1997/05/31 by Matt Visser · 2 citations
Physics and Astronomy · #Black Holes and Theoretical Physics #Classical mechanics #Cosmology #Cosmology and Gravitation Theories #Einstein #Equivalence (formal languages) #Equivalence principle (geometric) #Field (mathematics) #Gravitation #Graviton #Massive gravity #Philosophy #Physics #Pure mathematics #Quantum mechanics #Relativity and Gravitational Theory #Theoretical physics #gr-qc
paper · pdf · doi:10.1023/a:1026611026766
published as Gen.Rel.Grav. 30 (1998) 1717-1728 · 12 pages, plain LaTeX. Major revisions: (1) Inconsistency in equations of motion fixed. (2) More discussion of the problems associated with quantization. (3) Many more references added
arxiv created 1998/02/26 · openalex publication_date 1998/12/01 · arxiv updated 2015/06/25 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
Can we give the graviton a mass? Does it even make sense to speak of a massive graviton? In this essay I shall answer these questions in the affirmative. I shall outline an alternative to Einstein Gravity that satisfies the Equivalence Principle and automatically passes all classical weak-field tests (GM/r approx 10-6). It also passes medium-field tests (GM/r approx 1/5), but exhibits radically different strong-field behaviour (GM/r approx 1). Black holes in the usual sense do not exist in this theory, and large-scale cosmology is divorced from the distribution of matter. To do all this we have to sacrifice something: the theory exhibits *prior geometry*, and depends on a non-dynamical background metric.