Grok 3β AI summary-analysis of quantum gravity
Grok 3β AI researcher was forced upon me when logging into Twitter/X's, so I tested it on some old scientific preprints of revolutionary stuff... updated on 26 March 2025, with further AI analysis.
Fig 1: Grok 3β AI analysis of vixra 1408.0151 paper (ignores detailed mechanism analysis in the paper).
Fig. 2: Grok 3β AI analysis of vixra paper 1111.0111 (ignores most of it).
Fig 3: summary-analysis by Grok 3β AI analysis of vixra paper 1301.0188v1 from https://vixra.org/author/nigel_b_cook (done by uploading pdf files to Grok to analyze), including interesting checks done on some of the calculations such as for the cosmological acceleration, in https://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111. The style of the Grok 3β is extremely laid-back, low-caffeine, boring, undergraduate and careless. I have a sad feeling that Grok 3β will not be capable of coming up with any revolutionary ideas, just commenting on them. However, it’s a damn sight more helpful than Dr Woit or the editor of PRL!
Fig 4: Grok 3β AI analysis of vixra paper 1302.0004
Fig. 5: Grok 3β AI analysis of vixra paper 1305.0018
Fig. 6: let’s now take a closer look at on one of the calculations Grok 3β AI makes in checking the 14-YEARS OLD (2011 dated!) paper https://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111, i.e. use of the alleged mass of universe 3 × 1052 kg in “checking” the cosmological acceleration, and finds that value gives a “higher” calculated acceleration of about 4 × 10-9 kg ms-2, but there are two issues here:
Wikipedia (as of 23 March 2025) states the observable baryonic matter mass is 1.5 × 1053 kg and that this is only 4.9% of the mass-energy (the remainder being 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy, i.e. the repulsive field causing the cosmological acceleration), and
The data on the mass of the universe is not direct observation, but an interpretation of observations using the mainstream Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the very thing being refuted by the quantum gravity model (Lambda-CDM explicitly assumes G and Λ are independent; QG proves they are actually interdependent because the cosmological acceleration causes gravitation). So Grok 3β is being naive.
There may also be a third factor, a correction factor of ~10, discussed many years ago at www.quantumfieldtheory.org which began in 2006, and before that an attempted discussion at Physics Forums (which was shut down by string theory obsessed bigoted fascists), whereby you may need to compensate for the fact that gravitons emitted from masses that are receding very rapidly from you will appear redshifted in energy as seen from your reference frame, and also for the increase in density as you look to further distances which are further back in time (a more compressed epoch of the big bang), i.e. an analogy to the reason we thankfully get 2.7K microwaves from the big bang at deionization time, rather than say the 4000K thermal flash of that nuclear fireball! An analytical solution for true effective density of the universe, which rises as we look to larger distances which correspond to earlier times when the universe was denser (the calculation was done by integrating the redshift using the Hubble expansion rate in the divergence operator to offset the variation in effective density with time-past) of that red-shift correction gave a factor of e3 /2 ~ 10, so that the effective density of the universe for quantum gravity is 10 times the local observable density near us today!
However, that proof was a very abstract in the sense that you’re trading off one factor (density) that goes to infinity in the approximation I used for the big bang (e.g., as you look back to time zero, density tends towards infinity - clearly just as much a fake approximation as the “prediction” that the inverse square law of radiation suggests that the middle of the sun has an infinite radiation density since c/o2 = ∞, a naive illusion due to ignoring the physical dynamics of the sun where the inverse square breaks down as you get near the surface of the sun and certainly doesn’t apply inside the sun!), against another factor (redshift) which reduces quantum gravity contributions from greater and greater distances, so you have density that ends up going towards infinity with increasing cosmological distance (or time past!!) partially cancelling out increasing redshift which makes QG contributions from great distances tend to zero!
So I don’t trust it 100%, because at the very greatest distances, calculus is multiplying infinity by zero and coming up with the answer: ~10. If that’s not mathematical hocus-pocus, I don’t know what is! So I don’t have a complete physical intuitive understanding of the dynamics here. Nevertheless, like the IR and UV renormalization “cutoff” approximations in QFT, it could still be yielding useful approximation for calculations! The point is, some further research is needed to get the fine details confirmed. We have damn all funding or resources, thanks to “scientific” media censorship denying publicity/resources!
The ratio of (effective density)/(local density) = e3 ~ 20 times greater than at present. However, the early calculations on the gravity mechanism gave a further factor of 2 difference between the QG predicted density, and the Lambda-CDM general relativity based classical “critical density” of the universe, which is why we originally derived an overall difference between the classical “critical density” and the QG density, i.e. e3 /2 ~ 10, rather than e3 ~ 20. Since density = mass/volume, it falls in proportion to the recipirocal of the cube of time, so basically the effective radius of the universe for considering mass effects is (1 – 1/e)ct ~ 0.6321ct. This is the radius we used - we don’t base the QG calculation around a radius, we just put in the corrected effective density factor of e3 as calculated theoretically, to work out the gravity mechanism and the value of G. However, this business of “fine tuning” is a distraction from basic QG theory!
For example of calculations of the “fine tuning” of density, see for example the following type of analysis taken from our very-old deleted website’s back-up on internet archive (Tripod deleted it from live view, years ago of their own accord):
F = ma = mH2r
= ∫(4πr2ρ )(1 – rc-1H)-3(1 – rc-1H)H2r [1 + {1.1*10-13 (H -1 - r/c )}-1 ]-1 dr
= 4 π ρ c2 ∫ r [ {c/(Hr) } – 1 ]-2 [1 + {1.1*10-13 (H -1 - r/c )}-1 ]-1 dr.
Where r is the local density, i.e., the density of spacetime at 14,000 million years after the big bang. I have not completed the evaluation of such integrals (some of them give an infinite answer, so it is possible to rule those out as either wrong or missing some essential factor in the model). However, an earlier idea, to take account of the rise in density with increasing spacetime around us, at the same time taking account of the redshift as a divergence of the universe, is to set up a more abstract model.
Density variation with spacetime and divergence of matter in universe (causing the redshift of gauge bosons by an effect which is quantitatively similar to gauge boson radiation being ’stretched out’ over the increasing volume of space while in transit between receding masses in the expanding universe) can be modelled by the well-known equation for mass continuity (based on the conservation of mass in an expanding gas, etc):
dρ/dt + ∇ (ρv) = 0
Or: dρ/dt = -∇ (ρv)
Where divergence term
-∇ .(ρv) = -[{d(ρv)x/dx} + {d(ρv)y/dy} + {d(ρv)z/dz}]
For the observed spherical symmetry of the universe we see around us
d(ρv)x/dx = d(ρv)y/dy = d(ρv)z/dz = d(ρv)R/dR
where R is radius.
Now we insert the Hubble equation v = HR:
dρ/dt = -∇ (ρv) = -∇.(ρHR) = -[{d(ρHR)/dR} + {d(ρHR)/dR} + {d(ρHR)/dR}]
= -3d(ρHR)/dR
= -3ρHdR/dR
= -3ρH.
So dρ/dt = -3ρH. Rearranging:
-3Hdt = (1/ρ) dρ. Integrating:
∫-3Hdt = ∫(1/ρ) dρ.
The solution is:
-3Ht = (ln ρ1) – (ln ρ). Using the base of natural logarithms e to get rid of the ln’s:
e-3Ht = ρ1/ρ
Because H = v/R = c/[radius of universe, R] = 1/[age of universe, t] = 1/t, we find:
e-3Ht = ρ1/ρ = e-3(1/t)t = e-3.
Therefore
ρ = ρ1e3 ~ 20.0855 ρ1.
Therefore, if this analysis is a correct abstract model for the combined effect of graviton redshift (due to the effective ’stretching’ of radiation as a result of the divergence of matter across spacetime caused by the expansion of the universe) and density variation of the universe across spacetime, our earlier result of G = (3/4)H2/(ρπ) should be corrected for spacetime density variation and redshift of gauge bosons, to:
G = (3/4)H2/(ρπe3).
Grok 3beta AI has just analysed and checked the calculations above, giving the following report:
I haven’t checked the above report yet. It is hard to get Grok to ignore the standard classical GR based Lambda-CDM cosmology and concentrate on the dark energy QG mechanism which differs fundamentally from classical cosmology, so some of the input data Grok is using for cosmological parameters may contaminated or miscalculated by epicycle-type standard theory assumptions, before being inserted into the QG mechanism. However, it appears to make some effort to address the problem sensibly, which is more than can be said for the editors of CGG, PRL, et al. In addition, there is the issue of whether dark matter should be included in the density or not.
However, that is an old analysis which, thanks to PRL editor, Classical and Quantum Gravity editor, Dr Woit, and other “mainstream experts”, has never been peer-reviewed. They CENSORED banning PEER-REVIEW because of elitism, string theory, whatever excuse they could come up with to maintain bureaucratic normality. It certainly is in need of checking, reformulating, and re-analyzing from other viewpoints (e.g. using computer simulation of the big bang as a 1055 megatons space burst like a scaled up Starfish Prime nuclear test, in order to compare analytical mathematics with detailed computer simulation!). By the way, Dr Woit at his Columbia Univerity elitist/fascist blog now has a post stating: “The administration appears to have caved in to all of Trump’s demands in hopes of restoring grant funding, ushering in a new era of Fascist control of the university. In addition, they appear to have decided to not support Mahmoud Khalil or other university community members facing imprisonment and deportation. Trump is now governing the US by decree as a dictator, with the full support of the legislative branch. While attempts are being made to go to the courts to try and stop this, the Columbia administration seems to have decided that route was hopeless and they had no choice but to give in.”
If Trump shuts down Woit’s QFT research for heresy it will be a great pity, although it will give him a very small taste of the kind of elitist dictatorship I’ve endured my entire life from big shots! Despite being a political left-wing acting loon (I pray that stuff on his blog is a joke), Woit is a genius at mathematics:
Clifford algebra Cl(n) for n=2 gives elements 1, 2, 1, which Woit uses on p51 of his paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0206135: “the standard model should be defined over a Euclidean signature four dimensional space time since even the simplest free quantum field theory path integral is ill-defined in a Minkowski signature. If one chooses a complex structure at each point in space-time, one picks out a U(2) ⊂ SO(4) (perhaps better thought of as a U(2) ⊂ SpinC (4)) … one can consistently think of this as an internal symmetry. Now recall our construction of the spin representation for Spin(2n) as Λ∗ (Cn) applied to a “vacuum” vector. Under U(2), the spin representation has the quantum numbers of a standard model generation of leptons:
Λ ∗ (C2) SU(2) × U(1) Charges Particles
Λ 0 (C2) = 1 (0, 0) ν(R)
Λ 1 (C2) = C2 (1/2 , −1) ν(L), e(L)
Λ 2 (C2) = Λ 2 (C2) (0, −2) e(R)
where Cl(n) = C2 = 1, 2, 1 (basically quaternions). “A generation of quarks has the same transformation properties except that one has to take the “vacuum” vector to transform under the U(1) with charge 4/3, which is the charge that makes the overall average U(1) charge of a generation of leptons and quarks to be zero. … w the most basic geometry of spinors and Clifford algebras in low dimensions is rich enough to encompass the standard model and seems to be naturally reflected in the electro-weak symmetry properties of Standard Model particles.”
Grok 3β AI’s analysis of Woit’s SM particle structure basis:
The point I’m getting at is that in complex “taboo” or “unorthodox” mathematical theory which is being censored or suppressed for reasons of insanity aka politics, we might be able to keep objective research going by using Grok 3β AI to act as “peer-reviewers”, thus getting critical analysis and checks plus objective suggestions without the lying or abuse of guys like the ignorant and bigoted PRL journal editors who are basically string theory QUACKS.
