On the Smallest Scale Gravity Becomes a Repulsive Force

I’ve had a two-month long holiday from blog posts but know I’ve finally decided to post again. There are two reasons for the pause in posts. The first is that I indeed received a rejection to my sneaky theory of quantum gravity. And the second reason was that I knew that my next post would be addressing the responses from the reviewer, but I didn’t have the proper state of mind to do this.

To cut a long story short, the journal had only got a single reviewer to look at my paper. This is generally highly unusual, but it is especially unusual, when the paper dealt with three very different sub-categories. The first category is the new theory of supramolecular motion, the second category is the primary structure of lignin and the third category is are the results of my adhesive results. Well, the reviewer was probably very knowledgeable on the theory of lignin, but not at all about new theories of biophysics, nor of adhesives. So, what the reviewer did was to assume that my theory of supramolecular motion was incorrect and based on that assumption, just trashed my theory of the primary structure of lignin. But the problem is, that in peer review, you can’t assume that a theory is wrong without explanation why this is. Finally, assuming that my theory of the primary structure of lignin was wrong, the reviewer ignored basically everything I said about its application to using lignin in adhesive applications, despite me showing clear evidence that I was able to produce exceptional adhesive results applying the theory. And to rub salt in my wounds, the reviewer said that the article was so theoretical that it should rather be published in a more theoretical journal, despite the fact that I had a large amount of microscopic data in the manuscript, as well as mechanical results, conducted according to ISO standards. The paper can only be considered mostly theoretical of one ignores all my experiments.

So, what did I do? I sent an appeal to the journal, stating that there was a clear scientific misunderstanding: that the reviewer had somehow not understood that the paper was about a new (biophysical) theory and that it was not possible to just assume that the theory was incorrect without explaining why. It took some weeks, but a month ago I received an e-mail from the journal that I would need to resubmit the appeal, but this time following a more formal procedure. This procedure would involve addressing each of the issues raised by the reviewer.

Well, have I done this? The surprising answer is, no I haven’t. The reason is that doing this seems too much like regular work and not a hobby. And I haven’t had a single minute to work on this during my work hours, because I’ve been way too preoccupied on the practical side of quantum gravity: the very same issue I was criticized by the peer-reviewer. We’ve finally received private funding for LignoSphere Company, but to get the funding, I’ve been working hard to make applications that really work. An example of this are pigmented paints that can be applied by spraying and which pass stringent test conditions:

https://video.wixstatic.com/video/ed0781_a235929ecb8148d89f24d2520039ce9d/480p/mp4/file.mp4

If I had been working on the response on the reviewer, I would have needed to do that in my free time. And unlike most times, I really didn’t have the energy to do this after dealing with the same thing at work. I don’t think I still have enough time on my eight to four (Finnish equivalent of nine to five) to  address the reviewer’s comment, but I think I can finally muster the strength to work on the reply on my evenings.

And what will I say in my appeal? Mostly rather dull technical stuff that I won’t bore you with. But I think I have to be less sneaky on quantum gravity part. I think I have to be honest in stating that my theory implies that on the scale of an individual molecule, gravity is not an attractive force, but rather a repulsive one.

So, what is the current understanding of gravity? According to general relativity, objects move in curved path because of the uneven distribution of mass. However, at least when I asked from ChatGPT how is general relativity applied to the motion of individual molecules, I received the answer

“For individual molecules, general relativity (GR) is almost never needed. Their motion is overwhelmingly governed by electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics.”

As far as I understand this, this assumption comes from the assumption that gravity is always an attractive “force”. However, at the level individual molecules, molecules do not stop orbiting. The only change is that whereas  large bodies (be it a spaceship, a planet, or whatever else solid), the mass is external to the orbiting molecules, especially in the gas phase. This means the presence of other molecules orbiting along neighboring orbitals causes the curving of the space-time of the each of the neighbors, so that the molecules will not collide randomly.

You might ask “what do you mean?” after hearing the last paragraph. And this is a valid question. But I think it’ll take some more time for me to be able to clarify the theory to a degree that it is both understandable to you, dear reader, as well as to the editor of the journal and to the peer-reviewer.

But now that I’ve publicly stated that I will have a theory of repulsive quantum gravity, I will surely start working on it.  It might be that I don’t need to invent anything new, that it’s just a matter of language and description. However, I’ve noticed that whenever I start clarifying anything, I start making discoveries myself as well. So, it’s possible that some new science will come out of this quest as well.

I promise it won’t take two months to post again, but I’m not sure whether it will take days or weeks to come up with something tangible.