First response (2001.10.22)
Reply (2001.10.24)
Final response (2001.10.25)

First response

Message-ID: <3BD43A63.BE6D37FC@ahobon.reduaz.mx>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:25:23 -0500
From: Valeri Dvoeglazov
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sweetser@alum.mit.edu
Subject: 2nd referee report
References: <200110022317.TAA29451@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

=====
RE: "There is no place like home: Looking for a metric equation for gravity within the structure of Maxwell equations" authored by D. Sweetser.

I had major problems with the manuscript by Sweetser. It looks like being an interesting mathematical exercise that, however, probably looses the connection to physical environment.

The way of handling the inverse square potential is tricky and should be used as an interim mathematical step only (as the early QM workers did ?). Also, the application of the metric replacement of mass looks somewhat strange. Distance r looks like the distance at which the Newtonian type gravitational energy is equal to the rest energy of mass m, mc^2 = GmM/r. In Schwarzschild metric the quantity 2GM/c^2 has the meaning of Schwarzschild singularity distance (or the distance for 90 degree tilting of local space-time). I did not understand the authorization for using r as the replacement of mass M ?

After the heavy mathematical treatment and arbitrary looking assumptions made it is very difficult to estimate the message or importance of the results.

Reply

To: Valeri Dvoeglazov
Reply-To: sweetser@alum.mit.edu
Subject: reply to reviewer 2
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:19:19 -0400
From: Doug B Sweetser

Reply to reviewer 2 comments on: "There is no place like home: Looking
for a classical metric equation for gravity within the structure of the Maxwell equations" by D. Sweetser

The paper is a mathematical exercise. The work is constrained to be consistent with classical gravity and special relativity. The physical predictions are a distinct classical metric theory for gravity and an explanation of the rotation profile and stability of disk galaxies.

A Lorentz invariant inverse square potential has been chosen for study. An inverse square potential whose resulting field is not normalized cannot be connected to classical gravity because the dependence on distance is wrong. The vast majority of work done in with inverse square potentials is with such fields. The need to be consistent with classical gravity requires the hypothesis that the field is normalized to the size of the potential. It is the normalized field that is physical, not the potential.

Classical gravity depends only on the source mass M and a distance R between the source mass and test mass. The source mass expressed as a distance is GM/c^2. A key hypothesis is that for the distance used in the inverse square potential to be connected to gravity, this distance is the sum of the distances GM/c^2 and R. Yes, this is a strange hypothesis, but it is simple, and makes predictions. Since R >>> GM/c^2, the sum of R + GM/c^2 will be approximately R, but any small change will have a larger effect proportionally in the smaller number, GM/c^2. The derivative of the potential with respect to time and then normalized to the potential is thus -GM/(c^2 tau^2).

The event horizon in the Schwarzschild metric is defined as the distance R where 1 - 2 GM/(c^2 R) = 0. This proposal does not recreate the Schwarzschild metric. In fact, there is no event horizon in the metric derived here, and so no black holes. There are places with a vast amount of mass in a small volume of space, but that physical observation is independent of the valid mathematical description of the physics.

Final response

Return-Path:
Received: from ahobon.reduaz.mx (ahobon.reduaz.mx [148.217.51.3]) by TheWorld.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA08771 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:42:47 -0400
Received: from ahobon.reduaz.mx ([148.217.51.54]) by ahobon.reduaz.mx (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17145 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3BD8330D.BA96E651@ahobon.reduaz.mx>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:43:10 -0500
From: Valeri Dvoeglazov
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sweetser@alum.mit.edu
Subject: reviewer 2
References: <200110241719.NAA25201@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This is the answer of the 2nd referee.
=====

I think that my original comments are well motivated still after the response from the author.

It is mainly question of the editorial policy of the magazine. A mathematical exercise and the discussion on fairly unknown dimensions of the Maxwell equations may be inspiring to some readers, but the strange assumptions needed in the derivation of gravitation question the relevance of the model in describing a physical system.
====

Comments & Questions: Physics Web Board

Next: Editor