"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?

Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

[...]
(2) In 1936, after nearly 30 years of intense thought about
gravitation, Einstein and an assistant

Nathan Rosen

published a paper which argued
that gravitational waves probably do not exist. Amusingly, a referee
at Physical Review panned the paper. With significant irritation
Einstein withdrew the paper and [I believe] published it at the
Journal of the Franklin Institute.

But between the time it was submitted and the time it was published,
Einstein realized -- at least partly as a result of discussions involving
Howard Percy Robertson -- that the referee was right and the original
conclusion was wrong. The published version is J. Franklin Inst 223
(January 1937) 43-54. The abstract reads

The rigorous solution for cylindrical gravitational waves
is given. For the convenience of the reader the theory of
gravitational waves and their production, already known
in principle, is given in the first part of this paper. After
encountering relationships which cast doubt on the existence
of rigorous solutions for undulatory gravitational fields, we
investigate rigorously the case of cylindrical gravitational
waves. It turns out that rigorous solutions exist and that
the problem reduces to the usual cylindrical waves in
euclidean space.

There is a note at the end in which Einstein writes

The second part of this paper was considerably altered by
me after the departure of Mr. Rosen for Russia since we had
originally interpreted our formula results erroneously. I
wish to thank my colleague Professor Robertson for his
friendly assistance in the clarification of the original
error.

Incidentally, the paper also explicitly argues that an isolated system
"in sending out gravitational waves, must send out energy which reacts
by damping the motion" -- as we see in binary pulsars.

Steve Carlip

Thus spake Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
ax.de
[Moderator's note: Posted to only sci.astro.research. -P.H.]

In article , Oh No
writes:

Okay, then I will publically assert the contrary. That is to say I hold
that (a) and (b) are true, but, even assuming that it works properly,
Lisa may not detect gravitational waves at the predicted amplitude.
Reason being that in relational quantum gravity gtr correctly describes
gravitation in a binary star system, but I cannot predict the
transmission of gravitational waves through a vacuum according to the
equations of gtr.

Then, in this respect at least, rqg is not a good theory. (A good
theory---one which makes testable predictions---can of course be wrong.)

rqg makes other testable predictions. I would say that, as a matter of
principle, it also makes testable predictions here. It is my own failing
that I am not smart enough to work out what they are.

Just for fun, I will put money on it. 50 quid says we don't find
gravitational waves at the expected amplitude according to gtr. Let me
emphasize again, this is a gamble for me, because I can't actually make
a prediction, but I am 100% sure of rqg, and I think it is a good gamble
that gravitational waves have a lower amplitude, if they exist at all.

Do you pay 50 quid to all who claim it? We will all pay you 50 quid if
your hunch is right.

I'm only offering one 50 quid. First someone must take on the bet. If
more than one do, the pot must be split.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net

On Jan 26, 3:27*pm, Oh No wrote:


Finding galaxies in the z ~ 20-30 range would be quite amazing.

It would tell us that several cherished cosmological assumptions are
wrong.

However, your prediction, while admittedly impressive in boldness,
would have to be more specific to meet the criterion: "unique to the
theory being tested", if the prediction is to specifically support
rqg.

I say this because other, and quite different, theories also predict
galaxies, or at least galactic nuclei/quasars, as far back in time as
we can observe.

Bottom Line: Even if your predictions are not perfect, they are a big
step in the right direction and we will learn from their testing. If
no galaxies are found beyond z = 10, we definitely learn something. If
galaxies are found at z = 20-30, we definitely learn something.

Definitive dark matter predictions that are prior, feasible,
quantitative, non-adjustable and unique, are highly desirable from all
those claiming to have a good working understanding of the cosmos.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Thus spake Robert L. Oldershaw
On Jan 26, 3:27*pm, Oh No wrote:


Finding galaxies in the z ~ 20-30 range would be quite amazing.

It would tell us that several cherished cosmological assumptions are
wrong.

However, your prediction, while admittedly impressive in boldness,
would have to be more specific to meet the criterion: "unique to the
theory being tested", if the prediction is to specifically support
rqg.

I say this because other, and quite different, theories also predict
galaxies, or at least galactic nuclei/quasars, as far back in time as
we can observe.

Not really. There are many theories, but to be acceptable as scientific
a theory must be consistent, both internally consistent and consistent
with observation. From this point of view the only acceptable scientific
cosmologies are those which incorporate general relativity. RQG does
include classical general relativity, but incorporates quantum theory as
well. The difference in predictions is entirely due to the fact that the
transmission of light is treated as a quantum process, which leads to an
alteration in predictions for cosmological redshift. The result is that
a process taking place at z=3 in the standard model, when the universe
was a quarter its current size, is found to take place at z=15 in rqg.
One which takes place at z=4 in the standard model is found to take
place at z=24 in rqg. I confess I don't know exactly when the standard
model predicts the earliest galaxies, but I believe z=6 is already
problematic, so I am estimating that z=4 is probably about right.

Bottom Line: Even if your predictions are not perfect, they are a big
step in the right direction and we will learn from their testing. If
no galaxies are found beyond z = 10, we definitely learn something. If
galaxies are found at z = 20-30, we definitely learn something.

Definitive dark matter predictions that are prior, feasible,
quantitative, non-adjustable and unique, are highly desirable from all
those claiming to have a good working understanding of the cosmos.

I am able to say that no cdm is required in rqg. I have already verified
statistically that there is an unmodelled component in spectral shifts,
consistent with the prediction that galaxy rotation curves are not in
fact flat. Within three or four years at most we will be able to test
this prediction from direct measurements on individual stars.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

It might be refreshing to steer this discussion away from such
provincial matters and back to the original and far more general
theme: What do readers think of the "Higgs In Space"-type of papers
that seem to dominate cosmology and particle physics these days.

Dominate? No.

Is this untestable postmodern pseudoscience that threatens the
integrity of science?

OR:

Is this the standard pipe-dreaming that theoretical physicists do
while they wait for new empirical data to sober them up and lead them
on more useful paths?

Neither. False dichotomy.

It would also be interesting if a more diverse group of lurkers were
to chime in with some opinions, and if the familiar noble warriors
whose scientific beliefs and philosophies are EXCEEDINGLY well-known
would let others have a chance to express an opinion without fear of
put-down. [author's note: I am already fully aware of the self-
referential potential of the last statement, thank you.]

If no one offers an opinion, well, I guess that tells us something
too.

The same could be said about the discrete fractal paradigm.

On Feb 1, 5:04*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
Is this untestable postmodern pseudoscience that threatens the
integrity of science?

OR:

Is this the standard pipe-dreaming that theoretical physicists do
while they wait for new empirical data to sober them up and lead them
on more useful paths?

I lurk more towards the latter choice. Scientists -- not just
physicists -- can get comfortable with the current well-supported
theories, but if you smack them upside the head with new facts they
tend, as a group, to get all excited and active and start throwing off
all sorts of new theories until one seems to fit the new facts better
than the others.

In short, not to worry.

Rob Stevenson