|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Higgs In Space" or Where's Waldo? | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 1 | December 11th 09 10:06 AM |
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 15th 08 04:47 PM |
the "magical" Space forums that make MY "unfeasible" and "non | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | August 27th 08 12:04 PM |
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "Moon Shot" was bad, kids... | OM | History | 21 | July 5th 06 06:40 PM |