Gravity is Heat-Induced Change in Local Space Quantum Fields



  1. Anonymous ReviewersSeptember 4th, 2020 at 06:47 pm

    Please find attached our comment on this work as well as recommendations on how to improve it.

  2. Howard SlaterAugust 29th, 2019 at 08:51 pm

    I really do appreciate this further response: ot o perhaps a regret that you do not feel able to reach out directly by Email.

    1. There are many reasons why I have adopted this approach. Odentifying a new paradigm is hazardous. I have spoken to several academics who admit that they know that there is something wrong with big bang. I understand the career-threatening fear of taking this on for professional cosmologists/physicists.
    2. With great respect it is more than a prototype. Please look at the logical arguments put forward in the earlier paper (2019-2-04).  Further literature that I think is relevant is quoted there. I could perhaps of repeated all that, but I saw no worth point in so doing.
    3. A mathematical model has been suggested. One of the issues in discussions about the link betqeen quantum mechanics and relativity is tortured, with none of the current efforts, now over many decades, achieving a resilution. So the principle I have adopted is to idnetify a model and see how this is picked up.
    4. As you say, " it benefits everyone to communicate it in the best way possible." I please guilt to that and will continue to develop the ideas.
  3. Anonymous ReviewersAugust 26th, 2019 at 12:27 pm

    It is a common expectation that a scientific paper should not consist of a very early prototype of an idea, but should also include backing logical and mathematical arguments or experimental / observational evidence. It is perfectly find to say that a given concept deserves full analysis, but in this case definitive statements about the fact that this prototype concept "neatly complies with Einstein's field equations (EFE)" shouldn't be made. This may be replaced for example by "it should be investigated whether a mathematical formulation of this hypothesis would comply with the EFE". The criticism of lack of motivation should be clarified. The will to move science forward is a common motivation for any researcher. What is meant by motivation in the previously attached review is that with respects to the theory presented in this work, it doesn't seem clear how it fits in existing literature or which possible  limitations of the existing theories it seeks to address. For example, does it focus on some observations that are not properly explained by commonly accepted theories? What are these observations and what work has been done yet to try to address the discrepancies? What is lacking in this existing work and how does the current work complement it? We hope that these points as well as other flaws pointed out in our review are addressed in future versions. Indeed, if there is an underlying scientific breakthrough, it stands to benefit everyone that it is communicated in the best way possible.

  4. Howard SlaterAugust 26th, 2019 at 11:18 am

    Review of “Gravity is Heat-Induced Change in Local Space Quantum Fields”


    Several terms are used that are not defined properly, either in the present work or in referenced work. Little to no reference is made to past literature and certainly not to recent literature, such that the motivations of this work seem non-existent. Several claims are made without any logical or mathematical argument backing them. For example, it is said that “the variations in the amount and rate of heat loss from a universe body (...) can describe gravity, neatly complying with Einstein’s field equations.”, but this statement is not followed by a mathematical demonstration of the compatibility with the Einstein field equations. Furthermore, some of the content of this paper doesn’t align with widely accepted core physics concepts. For example, the word “chaotic” is seemingly used to refer to “random” when it is accepted to indicate systems that are very sensitive to initial conditions. We don't recommend the publication of this work at this stage as it does not fit standards of scientific collaboration. This work should be refined to offer a better presentation of the theories proposed, with definitions for each terms and connections to existing literature.

  5. Howard SlaterAugust 26th, 2019 at 11:16 am

    I very much appreciates the comments made by "Anonymous Reviewers 25 Aug 19". The reviewers have missed the points made previously (first communications) that ot is entirely accepted that in due course the hypothesis requires a full mathematical validation. The point here is that here is a concept which deserves that analysis. With reagrd to the lack of context, I finds it saddening that the motivation to release an idea is described as non-existant. The motivation is clear that science moves forward when an open mind examines fresh hypotheses without the constraints of current dogma. If I may suggest respectfully, I have been open in attaching my name tothis communication, whereas the reviewers have remained anonymous. Below is the review as I received it.

Add to the Conversation


The interaction between heat flow and space quantum fields describes gravity. The mechanism provides a credible bridge to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. By itself oscillating heat flow defines universe time. Assembling the two concepts describes a qualitative model of a continuous, perpetually cycling universe.


➤  Version 1 (2019-08-24)


Howard Slater (2019). Gravity is Heat-Induced Change in Local Space Quantum Fields. Researchers.One,

© 2018-2020 Researchers.One