# Why We Need a New Theory of Gravity

Some days ago, a member of my inner circle brought my attention to an article titled: Newton Was Wrong: Scientists Dismiss Newton’s Theory of Gravity and Warn Einstein Is Next, which was published on the Daily Express website.

The published article describes the research currently being carried out by Prof. Andrea Ghez that is aimed at studying the nature of gravity around the centre of our Milky Way Galaxy which houses a black hole.

The research is particularly focused on the three-dimensional motion of a peculiar star referred to as *S0-2* that is orbiting very close to a black hole and which completes its orbit in 16 years.

And according to this article and the research being carried out by Prof. Ghez, she has ruled out Newton’s Gravitational law as an explanation of the nature and behaviour of a black hole. And she suggests that even Einstein’s gravitational theory may also be refuted by this research.

According to Prof. Ghez:

*”Einstein’s right, at least for now. We can absolutely rule out Newton’s law of gravity. Our observations are consistent with Einstein’s theory of general relativity. However, his theory is definitely showing vulnerability.*

*It cannot fully explain gravity inside a black hole, and at some point, we will need to move beyond Einstein’s theory to a more comprehensive theory of gravity that explains what a black hole is.”*

It then dawns on us, as it has also dawned on a number of scientists, that we need a new theory of gravity. I’m not just stating this position as a result of the article, but also as a result of my personal research into the fundamental laws of the universe and the current predicament of physics.

But we still have to be thankful for how far we have come in our understanding of gravity. Since 1687 when Newton gave us the first-ever attempted scientific description of gravity, gravity has always been at the centre of our understanding of the universe.

And after Newton published in the Principia his theory of gravity, it would be more than two centuries later, in 1915, that a new theory of gravity would be published by Albert Einstein. Einstein’s theory of gravity is what is popularly referred to as *general relativity*.

Yet it seems that after these two theories of gravity, physics still needs another theory of gravity.

So, some physicists are so nobly busy with the problem and the consideration of a new theory of gravity, such that it may be a few of us who even bother to think, *why should we have more than one theory for a natural phenomenon such as gravity?*

It is true that we can only have one theory of gravity even as some physicists, like Prof. Ghez, are suggesting that we need another theory of gravity in order to explain the true nature of a black hole. This can be taken as the first reason why we need a new theory of gravity.

But the second reason some physicists think that we need a new theory of gravity because, right now, Einstein’s general relativity cannot be unified with quantum mechanics. These physicists are the ones who have accepted that the unification problem is due to relativity and not quantum mechanics.

Now, while both reasons why we need a new theory of gravity are related, as you will agree, they can, however, stand apart because one can be discarded without the other.

Thus, the reason that can stand becomes the true reason why we need a new theory of gravity. But even at that, the reason that stands is attached to a new unification plan which is not related to quantum mechanics.

However, the unification plan is as a result of post-modern physics, and may not be considered in this article until later. So, if we maintain the confines of modern physics, we need a new theory of gravity because of *“strange”* bodies like black holes which our current theories of gravity cannot explain.

This is also as Prof. Ghez suggests when she said that “*…we will need to move beyond Einstein’s theory to a more comprehensive theory of gravity that explains what a black hole is.”*

With what we are informed about black holes from Einstein’s theory, beyond what is called the event horizon, the laws of physics as we know them break down and we can’t exactly say what happens to a body of matter which falls into a black hole.

So, with modern physics, we really want to explain the black hole phenomenon and even the observed ejections of matter and plasma from the centre of our galaxy.

We really want to understand what is happening at the extreme, far away regions of our galaxy and of every other galaxy, but the current theories of gravity that we have are not helping in this regard. So, we need a new theory of gravity to really unravel the mystery of black holes.

Black holes are not like normal matter and observations have proven that. And today, we need a new theory of gravity to give us a causal description of black holes that does not suppose the breakdown of the laws of physics or any outlandish idea or concept.

Today, we need a new theory of gravity to give us a causal description of black holes that does not suppose the breakdown of the laws of physics or any outlandish idea or concept.Click To TweetSo, with that, I must inform you that a new theory of gravity is not needed such that it unifies with quantum mechanics. That is the truth because quantum mechanics, as it is based on *the discretion principle,* plays no fundamental role in the universe.

What is needed in order to understand the atomic world is not quantum mechanics as it is based on the discretion principle, but relativity as it is based on the continuity principle. The trick is that the discrete nature of the atomic world is only apparent and it is underlyingly due to the discretion principle.

The latter thought is the true way to unravel the atomic world and to restore realism and scientific objectivity into quantum physics as we know it. And this is not entirely new because Einstein had sought to unravel quantum mechanics using the continuity principle of relativity, though he didn’t succeed.

So, we need a new theory of gravity in order to move forward and understand black holes, and not only black holes, but also the as of yet unconsidered neutron. The latter is an input of post-modern physics.

Also, as an input of post-modern physics, we need a new theory of gravity in order to unify physics, and this is without reference to modern quantum mechanics or what I would call *the old unification plan*.

*The old unification plan* is what seeks to unify physics by unifying relativity and quantum mechanics, as against the new unification plan that seeks to unify physics through only relativity. I will discuss *the new unification plan* further in another scientific post.

And as we see in post-modern physics, we don’t only need a new theory of gravity, but also a new theory of light, and in fact, a new revision of the laws of physics as we have known them for the past 400 years.

Therefore, the call for a new theory of gravity is simply part of the solution to the problem, the unification problem, that calls for a revision of the foundation of physics.

So, post-modern physics informs us that we need a new revision of the whole of physics as we know it, and gravity being a part of physics comes under this revision.

However, I must let you know in this article that Newton’s mathematical description of gravity still stands even in post-modern physics, but his interpretation has changed, and by this, we now have an extended application of the Newtonian framework.

*What do I mean by this?* I mean that in post-modern physics, Newton’s mathematical formulation of gravity as it is based on the inverse square law has become based on the universal equivalence principle and not the weak equivalence principle which was the one known in Newton’s era.

So, in this post-modern era of physics, the universal equivalence principle is the basis for the inverse square law, and this simple revision is what takes us to the full understanding of black holes and the nature of our galactic centre.

So, in this post-modern era of physics, the universal equivalence principle is the basis for the inverse square law, and this simple revision is what takes us to the full understanding of black holes and the nature of our galactic centre.Click To TweetIn post-modern physics, we are realizing a somewhat reverse situation with regards to what Prof. Ghez’s and her research team concluded, in that we are now discarding much of Einstein’s theory and embracing more of Newton’s theory.

But to put it that way would be superficial, to say the least. So, I will be more explicit to say that, while we embrace Newton’s mathematical framework, we regard *the weak equivalence principle* as only a part of a broader principle referred to as *the universal equivalence principle*.

And while we discard Einstein’s mathematical framework, we regard his distinction of the weak and the strong equivalence principles since they remain as the two parts of *the universal equivalence principle*.

Therefore, in post-modern physics, the new universal equivalence principle is what defines our revision of gravity as well as our perspective of Newton’s and Einstein’s theories. And *the universal equivalence principle is what informs us that the weak and the strong equivalence principles are equivalent.*

So, because it embraces the true ideas and concepts in both Newton and Einstein theories, one can say that the new theory of gravity is not entirely new as it shouldn’t really be since physics is a progressive study.

But neither the classical weak equivalence principle nor the modern strong equivalence was enough. We needed the overarching universal equivalence principle which unifies these two separate principles of classical and modern physics.

So, the new theory of gravity is based on the new principle of universal equivalence and which is exactly what is needed to understand black holes, to complete our understanding of gravity, and to go further to show us the unity of the universe.

Until next time,

I will be here.

– M. V. Echa

*– An importantly related article:*