Something wrong with this Theory of Quantum Gravity?

[Atom22]

A member recently showed me this paper published on HAL about quantum gravity and i cannot seem to find anything wrong with the equations and they are able to reproduce Newton Universal Gravitation and Einstein's Equations in the appropriate limits

Here is the url of the paper:  https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01609542

 

Can someone show me anything ive missed (I know the paper has been peer reviewed but... if this theory is correct why isnt anybody talking about it.?)

 

 

 

[taeto]

It is unlikely that the version that you link to has been peer reviewed, seeing how it is full of mistakes of all kinds.

[Atom22]

14 minutes ago, taeto said:

It is unlikely that the version that you link to has been peer reviewed, seeing how it is full of mistakes of all kinds.

Atleast i didnt find anything wrong with the equations and reasoning... can you give examples of the mistakes you speak of or are you refering of typos?

[taeto]

On 12/21/2018 at 12:53 PM, Atom22 said:

Atleast i didnt find anything wrong with the equations and reasoning... can you give examples of the mistakes you speak of or are you refering of typos?

I am not sure that saying that all the mistakes are just "innocent typos" gives evidence in favor of the article likely having been reviewed. And we can throw in that the author's name is duplicate. No journal would allow that.

The first line of the abstract states that we can "view gravity as the de Broglie wavelength of quantum mechanics". A few problems here. Gravity is not a physical quantity, and certainly not a length. And QM does not possess a de Broglie wavelength.  The second to third line of the abstract is just nonsense as well. 

But you want equations. Equation (1) is nonsense. The LHS is a number, and the RHS is either undefined or a binary operator, which is anyone's guess so long as it is not defined. 

Thereafter, the quaternions do not have the properties that are claimed here.

There is no "familiar Clifford space" either. The concept that is familiar is Clifford algebra.

Equation (2) makes no sense unless p is identically zero.

In the subsequent displayed equation, the "p_i" is not even defined.

In the next displayed equation, there is no referent to the symbol "n".

Right after that, there is division by zero; N=1/p.

After that everything is mostly word salad and nosensical expressions. 

But tell me one single thing, somewhere in this paper, that you are convinced that it is actually correct, please?

[Strange]

On 21/12/2018 at 12:03 PM, Atom22 said:

(I know the paper has been peer reviewed...

If so, where is it published?

[Atom22]

2 hours ago, taeto said:

 

The first line of the abstract states that we can "view gravity as the de Broglie wavelength of quantum mechanics". A few problems here. Gravity is not a physical quantity, and certainly not a length. And QM does not possess a de Broglie wavelength. 

Gravity is not a physical quantity and certainly not length?

The De Broglie wavelength / matter waves is the wave / particle duality of particles. That particles can have a wave aspect to them and waves can exhibit particle like properties... so the author is extending this view to planets and stars. The De Broglie wavelength (which has energy E=hf) of the planet

As for equation 2, not making sense are you farmiliar with hyperreals?

But what i found interesting is not the preliminary chapter about the definition of space but rather what the author said concerning what happened before the big bang

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

If so, where is it published?

I have no idea about this. A member sent me the link.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Atom22

[taeto]

8 minutes ago, Atom22 said:

Gravity is not a physical quantity and certainly not length?

Correct. Gravity is a concept. The gravitational constant is a quantity, and it is not measured in meters.

[Atom22]

I am also doubting the credibility of your review because even on wikipedia the quaternions have the same definition as in the paper

[taeto]

10 minutes ago, Atom22 said:

The De Broglie wavelength / matter waves is the wave / particle duality of particles. That particles can have a wave aspect to them and waves can exhibit particle like properties... so the author is extending this view to planets and stars. The De Broglie wavelength (which has energy E=hf) of the planet

It is de Broglie, not De Broglie. You say that you understand the explanation in the paper. Do you know how the de Broglie wavelength of a particle is defined at all?

12 minutes ago, Atom22 said:

I am also doubting the credibility of your review because even on wikipedia the quaternions have the same definition as in the paper

These are correct. But if you check again with the paper, it says something completely different.

[Strange]

40 minutes ago, Atom22 said:

I have no idea about this. A member sent me the link.

Is that Romeo22? Why isn’t he discussing his paper?

[taeto]

3 hours ago, taeto said:

 

I answer the OP's question, only to get a downvote. Not that I care a lot.

But seriously, in a forum is it really supposed to be better rewarded not to answer questions?

2 hours ago, Atom22 said:

As for equation 2, not making sense are you farmiliar with hyperreals?

Possibly not as familiar as you are. But the transfer principle immediately allows me to ascertain that the limit p in (2) is identically equal to 0. 

I did not say that (2) does not make sense. What I said was that it only makes sense if p is 0. 

[Atom22]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Is that Romeo22? Why isn’t he discussing his paper?

Well the person wished to stay anonymous 

[taeto]

3 minutes ago, Atom22 said:

Well the person wished to stay anonymous 

Who? Romeo D. Matshaba, the author?

[Romeo22]

13 minutes ago, taeto said:

Who? Romeo D. Matshaba, the author?

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Is that Romeo22? Why isn’t he discussing his paper?

Not me

Edited December 23, 2018 by Romeo22

[Atom22]

15 hours ago, Strange said:

Is that Romeo22? Why isn’t he discussing his paper?

Did you check the part where he explains about what happened before the Big Bang?

[Strange]

34 minutes ago, Atom22 said:

Did you check the part where he explains about what happened before the Big Bang?

Are you familiar with the phrase "not even wrong"?

He starts with the false assumption that "the only explanation is that the universe is created from nothing" and then uses some pseudo-mathematical mumbo-jumbo to try to justify this.

I'm not sure why you are so fascinated by some nonsense written by a random guy on the internet when there are plenty of scientists who have written about the subject.

[Atom22]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Are you familiar with the phrase "not even wrong"?

Yes this is precisely my problem

 

He starts with the false assumption that "the only explanation is that the universe is created from nothing" and then uses some pseudo-mathematical mumbo-jumbo to try to justify this.

 

Would you rather prefer a universe that is created from something? If you do, you then have to face the infinite series of questions what created that, and what created that, ad infinitum

So a universe created from nothing as a reasonable assumption.

This is a view shared by many physicist including  Lawrence Krauss

[Strange]

40 minutes ago, Atom22 said:

Would you rather prefer a universe that is created from something? If you do, you then have to face the infinite series of questions what created that, and what created that, ad infinitum

I don't really have any preferences. But, I suppose, a universe that has always existed seems more intuitive.

40 minutes ago, Atom22 said:

So a universe created from nothing as a reasonable assumption.

This is a view shared by many physicist including  Lawrence Krauss

There are a few speculative ideas along these lines. And others that do not assume a universe from nothing. You can take your pick. (But note that the "nothing" in Krauss's and Hawking's speculations are not "absolutely nothing". From what I have read these ideas depend on some preexisting vacuum state.)

These ideas are based on scientific theories (eg. false vacuum, quantum fluctuations) unlike the paper in the OP, which is philosophical musing with a dressing of math salad.

[beecee]

On 12/24/2018 at 10:39 PM, Atom22 said:

Yes this is precisely my problem

 

He starts with the false assumption that "the only explanation is that the universe is created from nothing" and then uses some pseudo-mathematical mumbo-jumbo to try to justify this.

 

Would you rather prefer a universe that is created from something? If you do, you then have to face the infinite series of questions what created that, and what created that, ad infinitum

So a universe created from nothing as a reasonable assumption.

This is a view shared by many physicist including  Lawrence Krauss

 

On 12/24/2018 at 11:19 PM, Strange said:

I don't really have any preferences. But, I suppose, a universe that has always existed seems more intuitive.

There are a few speculative ideas along these lines. And others that do not assume a universe from nothing. You can take your pick. (But note that the "nothing" in Krauss's and Hawking's speculations are not "absolutely nothing". From what I have read these ideas depend on some preexisting vacuum state.)

These ideas are based on scientific theories (eg. false vacuum, quantum fluctuations) unlike the paper in the OP, which is philosophical musing with a dressing of math salad.

  As I have said a few times, perhaps its our definition of "nothing" that needs evaluating...perhaps the hypothetical quantum foam from whence the BB arose maybe the closest to nothing that can ever be possible...

https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/