Question about gravity (the myths about superstring theory)
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
Next: the Death of Ath*ism
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 19 Mar 2010 14:18 Yousuf Khan wrote on Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:24:02 -0400: > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: >> Yousuf Khan wrote on Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:14:31 -0400: >>> The Einstein description of gravity is the only one that's been proven >>> at some level. >> >> This is plain wrong. All the observations verified by General >> relativity are also satisfied with other theories also: >> >> # Reflections on Gravity 2000: arXiv:astro-ph/0006423v1. Straumann, >> Norbert. >> >> # Field Theory of Gravitation: Desire and Reality 1999: >> arXiv:gr-qc/9912003v1. Baryshev, Yurij, V. >> >> # On a possibility of scalar gravitational wave detection from the >> binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 1999: arXiv:gr-qc/9911081v1. Baryshev, >> Yurij, V. >> >> # A Hamiltonian approach to quantum gravity 2008: >> arXiv:physics/0612019v9. Stefanovich, Eugene V. >> >> # Nonlocal forces of inertia in cosmology 1996: Found. of Phys. 26(2), >> 271—283. Assis, André K. T.; Graneau, Peter. >> >> # Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008: Grav. and >> Cosm. 14(1), 41—52. Vladimirov, Yu. S. I already said, in a posterior correction from mine, that the FOP paper by Assis and Graneau was pasted by mistake in the above list, but I repeat now. > Yes, but many of those theories are simply derivations and/or > generalizations of General Relativity. They work out to some form of > General Relativity as one of their special subsets. Examples include > TeVeS and f(R) Theory. > > TeVeS seems to have failed some observational tests recently, so it`s > now probably dead. But f(R) Theory seems to have passed a recent test > alongside traditional ``GR with Cosmological Constant added``. > >> I do not know the experimental status of teleparallelism, but my belief >> is that also explains the same tests than general relativity does >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism > > Well, since it was Einstein himself who came up with Teleparallism, then > it would stand to reason that it would be compatible with his own GR. Not an argument... my ignorance about its status remains. >>> The description of gravity as a force particle, the graviton, is part >>> of a next generation theory of quantum mechanics known as >>> Supersymmetry. >> >> Nonsense. Gravitons have nothing to see with speculative supersymmetry. >> Your supersymmetry is "the next generation theory of quantum mechanics" >> is another nonsensical statement. > > Don't understand where you're coming from. Gravitons were proposed by > Supersymmetry theory. From something named the "history of physics". In the early thirties Rosenfeld writes the first technical papers on quantum gravity, applying Pauli method for the quantization of fields with gauge groups to the linearized Hilbert & Einstein equations. The relation with a linear spin-two quantum field was unraveled in the last 30s in the works of Fierz and Pauli. The spin-two quantum of the gravitational field, first named *graviton* in a 1934 paper by Blokhintsev and Gal'perin, was already a familiar notion in the 30s. The concept of graviton had nothing to see with supersymmetry. This hypotetical symmetry was introduced in the 70s in the context of field theory. It was only latter than the original string theory was generalized, using this symmetry to give the superstring theory. It was claimed that some modes of the superstring 'look' as a spin-2 particle and this started the myth that superstring theory was "the theory of quantum gravity". > The Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics has no > model for gravitons. There is not such "Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics". There is a Standard Model of particle physics, which is built over quantum field theory (QFT), but QFT is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Yes, I know that many superstring theorists confound QFT with quantum mechanics. An example is Kaku textbook, which I am just now writting a review... >>> Supersymmetry is part of a larger next generation framework theory >>> called Superstring Theory, and now M-Theory. >> >> Both build over rather standard and outdated quantum formalism. The >> next generation of quantum mechanics is becoming from other camps > > You seem to be arguing one next-gen theory is better than another. No, the links that you sniped give webpages and papers explaining modern temptative theories that we are already using to solve real life problems in our labs. This is why one of the references was a paper published in "Advances in Chemical Physics". Superstring theory and M-theory are just plain wrong models popularized through news services, TV shows, and the like. The foundational basis of superstring-M theory is completely incorrect and their proclaimed sophistication and complexity a funny joke... As emphasized in a last "Quantum Future" conference, superstring theory is a very traditional theory regarding its quantum theoretical formalism. The full quote is reproduced in the next report (FREE): http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/20083.html The very popular book that I cited and you also sniped explain how string theory is a complete fiasco, and how it became popular because was promoted using unfair marketing/academic techniques. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |