In the latest issue of Physics Today magazine (Nov. '06, page 44),
there is an article, "Quantum Gravity Faces Reality", by L. Smollin,
who is on the faculty at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical
Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

The blurb for the article reads:
"String theory is only one of the many approaches to quantizing
general relativity. Increasingly, all those approaches will be
judged by how well they accord with experimental data."

While somewhat concise, Smollin does a good job of describing what he
sees as important candidates for several modern quantum theories of
gravity which, in his view, may have the best chances of finding
experimental confirmation. And, although he does not mention the
hypothesis that gravity is tachyonic, he does note, in passing, such
related topics as the "inflationary cosmological models", based
on "semiclassical methods" of coming up with a quantum-gravity
scenario compatible with General Relativity.

Inflation Theory, in cosmology, has it that there was a brief period
of superluminal expansion (a tachyonic phase, if you will), during
the first and most formative moments of the Big Bang. It is my
contention that a wide assortment of tachyons were created at that
time, and that many of them did not slow-down to become the "known"
elementary particles, nor did they vanish from existence, but that
they remained in existence, and in their tachyonic forms, including a
certain form that can be used to describe and explain quantum gravity
in a way that is wholly compatible with General Relativity.
[See: "Tachyonic Gravity" at www.TachyonicsSociety.com.]

Unfortunately, Smollin failed to mention several recent research
developments that most certainly have a bearing on the technology
that is, and can be, used to do experiments on gravity. There is,
for instance, a new detection method, employing lasers, which is
reported to be capable of detecting motion with infinitessimally
small error, and a new means of measureing Newtonian gravity at the
micron scale, with an accuracy down to the millionths decimal-place.

Perhaps Smollin has merely included these considerations in the
overall "many approaches" reference, and I should nevetheless applaud
Smollin for giving readers of Physics Today a fairly good overview of
the current doctorate-level work being done on quantum gravity.
But I am personally disappointed in the progress that has been made
so far, and I get the impression that it will be some time before any
truly significant breakthroughs are forthcoming, if the direction in
the research he points to is the most significant indication.

It seems to me that quite a lot of what is hampering experimental
efforts at finding the ideal quantum theory of gravity is the almost
total adherence to out-dated notions about gravity. Not one of the
approaches Smollin described, for instance, involves the hypothesis
that gravity could be superluminal. And that, in my opinion, should
be the primary question being addressed!

Instead, what is happening is only that the men who have the funding
to do experiments are trying to establish theselves as the gods of
gravity, by collecting evidence for their own theories, despite the
true process of quantum gravity; i.e., instead of attempting to
determine how Mother Nature herself actually does gravity, and then
finding the correct descriptive theory that conforms to the data.

Such, then, is the present state of affairs with quantum gravity.

Well, so be it. If we have to devise a description first, then test
the description it to see if it is supported by experiment, I propose
that my thesis on tachyonic gravity should be added to the list of
viable candidates, and suggest that experiments designed to test it
will be the first to yield undeniable proof that gravity is faster-
than-light, and is therefore a tachyonic force.

For more, go to "Tachyonic Gravity" at www.TachyonicsSociety.com.