Theory about general relativity and quantum physics

[Edgard Neuman]

Hi,
I have a new idea about how to mix them, but i'm not a physicist and definitely not able to put math on it.. 

What if, instead of "curving space", density of matter would define the dimension (the Hamel dimension, not only integer) of space. Instead of having a "curved space", it would be a space "of varying local dimension", and of course, in first approximation at our scale, it would fit to the description of a curved space. (but it could also go higher than 4)... (I can picture this kind of space by viewing as a infinite graph with more or less links between nodes..)

So now at quantum scale, it would allow to have a higher dimensional space where particles are made of more elementary particles, as they would assemble into local topological structures generated by their own masses.. (the solar system for instance, is that)

Is that a good idea ? 

[Silvestru]

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I have a new idea about how to mix them, but i'm not a physicist and definitely not able to put math on it.. 

The trouble is, the problem with resolving QM and GR is a mathematical one. Without mathematics behind your idea, we can't say whether it would help or not. (And I don't have a clue what your idea is! :))

[Edgard Neuman]

1) the prerequisite for this idea is to define a continuous space which have local dimensions that are not just 2, 3 or 4, but can vary continuously. It's a thing I have in mind from long time ago but I'm not a mathematician so I don't have time to "work on it". I don't know if its possible. 
The ways I see it, this space is like the infinite limit of a graph. 

Imagine a graph : a collection of nodes, and links between some of them (and no underlying vectoriel space).

- We can find paths between far nodes, and mesure their lengths : the minimum number of links to cross to go from one to the other, is the distance between two points. 
- For isotropie, we don't use a regular pattern for the links : links are locally random, but there are certain laws which garantie that the "pseudo space" is kind of continuous : some construction rules like "when two nodes are linked via a long path, the probability of them being linked via a shortcut is low".. 
- We can define the local dimension, by measuring how the number of reachable node grow when we set the maximum length we go from a point.
For instance, if the graph is an approximation of a 2D space, the number of node should grow like R^2 (like the surface of the disc).. and if the graph is an approximation of a 3D space, it should grow like R^3.. so N(R) =~ a * R ^ dim... We see that for a given graph, "dim" could be any real number like "2.4564" or else.. 
- We can define "straight line".. using the shortest path, and we can also define "direction" by choosing the path from a point going always farthest from another distant point.  

So now we have some kind of math to manipulate a space whose local dimension is continuously varying.. dimension is the local connectivity of the graph.. 

- of course, each graph is an approximation of the supposed continuous space. The real space would be seen as the infinite limit of the considered graph when the nodes and links are smaller and smaller but the global statistical properties remain the same, invariant from the scale of the graph.. 

2) How it could replace "curvated space time" : instead of viewing space-time as a curvated Minkowky space, we put the theory in the variable dimension space. We can see "curvature" has the fact that in the direction where local dimension grow, the number of links going their grows. Imagine that something randomly travel the graph. The more the link are dense, the more the probability of ending their grows..

I have another analogy for this : It's like when the Google Bots travel the web using hyper links between sites. If you have a lot of hyperlink crossing on your site, the google bot is more likely to get stuck in it longer (it's actually a S.E.O. technique). 
So maybe it's what gravity is : a local space with more dimension, is like a graph more interconnected, and so navigating in it is more likely than going out of it : it's the gravitational force. 
We still assume that density of matter define local dimension (as it defined curvature in G.R.)

3) Now, let's go at the scale of particles. Lots of theory I read need extra dimensions. The quantum void  is said to be a topological foam. Let's put it in the variable dimensional space instead : maybe particles are dense enough to create local dimension higher than 3, maybe 4 or 5 etc.. maybe the interactions between particles and this space create a certain collection of stable topological structures. Those possible structures would be particles and their families (like the strings in the string theories).. 

I know it is very very very far fetched.. maybe It can inspire somebody..

Edited September 28, 2017 by Edgard Neuman

[Vmedvil]

On 9/28/2017 at 4:49 PM, Edgard Neuman said:

1) the prerequisite for this idea is to define a continuous space which have local dimensions that are not just 2, 3 or 4, but can vary continuously. It's a thing I have in mind from long time ago but I'm not a mathematician so I don't have time to "work on it". I don't know if its possible. 
The ways I see it, this space is like the infinite limit of a graph. 

Imagine a graph : a collection of nodes, and links between some of them (and no underlying vectoriel space).

- We can find paths between far nodes, and mesure their lengths : the minimum number of links to cross to go from one to the other, is the distance between two points. 
- For isotropie, we don't use a regular pattern for the links : links are locally random, but there are certain laws which garantie that the "pseudo space" is kind of continuous : some construction rules like "when two nodes are linked via a long path, the probability of them being linked via a shortcut is low".. 
- We can define the local dimension, by measuring how the number of reachable node grow when we set the maximum length we go from a point.
For instance, if the graph is an approximation of a 2D space, the number of node should grow like R^2 (like the surface of the disc).. and if the graph is an approximation of a 3D space, it should grow like R^3.. so N(R) =~ a * R ^ dim... We see that for a given graph, "dim" could be any real number like "2.4564" or else.. 
- We can define "straight line".. using the shortest path, and we can also define "direction" by choosing the path from a point going always farthest from another distant point.  

So now we have some kind of math to manipulate a space whose local dimension is continuously varying.. dimension is the local connectivity of the graph.. 

- of course, each graph is an approximation of the supposed continuous space. The real space would be seen as the infinite limit of the considered graph when the nodes and links are smaller and smaller but the global statistical properties remain the same, invariant from the scale of the graph.. 

2) How it could replace "curvated space time" : instead of viewing space-time as a curvated Minkowky space, we put the theory in the variable dimension space. We can see "curvature" has the fact that in the direction where local dimension grow, the number of links going their grows. Imagine that something randomly travel the graph. The more the link are dense, the more the probability of ending their grows..

I have another analogy for this : It's like when the Google Bots travel the web using hyper links between sites. If you have a lot of hyperlink crossing on your site, the google bot is more likely to get stuck in it longer (it's actually a S.E.O. technique). 
So maybe it's what gravity is : a local space with more dimension, is like a graph more interconnected, and so navigating in it is more likely than going out of it : it's the gravitational force. 
We still assume that density of matter define local dimension (as it defined curvature in G.R.)

3) Now, let's go at the scale of particles. Lots of theory I read need extra dimensions. The quantum void  is said to be a topological foam. Let's put it in the variable dimensional space instead : maybe particles are dense enough to create local dimension higher than 3, maybe 4 or 5 etc.. maybe the interactions between particles and this space create a certain collection of stable topological structures. Those possible structures would be particles and their families (like the strings in the string theories).. 

I know it is very very very far fetched.. maybe It can inspire somebody..

You shouldn't think about that so much you should be more interested in a way to balance out something that gives you an exact position versus change of position to a location around that area, this is why Einstein had so much trouble connecting both of them the last 20 years of his life. If Relativity tells you the particle should be exactly at position A and Quantum Mechanics tells you between A and B, is it at point A or Between A to B. Those nodes are where it should be, but that doesn't still give you an exact location like GR and SR. Secondly, You are talking about a Lie Manifold when you speak about local connectivity graph which shows all possible pathways of the particle in String Theory. 

So, what exact position should it take under GR being exactly at A₄ which breaks uncertainty or is QM right and it should be in the volume with the most connections so somewhere in A_1↻ ∞  or  A to B which breaks relativity?

Edited October 7, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Edgard Neuman]

On 07/10/2017 at 10:32 AM, Vmedvil said:

You shouldn't think about that so much you should be more interested in a way to balance out something that gives you an exact position versus change of position to a location around that area, this is why Einstein had so much trouble connecting both of them the last 20 years of his life. If Relativity tells you the particle should be exactly at position A and Quantum Mechanics tells you between A and B, is it at point A or Between A to B. Those nodes are where it should be, but that doesn't still give you an exact location like GR and SR. Secondly, You are talking about a Lie Manifold when you speak about local connectivity graph which shows all possible pathways of the particle in String Theory. 

So, what exact position should it take under GR being exactly at A₄ which breaks uncertainty or is QM right and it should be in the volume with the most connections so somewhere in A_1↻ ∞  or  A to B which breaks relativity?

I don't understand much of what you said, I admit. 
1)  If we accepted the cosmological model, I think (maybe I'm wrong) each point of space time can be related to a sphere in the universe at a given age, like t=0.0001s for instance. You just have to get back in time following the light cone. Space itself is not so relative. The co-mobile frame is the one the really mater. 
2) My idea doesn't suppose anything about what's in the graph (a wave ? information ?) it's just a way to figure a non integer dimension space..
Quantum theory is just probability waves of particle in space.. That could be any space.. the space (may it be a curved space, a Hilbert space, a flat euclidean space) is a collection of locations. Quantum theory tells about the way what's in it behave.. You can draw Feynman graphs into 2D 3D space etc..Probability waves can evolve in any kind of space..  We know that we should run quantum theory in space-time space, and the difficulty is the complexity of describing with equations and math what's happening, because particles as object are not  in "1 location" but is spread in space (so it's hard to describe energy density) , but quantum theory in GR curved space is what's really happening

My question really is : is space time curvature be the same thing  as a fractal dimensional local variation of a graph of position ? (what ever is in it)
Imagine a local space with a spatial dimension of 3.1 (the Hausdorff dimension, the way a quantity of space grow when you scale up a n-sphere)..

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

My question really is : is space time curvature be the same thing  as a fractal dimensional local variation of a graph of position ? (what ever is in it)
Imagine a local space with a spatial dimension of 3.1 (the Hausdorff dimension, the way a quantity of space grow when you scale up a n-sphere)..

No. The notion of curvature - in particular the intrinsic curvature used in General Relativity - makes sense only on smooth, differential manifolds. A topological construct with non-integer Hausdorff dimension cannot be a differential manifold (I know this can be formally proven, though I forgot the name of the theorem). You would also find it hard to define events and their separation on such a topological construct, never even mind pulling that all together into a self-consistent model that represents gravity as we see it in the real world.

It’s an interesting idea though, but not mathematically workable so far as I can see.

[Edgard Neuman]

ok, I understand that an actual fractal structure can't be continuous. That's not what I 'm talking about. 
1) GR equations are only the large scale successful approximation of the small scale reality. You can't  be sure that small scale is continuous.. and that it doesn't appears continuous only at large scale .. In fact I read many times that small scale is described as a topological foam because of quantum fluctuations.. 
2) I'm not talking about an actual defined fractal structure, as I wrote, I'm talking about the infinite limit of a graph that we could continuously subdivide while maintaining some scale independent properties. It's easy to think about.. I tried to make a computer version of it but I failed..  It's not a graph, it's the infinite subdivision of it.
 
I don't use Hausdorff dimension is the auto similarity context, but in the idea of how surface and volume grow with scale (maybe  the "hausdorff definition" is not the one I'm thinking about.. I don't know the proper name of everything ).. .If you have a wave (or anything that propagates through locations linked together while carrying an amplitude).. the way the amplitude fade with the distance give you the dimension.
In a 1 dimension space : the amplitude doesn't change.. In 2D space, the wave is integrated along the perimeter, so it's the inverse of distance (1/p = 1/ Pi * r *2).. in 3D the wave is divided along the surface of the sphere . so (1 / Pi * r² *4) etc.. 
(the inverse of the surface formula of the Nsphere.. give you a formula so you can always find "n" when you vary R in a graph, even when n is fractional).

I would be very interested to see how you would prove that you can't build a continuous fractional dimension space. Because it's easy for me to picture. You just need a space where the surface of the n-sphere is given by the formula where n is not an integer. And since we know a curved space also change the surface of the sphere, I'm failing to see how it is different. 

You seem to look for every little flaws in the usage of the words I use. That's not what is important here. Please  understand what
I am actually talking about, and not just every separate words.

And you always seem to forget that equations never actually describe reality. They always describe "mean" properties.. there is no "real" circle in the universe (since there are is only particles).. When you say "the intrinsic curvature used in General Relativity" is continuous. I say : of course, that's how it was built, it's a mathematical object. It's like you told me, "the circle is always continuous."
But me, I'm talking about the actual universe that the model is describing, Not the GR description of it.. I want to know if it can be describe by another model. (Yes, I know it's a very very good approximation, but we also know that every theory has limits, and GR doesn't apply for instance in singularities.. )

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Edgard Neuman

[Edgard Neuman]

never mind I think I found the answer..
I a flat "n" dimension space, the surface of the N-sphere would be = constant(n) * R ^ n 
(n is integer or not)
I a curved "n" dimension space, the surface of the N-sphere would be = k * constant(n) * R ^n
so k define the curvature, but the dimension is still the power of R (so it's two separate variables)
(in fact I'm not sure about that... the continuous curved space is always locally flat, so it's more a variation of "R^n" than a constant)
but it's strange because, in a graph, you can as I said define a equivalent (a discrete analog I mean) to the surface of the sphere, but it only depend on the density of links. At this point it's more of a math question.

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

Curvature has a specific relation that is tricky to explain. Its not curvature as  shape per se, but curvature of the geodesics of space-like and time-like geodesics.  Null geodesics which is the geodesic of massless particles which define a world-line forms the ds^2 line element.  A flat world-line the parallel transport of two light rays will remain parallel. With curvature those light-paths will either converge or diverge. It is literally the curve of geodesics which is called space-time curvature.

 In order to calculate the curvature you must look at how the fluid equations under the FRW metric affectnull geodesics or under GR the energy momentum stress tensor. (curvature requires a non zero tensor.).

 

 It  would be pointless to apply a fractal to the possible paths of least resistance involved in worldliness unless you also plan on adding the weighted probability of the likelihood of probable paths.

 

On ‎2018‎-‎07‎-‎11 at 10:40 AM, Markus Hanke said:

 

It’s an interesting idea though, but not mathematically workable so far as I can see.

Certainly not via looking at shapes instead of world line curve fitting. Unless you are dealing directly with how it applies to the principle vectors such an example is as follows

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski–Bouligand_dimension

Edited July 13, 2018 by Mordred

[Markus Hanke]

8 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

You seem to look for every little flaws in the usage of the words I use. That's not what is important here. Please  understand what
I am actually talking about, and not just every separate words.

I can only work with what you provided in the first place - which was a verbal description. However, if you show me a proposal for a mathematical formalism, then I am happy to take a closer look at it.

8 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

You can't  be sure that small scale is continuous

GR is a classical model, the domain of applicability of which is limited to the classical domain. So you are right, it is only an effective description for the macroscopic scale. While we don’t as per yet have a consensus on what a full theory of quantum gravity would look like, I think it is pretty safe to say that such a theory would involve space and time becoming granular and probabilistic. In fact, there is a big question mark as to whether time even plays a role at all in that domain. GR would need to be the classical limit of such a model. So yes, we can be fairly sure that it probably isn’t continuous on small scales.

8 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

In fact I read many times that small scale is described as a topological foam because of quantum fluctuations..

Yes, that is one possibility (among others).

8 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I would be very interested to see how you would prove that you can't build a continuous fractional dimension space.

The trouble isn’t to build a fractional space, but to build a differentiable manifold. The latter is a much stronger condition. And manifolds can have only integer-valued dimensionality. The trouble is that the entire machinery of GR relies on such manifolds to make any physical sense. For example, how do you define an object that maps smoothly into the Riemann tensor (which you’d need to do to capture the physics of GR) in a fractal space? And what’s even more difficult, how do you model the fundamental symmetries of spacetime (i.e. local Lorentz invariance and global diffeomorphism invariance) in a fractal space?

Like I said, if you have a specific proposal how to do these things, then I’m happy to look at it - but I can’t see how this could possibly work. 

8 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

But me, I'm talking about the actual universe that the model is describing, Not the GR description of it.. I want to know if it can be describe by another model.

I understand what you are trying to do (I have been at this for a very long time, and have seen literally hundreds of people attempt similar endeavours) - you want to build a different map that describes the same territory, so to speak. There is nothing wrong with that - in fact I applaud you for having an interest in this -, but you need to also make sure that you capture all the relevant physics. Whatever model you build, it has to be a good description of gravity, i.e. it needs to map into the available experimental and observational data. It also has to be internally self-consistent, and make mathematical sense. That’s a pretty tough challenge.

P.S. It may be of interest to you - in case you don’t already know this - that some proposals for models of quantum gravity actually lead to small-scale spacetimes that have a fractal structure of sorts. The prime example here is a model called causal dynamical triangulations (CDT):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

 

 

[Edgard Neuman]

Quote

Whatever model you build, it has to be a good description of gravity, i.e. it needs to map into the available experimental and observational data. 

Yes of course (I call it having the "same properties"). I know the success of GR so I know any concurrent theory has to include all its results.. But if you try to fit any theory in its specific mathematical structure, it will obviously never work.. the next theory will probably need new paradigms. 
I you refuse to even start to build a new theory because the bricks don't fit in GR, you will never build anything, even though the whole house could eventually replace RG.  (I don't pretend anything that just ideas).. A new theory would replace the whole thing, the only thing that remains is the shape (the results)

Quote

 but to build a differentiable manifold

1) The graph I think about is the infinitely subdivided limit.. So it could be kind of continuous..
2) I don't want to build a differentiable manifold.. I understand the trouble. Particle needs to have constant speed and constant direction.. In my idea, that would be something else.. You can define "direction" in a graph.. Think about the way light travel : in a book Feynman explain that light travel the shortest path because the wave cancel itself in slow paths.. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation) So the light straight trajectory is only a result of wave propagation through space.. That works in the graph ! If a wave travel the graph it still cancel itself in slow paths. In that case, the conservation of impulsion, in the graph, can be explain by path integration. 

Quote

P.S. It may be of interest to you - in case you don’t already know this - that some proposals for models of quantum gravity actually lead to small-scale spacetimes that have a fractal structure of sorts. The prime example here is a model called causal dynamical triangulations (CDT):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

Yes ! 
I have the feeling that what blocks us is the way we describe space with mathematical structure that are limiting our views. We know that space is curved everywhere, but we still want to see it has a modified flat space (I understand that it's the Minkosky version of it that is curved). All we know is that space is a collection of "locations" with connections (if location are infinitely close, and tends to be flat at small scale, it's continuous, but even that we can't be sure at small scale)..
The other reason I think that, is because I think we are not in a 3D space, not in a 4D space, but in a xD (where 3 < x <4).. That would be a model for "time" : if some paths exists and some others don't, we can go "anywhere" in the space. To do that, I take the problem of the arrow of time backward. Considere spacetime as a mathematical absolute space containing events (in space time so) so we suppose a 4D space. The arrow of time means that you can't go back (move to a previous event).. meaning in that "space time" paths that go to a place they where before don't exist. In other way there is no "loop" in this space time.. So you remove some of the 4D space links..The result might be a fractional dimensional space, where particles can't go back where they were... (a 4D space without any time travel paradox) 
I think graphs are a way to study any "space" using a discreet version of continuous space, with no limit on connectivity. 

Modern theories always try to describe the whole results with number (the whole trajectory, the whole "metrics" of the whole system, the equation that gives any results of what happening anywhere) but I'm not sure this really exist (if even the 3 body problem is unsolvable, how could we resolve the "every particle problem"). We know that large scale is the result of local events, so instead of that, we should focus on local laws. 
Thanks a lot

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

Curvature has a specific relation that is tricky to explain. Its not curvature as  shape per se, but curvature of the geodesics of space-like and time-like geodesics.  Null geodesics which is the geodesic of massless particles which define a world-line forms the ds^2 line element.  A flat world-line the parallel transport of two light rays will remain parallel. With curvature those light-paths will either converge or diverge. It is literally the curve of geodesics which is called space-time curvature.

 In order to calculate the curvature you must look at how the fluid equations under the FRW metric affectnull geodesics or under GR the energy momentum stress tensor. (curvature requires a non zero tensor.).

 

 It  would be pointless to apply a fractal to the possible paths of least resistance involved in worldliness unless you also plan on adding the weighted probability of the likelihood of probable paths.

 

Certainly not via looking at shapes instead of world line curve fitting. Unless you are dealing directly with how it applies to the principle vectors such an example is as follows

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski–Bouligand_dimension

Yes I understand the space time curvature is the curvature of trajectories in space time (and not just a topological curvature of space)
So as I understand it, curvature is the average measure of paths intersections ? (do the paths diverge or converge).. so that tends to confirm that it is the same thing as the variation of the surface of the nSphere.
Thanks a lot.. I have no more question. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Edgard Neuman

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I you refuse to even start to build a new theory because the bricks don't fit in GR, you will never build anything, even though the whole house could eventually replace RG.

 

I have been watching this thread from the sidelines as you have some interesting and valid points to make.

But mockery through hyperbole is not the way to argue.

 

We build standard houses from standard bricks.

Sometimes special bricks are needed for a particular architectural feature or situation. These 'specials' are usually specially made to order.

 

Marcus said that he wanted to work with continuous manifolds, I presume because he wanted to use calculus.

 

However calculus of a sort is available for discontinuous manifolds, indeed the original calculus was discontinuous, and is still used under the term finite differences.

So how about a mathematical refutation of a mathematical requirement?

[koti]

47 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I have been watching this thread from the sidelines as you have some interesting and valid points to make.

But mockery through hyperbole is not the way to argue.

 

We build standard houses from standard bricks.

Sometimes special bricks are needed for a particular architectural feature or situation. These 'specials' are usually specially made to order.

 

Marcus said that he wanted to work with continuous manifolds, I presume because he wanted to use calculus.

 

However calculus of a sort is available for discontinuous manifolds, indeed the original calculus was discontinuous, and is still used under the term finite differences.

So how about a mathematical refutation of a mathematical requirement?

I’ve been watching from the sidelines too and he’s indeed got interesting directions in his points. He clearly stated he doesn’t have enough math knowledge to continue onto creating a model, I think hes asking for help. The idea that gravity might leak into small curled up dimentions (I think this is where this all leads too) is far fetched but it has been brought up before by physicists and just might be a thing. I can’t remember who brought this up, it might have been Penrose or Hawking in one of their books. 

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, koti said:

I’ve been watching from the sidelines too and he’s indeed got interesting directions in his points. He clearly stated he doesn’t have enough math knowledge to continue onto creating a model, I think hes asking for help. The idea that gravity might leak into small curled up dimentions (I think this is where this all leads too) is far fetched but it has been brought up before by physicists and just might be a thing. I can’t remember who brought this up, it might have been Penrose or Hawking in one of their books. 

Edit this bit about probabilities belongs in the other thread. Sorry.

Here is a good discussion of combined probabilities

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/72589/whats-the-probability-of-at-least-and-exactly-one-event-occurring

 

I don't favour the use of 'curled' dimensions.

The use of 'curled' runs into the same problem as the use of warped or curved in the question of 'where does it curve/curl/warp into?

Far better (IMHO) to use the notion of non linear dimensions which do not have this issue.

Edited July 13, 2018 by studiot

[koti]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

I don't favour the use of 'curled' dimensions.

The use of 'curled' runs into the same problem as the use of warped or curved in the question of 'where does it curve/curl/warp into?

Far better (IMHO) to use the notion of non linear dimensions which do not have this issue.

I wasn’t aware that „curled” is an analogous faux-pas to warped/curved, thanks for pointing it out. 

As for the OP, I think there might be certain clues in existing well tested frameworks like GR and QM that show as weird or funny features which might be an indication of some more fundamental reality which lies underneath. One of those funny features might be the strength of gravity compared to other forces. 

[Markus Hanke]

7 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

A new theory would replace the whole thing, the only thing that remains is the shape (the results)

But for what purpose? If you replace GR, you are immediately in a situation where you need to replace SR as well, since the latter is a special case of the former. The domino blocks then keep on falling, because SR forms the basis for many other models in physics, for example quantum field theory. All of these theories are known to work very well, so why replace them?

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but you need to remember that GR does not stand in isolation. All models in physics are interconnected and interdependent in some way, so if you replace one, so will need to rework many others as well. 

It is far more meaningful to try and find generalisations of existing models - for example, looking for models of quantum gravity, which would then have GR as their classical limit. And that is where physics is heading right at the moment. I personally also think that is the right direction (and I’m not a phycisist).

It’s difficult for me to comment on the rest, without a mathematical formalism to work with.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

But for what purpose? If you replace GR, you are immediately in a situation where you need to replace SR as well, since the latter is a special case of the former. The domino blocks then keep on falling, because SR forms the basis for many other models in physics, for example quantum field theory. All of these theories are known to work very well, so why replace them?

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but you need to remember that GR does not stand in isolation. All models in physics are interconnected and interdependent in some way, so if you replace one, so will need to rework many others as well. 

It is far more meaningful to try and find generalisations of existing models - for example, looking for models of quantum gravity, which would then have GR as their classical limit. And that is where physics is heading right at the moment. I personally also think that is the right direction (and I’m not a phycisist).

It’s difficult for me to comment on the rest, without a mathematical formalism to work with.

An Astronomer of some renown once told me that any future validated QGT will almost certainly encompass GR and the BB.