Are scientist wrong about how gravity works?

[dlamberth]

"A theoretical proposal published in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics is making some bold claims about our previous understanding of quantum physics. Mainly, that we were wrong.

The proposed theory grapples with the fact that quantum mechanics (basically modern physics) and general relativity (Einstein's theory of gravity) both describe the universe perfectly, but are mathematically incompatible with each other.

To make them work, the proposal suggests scrapping almost everything we think we know about gravity, as Live Science explains. Instead, the authors touch up the theory to match known and observable physics, something they call unified gravity."

New theory could finally make 'quantum gravity' a reality — and prove Einstein wrong

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

 

[Apple Sky]

"A theoretical proposal published in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics is making some bold claims about our previous understanding of quantum physics. Mainly, that we were wrong.

The proposed theory grapples with the fact that quantum mechanics (basically modern physics) and general relativity (Einstein's theory of gravity) both describe the universe perfectly, but are mathematically incompatible with each other.

To make them work, the proposal suggests scrapping almost everything we think we know about gravity, as Live Science explains. Instead, the authors touch up the theory to match known and observable physics, something they call unified gravity."

New theory could finally make 'quantum gravity' a reality — and prove Einstein wrong

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

What is quantum gravity ? I couldn't make head or tail of the article

 

[Ophiolite]

New theory could finally make 'quantum gravity' a reality — and prove Einstein wrong

I'm not falling for that!

 

[Radagast]

"A theoretical proposal published in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics is making some bold claims about our previous understanding of quantum physics. Mainly, that we were wrong.

The proposed theory grapples with the fact that quantum mechanics (basically modern physics) and general relativity (Einstein's theory of gravity) both describe the universe perfectly, but are mathematically incompatible with each other.

To make them work, the proposal suggests scrapping almost everything we think we know about gravity, as Live Science explains. Instead, the authors touch up the theory to match known and observable physics, something they call unified gravity."

New theory could finally make 'quantum gravity' a reality — and prove Einstein wrong

Neither quantum mechanics (which describes very small things) nor general relativity (which describes heavy things) describe the universe "perfectly." In particular, very small but heavy things are not well explained. This is a known problem.

The 2 systems do indeed need to be unified somehow.

The paper referred to is a proposal for doing that. It doesn't seem very exciting.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

"A theoretical proposal published in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics is making some bold claims about our previous understanding of quantum physics. Mainly, that we were wrong.

The proposed theory grapples with the fact that quantum mechanics (basically modern physics) and general relativity (Einstein's theory of gravity) both describe the universe perfectly, but are mathematically incompatible with each other.

To make them work, the proposal suggests scrapping almost everything we think we know about gravity, as Live Science explains. Instead, the authors touch up the theory to match known and observable physics, something they call unified gravity."

New theory could finally make 'quantum gravity' a reality — and prove Einstein wrong

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Where is the quoted text in this OP from? I cant find it in any of the linked articles or the paper.

That said, the livescience article and the paper seem much less... dramatic about "proving Einstein wrong" even though it's in the byline of the livescience article. They're talking about unifying and being able to describe quantum gravity using a classical model without invoking negative infinities and extra dimensions.

 

[Neogaia777]

"A theoretical proposal published in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics is making some bold claims about our previous understanding of quantum physics. Mainly, that we were wrong.

The proposed theory grapples with the fact that quantum mechanics (basically modern physics) and general relativity (Einstein's theory of gravity) both describe the universe perfectly, but are mathematically incompatible with each other.

To make them work, the proposal suggests scrapping almost everything we think we know about gravity, as Live Science explains. Instead, the authors touch up the theory to match known and observable physics, something they call unified gravity."

New theory could finally make 'quantum gravity' a reality — and prove Einstein wrong

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

However the universe began, or started out, I don't think it still expanding at the same equal rate that it was originally, if that's truly the way that it all started out originally, etc. But and/or anyway, however the universe began, or started out, I now think that there are pockets of "anti-gravity", etc. Which is essentially just only a word to describe a thing/force that works in the opposite way of normal gravity, etc. And where I think these forces are the more present, or are the more profound, while maybe also being present equally everywhere maybe, is much, much more forceful/present/profound where there is next to nothing to make or create normal gravity, etc. And it is my belief that these are now responsible for any of the universes currently expanding, etc. And/or/what/but/while the rest of the universe is still being reigned in or pulled/held together by normal gravity, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Ophiolite]

However the universe began, or started out, I don't think it still expanding at the same equal rate that it was originally, if that's truly the way that it all started out originally, etc. But and/or anyway, however the universe began, or started out, I now think that there are pockets of "anti-gravity", etc. Which is essentially just only a word to describe a thing/force that works in the opposite way of normal gravity, etc. And where I think these forces are the more present, or are the more profound, while maybe also being present equally everywhere maybe, is much, much more forceful/present/profound where there is next to nothing to make or create normal gravity, etc. And it is my belief that these are now responsible for any of the universes currently expanding, etc. And/or/what/but/while the rest of the universe is still being reigned in or pulled/held together by normal gravity, etc.

Take Care.

How did you arrive at these thoughts? Do you have any evidence to support them?

 

[Neogaia777]

How did you arrive at these thoughts?

Logical thoughts applied to pictures, etc.

Do you have any evidence to support them?

I'm betting that others will eventually, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

How did you arrive at these thoughts?

 

[Ophiolite]

Logical thoughts applied to pictures, etc.

Thank you for your reply. Could you give me an example.

 

[sjastro]

Logical thoughts applied to pictures, etc.

I'm betting that others will eventually, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

You haven't applied any logic at all by failing to demonstrate why negative gravity can exist and how it doesn't contradict observations.
Here is an example of logic (and observations) why negative gravity is highly unlikely.

(1) Gravitational lensing.

The Schwarzschild metric which defines gravity around a massive object resulting in a spherical symmetry of spacetime.
ds² = (1-2MG/c²r) c²dt² + dr²/(1-2MG/c²r) + r²dθ² + r²sin²θdφ²

In weak gravitational fields the geometry can be defined in spherical coordinates.

This illustrates the geometrical significance of r, θ and φ in the metric, M is the mass of the object and G is the gravitational constant.

From the metric two important equations in gravitational lensing can be derived.
The defection angle of light α in the gravitational field.

(a) α = 4GM/c²Dₗθ

where Dₗ is the angular diameter distance of the lens.

Lets assume gravity can be a repulsive force in which case G takes on a negative value (the magnitude of G in this case is not important but its sign). This means the trajectory of a photon will deviate away in the field as α is negative since M, c and θ are positive.
No such example of this type of lensing has ever been observed.

(b) The angular Einstein radius θₑ of an Einstein ring where lensing creates ring like images.

θₑ = √[(4GM/c²)(Dₗₛ/DₗDₒ)]

where Dₗₛ is the distance of the lens from the source and Dₒ is the angular distance to the source.

If G is negative then θₑ becomes an imaginary number due to the square root in the equation, in other words Einstein rings cannot exist if gravity can also be repulsive.

(2) Peculiar velocities of galaxies.

Distant galaxies recede due to cosmological redshift due to space-time expansion, however astronomers need to consider galaxy motion in space-time due to gravitational effects, this is known as the peculiar velocity.
Peculiar velocities in redshift surveys such as distant galaxies moving towards superclusters indicate there is zero evidence for negative gravity as a repulsive force.

 

[Neogaia777]

Thank you for your reply. Could you give me an example.

Get a picture of the universe at it's largest scales, then examine the dark areas, or mostly empty dark pockets, and then imagine the universe in motion with both positive and negative gravitational forces/effects applied to it, etc.

 

[Ophiolite]

Get a picture of the universe at it's largest scales, then examine the dark areas, or mostly empty dark pockets, and then imagine the universe in motion with both positive and negative gravitational forces/effects applied to it, etc.

While I think I have a powerful imagination, it is beyond my power to imagine, in any way that might lead to a practical result, how the complexity of trillions and trillions of objects (in ill defined spatial relationships and with unknown vectors) would interact. How have you overcome these immense difficulties? Or are you just guessing?

 

[Neogaia777]

While I think I have a powerful imagination, it is beyond my power to imagine, in any way that might lead to a practical result, how the complexity of trillions and trillions of objects (in ill defined spatial relationships and with unknown vectors) would interact. How have you overcome these immense difficulties? Or are you just guessing?

I think you are just getting intimidated/overwhelmed by the numbers/immensity of the whole entire known/observable universe at those scales, etc. But if you can just simply ignore all of that for a minute, and just simply do, or try to do, what I just said right now in post #12 just now, it's really not that hard to get a picture/illustration of, and/or imagine, etc. Even a child can do this, etc. If not, then it wouldn't be possible for me to do it, lol.

God Bless.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think you are just getting intimidated/overwhelmed by the numbers/immensity of the whole entire known/observable universe at those scales, etc. But if you can just simply ignore all of that for a minute, and just simply do, or try to do, what I just said right now in post #12 just now, it's really not that hard to get a picture/illustration of, and/or imagine, etc. Even a child can do this, etc. If not, then it wouldn't be possible for me to do it, lol.

God Bless.

I am not overwhelmed, I simply recognise objectively the order of magnitude of complexity of what your are asking. It is delusional to imagine that you can, other than by pure chance, derive a meaningful insight into the character of the universe by colouring book level thinking. If I employ your technique, yes, I can come up with "insights". I can assure you that those insights will be just as valuable as yours, completely different from yours, and of zero value to anyone else.
You have a mind. Perhaps you could use it to scrutinise your own thought processes. Imagine, for a moment, how illogical they may be.

Thanks.

 

[Neogaia777]

I am not overwhelmed, I simply recognise objectively the order of magnitude of complexity of what your are asking. It is delusional to imagine that you can, other than by pure chance, derive a meaningful insight into the character of the universe by colouring book level thinking. If I employ your technique, yes, I can come up with "insights". I can assure you that those insights will be just as valuable as yours, completely different from yours, and of zero value to anyone else.
You have a mind. Perhaps you could use it to scrutinise your own thought processes. Imagine, for a moment, how illogical they may be.

Thanks.

I am very, very good at scrutiny, and I have scrutinized this to death before posting this/these, and deciding to share this/these here, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Larniavc]

I am very, very good at scrutiny, and I have scrutinized this to death before posting this/these, and deciding to share this/these here, etc.

You’ve scrutinised the entire macrostructure of the Universe?

 

[Neogaia777]

You’ve scrutinised the entire macrostructure of the Universe?

I did quite a bit of research, looked very, very closely at other people's often very contradicting ideas and theories, and then came up with one of my own that wasn't contradicting (yet, or so far), etc.

Is there a possibility that I could be wrong? Well, yes, and there always is, etc, but it also "fits" a whole lot better than a lot of other people's ideas/theories that other people have, or have had, so far, etc.

I'm fairly confident that time will prove me right about what I am right now saying or am right now proposing in regards to this specific subject thus far right now, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Larniavc]

but it also "fits" a whole lot better than a lot of other people's ideas/theories that other people have, or have had, so far, etc.

I bet it doesn’t have any maths in it.

 

[Neogaia777]

I bet it doesn’t have any maths in it.

I'm sure somebody could build a mathematical model of it, or try, but, no, it doesn't require it. It's simple enough for a child, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.