secondly, I am aware of the massive Graviton scheme you mentioned and I used "enhanced quantization" as a way to do the problem

See Klauder here

2015 Klauder JR. Enhanced quantum procedures that resolve difficult problems Reviews in Mathematical Physics. 27. DOI: 10.1142/S0129055X15300022

I disagree with the Bimetric Gravity approach.

And I think you missed the main point of my essay. Which is that certain inputs have to be experimental. Here is a story I can share which had to do with what is called the Clausius - Clayperon model of Dark Matter and Dark energy

It has, roughly density = - constant/ [(pressure)^alpha]

Starobinski whom I have met repeatedly in Marcel Grossman 13 and 14 in about 2000 or so did research with the Clausius - Claperyon relationships in early universe conditions and matched data sets with an alpha = .857 or so.

In String theory, if alpha = 1, it is in fidelity with respect to that theory.

Starobinski had a different value which matched experimental conditions, but was off from the String theory mandated alpha = 1

What you missed is that although our models are in certain cases useful that we do NOT have the ability to avoid experimental inputs, and that this one about the Clausius - Claperyon relations as to a joint Dark Matter - Dark Energy model is a classic mis match between string theory predictions and data sets.

If the alpha were = 1 in early universe conditions, the early universe in terms of Dark Matter and Dark energy would be very different

See Introduction to Cosmology 3rd Edition

by Matts Roos

Secondly, I am aware of the massive Graviton scheme you mentioned and I used "enhanced quantization" as a way to do the problem

See Klauder here

2015 Klauder JR. Enhanced quantum procedures that resolve difficult problems Reviews in Mathematical Physics. 27. DOI: 10.1142/S0129055X15300022

I disagree with the Bimetric Gravity approach.

And I think you missed the main point of my essay. Which is that certain inputs have to be experimental. Here is a story I can share which had to do with what is called the Clausius - Clayperon model of Dark Matter and Dark energy

It has, roughly density = - constant/ [(pressure)^alpha]

Starobinski whom I have met repeatedly in Marcel Grossman 13 and 14 in about 2000 or so did research with the Clausius - Claperyon relationships in early universe conditions and matched data sets with an alpha = .857 or so.

In String theory, if alpha = 1, it is in fidelity with respect to that theory.

Starobinski had a different value which matched experimental conditions, but was off from the String theory mandated alpha = 1

What you missed is that although our models are in certain cases useful that we do NOT have the ability to avoid experimental inputs, and that this one about the Clausius - Claperyon relations as to a joint Dark Matter - Dark Energy model is a classic mis match between string theory predictions and data sets.

If the alpha were = 1 in early universe conditions, the early universe in terms of Dark Matter and Dark energy would be very different

See Introduction to Cosmology 3rd Edition

by Matts Roos

We can agree or disagree about Hilbert. But I stand on what I said about him.

As to what approach I used, it was Klauders "enhanced quantization". Go look it up

As to the fidelity of models as to matching experimental conditions

about the damn Clausius - Clayperyon equation and DM- DE to make a point that at a certain time one is compelled to use experimental inputs.

I discussed this with Starobinsky and he made the point that the String theory result is close, but no cigar.

If alpha is not equal to 1, then the connection to string theory is completely lost. But the data has alpha = .857 or so, not 1

At a certain time one has to admit that models have to get their motivation from experimental inputs

That was the point of my essay

You are hung up on Hilbert and I think you missed the main point which I put up above.

As to what approach I used, it was Klauders "enhanced quantization". Go look it up

As to the fidelity of models as to matching experimental conditions

about the damn Clausius - Clayperyon equation and DM- DE to make a point that at a certain time one is compelled to use experimental inputs.

I discussed this with Starobinsky and he made the point that the String theory result is close, but no cigar.

If alpha is not equal to 1, then the connection to string theory is completely lost. But the data has alpha = .857 or so, not 1

At a certain time one has to admit that models have to get their motivation from experimental inputs

That was the point of my essay

You are hung up on Hilbert and I think you missed the main point which I put up above.

Hilbert's plan might have worked...

Had there been a detailed knowledge in his time of fundamental mathematical objects like E8 or the Mandelbrot Set. Now we have a vast array of knowledge about specific attributes that was lacking in that time. We could only guess that something like the Monster group existed at first, but now we know a lot about it. This kind of knowledge will over time provide a linkage that evades Gödel. Once discovered; these objects reveal fundamental patterns in Math itself. We might not guess at their form, but once seen it can be grasped and used as a pivot point.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Had there been a detailed knowledge in his time of fundamental mathematical objects like E8 or the Mandelbrot Set. Now we have a vast array of knowledge about specific attributes that was lacking in that time. We could only guess that something like the Monster group existed at first, but now we know a lot about it. This kind of knowledge will over time provide a linkage that evades Gödel. Once discovered; these objects reveal fundamental patterns in Math itself. We might not guess at their form, but once seen it can be grasped and used as a pivot point.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrew,

I am not a fan of bosons as fundamental force particles (except for Higgs), and can provide alternative suggestions for photons, gluons, and W/Z bosons. Nor am I a believer in gravitons, as I have formulated my own ‘action at a distance’ theory of gravity using strings of what I suppose are Higgs particles, although I call them ginn (or aether particles). Because I have a working particle theory I decided to do a back of the envelope calculation of their (string) gram equivalent mass and got a number 10-34 g which is some 28 orders greater than the 10-62 g you mentioned for the graviton.

Regards,

Lockie Cresswell

report post as inappropriate

I am not a fan of bosons as fundamental force particles (except for Higgs), and can provide alternative suggestions for photons, gluons, and W/Z bosons. Nor am I a believer in gravitons, as I have formulated my own ‘action at a distance’ theory of gravity using strings of what I suppose are Higgs particles, although I call them ginn (or aether particles). Because I have a working particle theory I decided to do a back of the envelope calculation of their (string) gram equivalent mass and got a number 10-34 g which is some 28 orders greater than the 10-62 g you mentioned for the graviton.

Regards,

Lockie Cresswell

report post as inappropriate

Different ways to estimate graviton mass

Alexander F. Zakharov, Predrag Jovanovic, Dusko Borka, Vesna Borka Jovanovic

An experimental detection of graviton is extremely hard problem, however, there are different ways to evaluate a graviton mass if it is non-vanishing. Theories of massive gravity or theories with non-vanishing graviton mass initially have a number of pathologies such as discontinuities, ghosts etc. In last years theorists found ways to overcome weaknesses of such theories meanwhile observational features are also discussed. In the first publication reporting about the discovery of gravitational waves from the binary black hole system the LIGO-Virgo collaboration obtained the graviton mass constraint around 1.2×10−22 eV (later the estimate was improved with new data). A comparable and consistent graviton mass constraint around 2.9×10−21 eV has been obtained from analysis of the bright star S2 trajectory near the Galactic Center.

Comments: 6 pages, presented as an invited talk at the XXXI International Workshop on High Energy Physics (IHEP, Protvino, Russia)

Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)

Journal reference: International Journal of Modern Physics: Conference Series, v 47 (2018)

DOI: 10.1142/S2010194518600960

Cite as: arXiv:1712.08339 [gr-qc]

(or arXiv:1712.08339v1 [gr-qc] for this version)

Bibliographic data

[Enable Bibex (What is Bibex?)]

Submission history

From: Alexander Zakharov [view email]

[v1] Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:33:09 UTC (27 KB)

Alexander F. Zakharov, Predrag Jovanovic, Dusko Borka, Vesna Borka Jovanovic

An experimental detection of graviton is extremely hard problem, however, there are different ways to evaluate a graviton mass if it is non-vanishing. Theories of massive gravity or theories with non-vanishing graviton mass initially have a number of pathologies such as discontinuities, ghosts etc. In last years theorists found ways to overcome weaknesses of such theories meanwhile observational features are also discussed. In the first publication reporting about the discovery of gravitational waves from the binary black hole system the LIGO-Virgo collaboration obtained the graviton mass constraint around 1.2×10−22 eV (later the estimate was improved with new data). A comparable and consistent graviton mass constraint around 2.9×10−21 eV has been obtained from analysis of the bright star S2 trajectory near the Galactic Center.

Comments: 6 pages, presented as an invited talk at the XXXI International Workshop on High Energy Physics (IHEP, Protvino, Russia)

Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)

Journal reference: International Journal of Modern Physics: Conference Series, v 47 (2018)

DOI: 10.1142/S2010194518600960

Cite as: arXiv:1712.08339 [gr-qc]

(or arXiv:1712.08339v1 [gr-qc] for this version)

Bibliographic data

[Enable Bibex (What is Bibex?)]

Submission history

From: Alexander Zakharov [view email]

[v1] Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:33:09 UTC (27 KB)

Professor Beckwith,

I think perhaps you need to be told the vDVZ discontinuity in Daniel Sudarsky's comment is not a subjective issue, but one of hard Maths. Basically; it arises because giving a graviton mass means it has 5 polarization states instead of 2 (0, ±1,±2). It turns out the spin-0 modes are more strongly-coupled than one would like, creating a divergence from the predictions of Relativity - called vDVZ discontinuity (where Zakharov is the Z).

This arises in ALL cases where the graviton is similar to Fierz-Pauli, even when the zero mode approaches zero mass (starting from a massive state), but there are exceptions. Using a KK-based theory; you are working on an island where vDVZ might be avoided. But you would still need to prove that or forge a firm connection to one of those exceptions. In my work, as in DGP gravity; the portion of the universe containing 0-mode (Higgs-like) gravitons is trapped behind a fold in a brace - effectively at infinite distance. And bigravity lets you renormalize.

But there are other roads to analytic completion without complications. You can find an example here:

No vDVZ Discontinuity in Non-Fierz-Pauli Theories

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I think perhaps you need to be told the vDVZ discontinuity in Daniel Sudarsky's comment is not a subjective issue, but one of hard Maths. Basically; it arises because giving a graviton mass means it has 5 polarization states instead of 2 (0, ±1,±2). It turns out the spin-0 modes are more strongly-coupled than one would like, creating a divergence from the predictions of Relativity - called vDVZ discontinuity (where Zakharov is the Z).

This arises in ALL cases where the graviton is similar to Fierz-Pauli, even when the zero mode approaches zero mass (starting from a massive state), but there are exceptions. Using a KK-based theory; you are working on an island where vDVZ might be avoided. But you would still need to prove that or forge a firm connection to one of those exceptions. In my work, as in DGP gravity; the portion of the universe containing 0-mode (Higgs-like) gravitons is trapped behind a fold in a brace - effectively at infinite distance. And bigravity lets you renormalize.

But there are other roads to analytic completion without complications. You can find an example here:

No vDVZ Discontinuity in Non-Fierz-Pauli Theories

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Whoops...

Should be; "fold in a brane" spell check must have 'fixed' it.

JJD

report post as inappropriate

Should be; "fold in a brane" spell check must have 'fixed' it.

JJD

report post as inappropriate

Hi , there are the same problems. If we take this approach of van Dam-Veltman-Zakharov (vDVZ) discontinuity with a Minkowski space, it seems to arise in (anti) de Sitter space. But the problem is the act to consider only this GR and the photons like I told and the philosophy correlated with branes and modes, that cannot quantify this quantum gravitation.The real problem is the tensors and this relativistic prisons and the strings , you can utilise all what you want like maths with the modes, frequences, branes, the ADS CFT correspondance or others, that will not change, because the problem is that it lacks a main new thing to superimpose. The massless limit and the massive graviton propagator are for me fake Tools and reasonings. We retrun about this main philosophical problem.It is mainly due to consider this minkowski space time , the GR and the photons like the only one piece of puzzle and these fields like main essence. Think beyond the box to reach this quantum gravitation, consider thei universal balance between cold and heat and this cold dar matter encoded in nuclei and sort the fields also. Regards

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for chiming in here Steve...

You are correct, in at least some of what you say. The view with tensors is limiting in the same way a square lattice is. People working in that framework imagine the grid implies reality is grid-like, but it is another form of the 'blind men and the elephant' problem, with the characteristics of tensors being the blindness. Nobody sees enough of the picture to capture the whole elephant, that way.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

You are correct, in at least some of what you say. The view with tensors is limiting in the same way a square lattice is. People working in that framework imagine the grid implies reality is grid-like, but it is another form of the 'blind men and the elephant' problem, with the characteristics of tensors being the blindness. Nobody sees enough of the picture to capture the whole elephant, that way.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Johnathan I am well aware of the issue in terms of massive gravity. This is precisely why I tried an approach to a limiting value of graviton mass using a relationship to 5 dimensional cosmology, akin to earlier Kaluza klein Models. I will say more about this later

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Oops, that is I, Andrew Beckwith, now once again

Quote

Johnathan I am well aware of the issue in terms of massive gravity. This is precisely why I tried an approach to a limiting value of graviton mass using a relationship to 5 dimensional cosmology, akin to earlier Kaluza klein Models. I will say more about this later

End of quote

To see more of what I intended, see Wesson's book, on 5 dimensional cosmology, namely

Y - BOOK

AU - Overduin, James

AU - Wesson, Paul

PY - 2018/12/01

SP -

SN - 978-981-3235-78-6

T1 - Principles of Space-Time-Matter

DO - 10.1142/10871

IN addition see the reference I made to John Klauder's work.

These two approaches were synthesized and superimposed about each other in an attempt to get about the Discontinuity problem

Best for you and all of us

Andrew

Quote

Johnathan I am well aware of the issue in terms of massive gravity. This is precisely why I tried an approach to a limiting value of graviton mass using a relationship to 5 dimensional cosmology, akin to earlier Kaluza klein Models. I will say more about this later

End of quote

To see more of what I intended, see Wesson's book, on 5 dimensional cosmology, namely

Y - BOOK

AU - Overduin, James

AU - Wesson, Paul

PY - 2018/12/01

SP -

SN - 978-981-3235-78-6

T1 - Principles of Space-Time-Matter

DO - 10.1142/10871

IN addition see the reference I made to John Klauder's work.

These two approaches were synthesized and superimposed about each other in an attempt to get about the Discontinuity problem

Best for you and all of us

Andrew

TY - BOOK

AU - Overduin, James

AU - Wesson, Paul

PY - 2018/12/01

SP -

N2 - This book is a summing up of the prospects for unification between relativity and particle physics based on the extension of Einstein's theory of General Relativity to five dimensions. This subject was first established by Paul Wesson in his previous best-seller, Space-Time-Matter, and discussed from a different perspective in Five-Dimensional Physics, both published by World Scientific in 1999 and 2006 respectively. This third book brings the field up to date and details many new developments and connections to particle theory and wave mechanics in particular. It was in largely finished form at the time of Paul Wesson's untimely death in 2015, and has been completed and expanded by his former student and longtime collaborator, James Overduin.

SN - 978-981-3235-78-6

T1 - Principles of Space-Time-Matter

DO - 10.1142/10871

ER -

AU - Overduin, James

AU - Wesson, Paul

PY - 2018/12/01

SP -

N2 - This book is a summing up of the prospects for unification between relativity and particle physics based on the extension of Einstein's theory of General Relativity to five dimensions. This subject was first established by Paul Wesson in his previous best-seller, Space-Time-Matter, and discussed from a different perspective in Five-Dimensional Physics, both published by World Scientific in 1999 and 2006 respectively. This third book brings the field up to date and details many new developments and connections to particle theory and wave mechanics in particular. It was in largely finished form at the time of Paul Wesson's untimely death in 2015, and has been completed and expanded by his former student and longtime collaborator, James Overduin.

SN - 978-981-3235-78-6

T1 - Principles of Space-Time-Matter

DO - 10.1142/10871

ER -

Hi Andy,

I see this essay is one of the featured items on the FQXi community page. Maybe having to do with the 'weight of the universe' question in another item and a SciAm article. I hope any new traffic finds something interesting to discuss here.

JJD

report post as inappropriate

I see this essay is one of the featured items on the FQXi community page. Maybe having to do with the 'weight of the universe' question in another item and a SciAm article. I hope any new traffic finds something interesting to discuss here.

JJD

report post as inappropriate

Dr.Beckwith,

I have a theoretical physics question relating to your essay and the 'weight of the universe' question. It seems the speed of light comes into play, in your analysis, and this could be reduced to a simplicity in the early universe, before radiation quenching when massive particles appeared. If one did the unthinkable and rework Einstein's venerable equation to solve for*c* one gets *c*^{2} = E/m, then if the mass of the universe is zero initially, *c* is unbounded or approaches infinity. Thoughts?

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I have a theoretical physics question relating to your essay and the 'weight of the universe' question. It seems the speed of light comes into play, in your analysis, and this could be reduced to a simplicity in the early universe, before radiation quenching when massive particles appeared. If one did the unthinkable and rework Einstein's venerable equation to solve for

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

If the speed of light is a constant, i.e. normalizing it by having C = 1, then c^2= E/m is E=M and so then in that context the idea of a massive graviton would be congruent with emergent structure being pushed into a new universe. i.e. then we could say then that by Delta E times Delta t > or equal to hbar that again by Planck units we would have say

Delta E proportional to ( 1/ Delta...

view entire post

Delta E proportional to ( 1/ Delta...

view entire post

Hi To both of you,

Consider if you want my intuitive equation considering this cold DM encoded in our nuclei also , E=mc^2+Xl^2 with l their linear velocity slowere than c and X a parameter correlated with the cold, we have more energy that just with this relativity…. you shall better maybe understand the mass, the energy and the weight …. Food for thought, if this DM exists, it is also encoded in our nuclei.And don t forget these 3 main series made of coded spheres, one for the space and the two fuels instead to consider that all come from the fields, it solves many things and furthermore consider the evolution. Why these fields to create these geometries, topologies, matters I repeat ? the particles coded seems more logic and the gravitons and strings are not necessary in this logic, the particles of gravitation are particles of DM encoded simply in our nuclei ….

report post as inappropriate

Consider if you want my intuitive equation considering this cold DM encoded in our nuclei also , E=mc^2+Xl^2 with l their linear velocity slowere than c and X a parameter correlated with the cold, we have more energy that just with this relativity…. you shall better maybe understand the mass, the energy and the weight …. Food for thought, if this DM exists, it is also encoded in our nuclei.And don t forget these 3 main series made of coded spheres, one for the space and the two fuels instead to consider that all come from the fields, it solves many things and furthermore consider the evolution. Why these fields to create these geometries, topologies, matters I repeat ? the particles coded seems more logic and the gravitons and strings are not necessary in this logic, the particles of gravitation are particles of DM encoded simply in our nuclei ….

report post as inappropriate

I must probably improve this intuitive equation , maybe in puting ( ) for this mass , but there is something there to consider and to go deeper than just this relativity with these photons and c , it lacked something, this cold dark matter explain and solve many things at all scales. And I insist about the main origin, the particles coded in a superfluid aether seems also solving many things instead of these fields like origin, the wave particle duality is respected with this superfluidity of this space made of 3D coded spheres and the two fuels also made of these finite series.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Delta E proportional to ( 1/ Delta...

view entire post

oops, I am adding one more set of lines to the complete answer:

Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on May. 13, 2020 @ 01:03 GMTunstub

If the speed of light is a constant, i.e. normalizing it by having C = 1, then c^2= E/m is E=M and so then in that context the idea of a massive graviton would be congruent with emergent structure being pushed into a new universe. i.e. then we could say then...

view entire post

Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on May. 13, 2020 @ 01:03 GMTunstub

If the speed of light is a constant, i.e. normalizing it by having C = 1, then c^2= E/m is E=M and so then in that context the idea of a massive graviton would be congruent with emergent structure being pushed into a new universe. i.e. then we could say then...

view entire post

Login or create account to post reply or comment.