-9
$\begingroup$

I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: Does a 4D quantum potential projected along the four-velocity recover gravity and the Schwarzschild metric?

I've submitted a question dealing with a paradigm that connects solidly with both QM and GR. According to the site rules, questions that try to extend existing science and attempt to connect with it should not be closed:

"For example, a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK."

Yet, my post was closed. Was this an error? It implements Penrose's suggestion that gravity should arise from QM. From the new QM basis it directly proceeds to connect with GR using rigorous derivations.

$\endgroup$
17
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ We do not do peer review here anyway. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 8:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Tobias, that's a strawman, and definitely not what my post asked for. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 8:28
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ You asked to take a look on your paper and evaluate your "theory", no?! $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 8:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I asked to look at the question. The paper is supplemental if the question is unclear. I should not be penalized for being thorough. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 8:29
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ As far as I can understand (correct me if I am wrong), you ask something like: "I have a theory, which does A ,B, C. How does it relate with concepts X, Y, Z?" --Which is clearly off-topic, because one would have to deal with your personal non-mainstream theory. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 8:34
  • $\begingroup$ That's an incorrect interpretation. Its within the boundaries of the rules. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 8:36
  • $\begingroup$ From physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/4538 "For example, a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK". $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 9:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You should remove the "meta" commentary from your main site question. You may wish to edit that info into this meta question. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 9:11
  • $\begingroup$ So if you're saying "I have a new way of looking at this standard mainstream thing, is it consistent with the mainstream approach?", that should be ok, although it may run into "check my work" territory if it doesn't focus on concepts. But any extensions or alternatives to mainstream physics are off-topic. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 9:31
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ We're not trying to be mean. It's just that we cannot provide adequate peer review of new physics in a Stack Exchange answer. It would require too much space, and a lot of work to provide a proper review. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 9:33
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Also, we need to be very strict with our "no non-mainstream" rule. Otherwise, we'd be inundated with non-mainstream stuff, mostly of low quality. Especially now that it's so easy to produce such material using GenAI. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 9:35
  • $\begingroup$ You may enjoy this example of applying higher dimensional geometry & projection to classical celestial mechanics: johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/… If someone independently discovered that and wanted to ask about it, it would be on-topic. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 9:47
  • $\begingroup$ PM 2Ring, I appreciate the tone of your response. Its refreshing compared to some other comments I've been getting. I will respect your opinion although I can't fully agree with it. Only questions of the nature that I've attempted to advance will ultimately lead to real advances in unifying QM and GR. I.e. - I can't imagine the nature of the questions, that will achieve the same, being any different. That's my honest opinion, and I respect your opinion. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 9:54
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @gstieger It does not matter what you used AI for. AI-generated text is strongly discouraged here regardless of whether it was used to generate ideas or just to "rephrase". See physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/14281/174766. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 15:55
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ My post was closed. Was this an error? No. There are five different problems with your post, any of which justifies closure. 1. It is a request for peer-review. 2. It is non-mainstream physics. 3. You didn’t disclose your use of AI. 4. The post is not self-contained. 5. The post relies on an external link which is highly unlikely to remain valid for the indefinite future. If you fix all five problems then perhaps users will vote to reopen your post. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 17:26

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
17
$\begingroup$

Peer-review is off topic here, and that is what your question is effectively asking us to do - review an entire paper. "Does this method ... hold any theoretical inconsistencies?" means someone would have to read the paper, determine whether there is a well-defined method there in the first place, then evaluate it against existing physics. That's (peer) review, which this site is not a suitable venue for and which is off-topic here.

So even if your paper would not consist of a non-mainstream theory of quantum gravity, this kind of question would be off-topic here. In this case, it is additionally non-mainstream, and so also off-topic as non-mainstream:

We are not a substitute for peer-review, and cannot evaluate new theories. While some questions can lead to legitimate new theories, the question will need to be specific in order to fit this format.

The later part you quote

For example, a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm, but asks for evaluation of that concept within the framework of current (mainstream) physics is OK.

is really supposed to mean "concepts" that are sufficiently small that answering questions about them does not border on peer review, and asking something more specific than "is this correct?" or "does this have any inconsistencies?". Otherwise this would completely invalidate the more general off-topicness of peer review regardless of the "mainstreamness" of the content.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ ACuriousMind, Thank you for responding. I understand the concern about peer review. My goal wasn’t to submit a full theory—though an early commenter unfortunately framed it that way—but to ask whether my projection mechanism (deriving gravity and the Schwarzschild metric from a 4D quantum potential) aligns with known GR results. I included derivations to clarify, not to invite full review. Based on the meta rule, I thought asking whether a specific projection reproduces GR behaviour was within scope. That said, narrowing the question (e.g., just on recovering 𝑅𝜇𝜈=0) may have helped. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 11:09
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @gstieger My goal wasn’t to submit a full theory—though an early commenter unfortunately framed it that way… This is a blatant mischaracterization of your goal and of my comment. The initial version of your post ended with “Just want to ensure this paper is solid before attempting to obtain a referral for submission to arXiv (gr-qc).” My initial comment, based on that initial version, correctly framed the original post as a request for peer review. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 16:15
  • $\begingroup$ Ghoster, let's not rehash this again. Asking a question so that I can finalize a paper should not be conflated with asking for a full review of a paper, neither that a referral would be obtained here - I did not specify. Get up to speed with the discussion - we've already gone through everything once. Not again pls and pay attention to descriptions accompanying down/up-voting! $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 16:20
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ @gstieger There is no way to “ensure this paper is solid” without a full review. Please do not instruct me on how to vote. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 16:22
  • $\begingroup$ Ghoster, you are arguing over semantics. Stop. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23 at 16:25
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @gstieger Let me summarize the situation for you: 1. The first comment that your post got (mine) said that it asked for peer review (and was thus off-topic). 2. A moderator’s answer to your meta question says that your post asked for peer review (and was thus off-topic). 3. That answer has been upvoted by double digits, indicating that the community here strongly agrees. My “framing” was correct and there was nothing “unfortunate” about it… at least from the community’s point of view. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 24 at 3:46
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @gstieger I encourage you to edit your post to make it on-topic. For example, you might consider deleting all mention of your specific ideas and making instead a reference request for papers that attempt to connect Bohmian quantum potentials, Euclidean-to-Lorentzian projection operators (something that I am unable to see how it makes sense, but nevermind that), and General Relativity. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 24 at 4:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.