Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 15 Mar 2010 10:51 Huang wrote on Mon, 15 Mar 2010 06:16:03 -0700: >> > Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? >> >> > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a >> > force, but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". Many >> > other scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental >> > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and >> > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > > > Einstein is correct, that gravity can be regarded as curvature or > deformation of space. Only as approximation of course. > Other views are equivalent to this model, such as > the view that gravity is a force. These two approaches are equivalent in > my opinion. Are not fully equivalent, as showed in the section 3.3 of "Field Theory of Gravitation: Desire and Reality" 1999: arXiv:gr-qc/9912003v1. Baryshev, Yurij, V. The whole of "From Gravitons to Gravity: Myths and Reality." http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpd/17/1703n04/S0218271808012085.html And section 14 of the next report http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html > The pieces which are missing in this puzzle: > [a] Explaining strong force in terms of spacetime curvature, > [b] Explaining weak force in terms of spacetime curvature, > [c] Explaining electromagnetism in terms of spacetime curvature. Nothing more far from reality. It is not possible to derive a more general theory using a less general theory as a metric theory of curved spacetime. > When a,b,c have been explained in terms of spacetime deformation, and > are shown to be equivalent to the particle explanations of a,b,c, then > you will be very close to grand unification. Unification has already been achieved, but just in the other way. It is possible to explain gravity as the rest of interactions. This is discussed in the first and third references of above. It is also possible to unify both gravity and electrodynamics using an relational approach: E.g. see Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008: Grav. and Cosm. 14(1), 41—52. Vladimirov, Yu. S. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 15 Mar 2010 10:52 kenseto wrote on Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:16:46 -0700: > On Mar 15, 9:16 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing >> > > issue? >> >> > > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a >> > > force, but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". Many >> > > other scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental >> > > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak >> > > and electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). >> >> Einstein is correct, that gravity can be regarded as curvature or >> deformation of space. Other views are equivalent to this model, such as >> the view that gravity is a force. These two approaches are equivalent >> in my opinion. >> >> The pieces which are missing in this puzzle: [a] Explaining strong >> force in terms of spacetime curvature, [b] Explaining weak force in >> terms of spacetime curvature, [c] Explaining electromagnetism in terms >> of spacetime curvature. >> >> When a,b,c have been explained in terms of spacetime deformation, and >> are shown to be equivalent to the particle explanations of a,b,c, then >> you will be very close to grand unification. > > a, b, c can be explained with a special aether called the E-Matrix in > place of the none physical existence of spacetime in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf No them cannot be explained using your nonsense... -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 15 Mar 2010 11:03 dlzc wrote on Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:08:28 -0700: > Dear MicroTech: > > On Mar 14, 11:42 pm, MicroTech <henry.ko.nor...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > > As usual, you have received some pearls and some jokers so far. > > Let's just add that with "reasonable" simplifications, Einstein's > Relativity (gravity =/= force) reduces to Newton's gravitation (gravity > = force). Nope. First, recent research shows that GR does not reduces to NG, with textbooks claims about this being wrong. Second, even if we ignore this point the approx geodesic equation a = -@phi/@x obtained from GR cannot be interpreted as describing gravity as a force. Wald does beatiful remarks about this in his textbook in GR. >> References to published papers (accessible online) would be much >> appreciated! > > Everybody seemed to ignore this request. You aren't going to find much > for the layman on the internet, that isn't going to require more study. > But we can get the easy stuff out of the way: > http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/ ... down to the general > General Relativity section ... and the recommended books > > If you are OK with math, I'd recommend this: > http://www.motionmountain.net/contents.html ... down to relativity > > And John Baez does a pretty good job (not for the faint of heart): > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/ Good resources, not error free, but good in average. The problem is that none of them address the OP question about the relationship between a theory of gravitons and a metric theory. The relevant papers are those cited before in this thread Field Theory of Gravitation: Desire and Reality 1999: arXiv:gr-qc/9912003v1. Baryshev, Yurij, V. See also the next analysis done in "From Gravitons to Gravity: Myths and Reality." http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpd/17/1703n04/S0218271808012085.html The difference between metric and field theories is analized in the section 14 of the next report http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/20092.html > Good luck, and good hunting! > > David A. Smith -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 15 Mar 2010 11:29 Yousuf Khan wrote on Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:14:31 -0400: > MicroTech wrote: >> Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? >> >> Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a force, >> but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". Many other >> scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental interactions >> (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and >> electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). >> >> Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no >> apparent difficulty: >> Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that >> gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the >> "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he >> refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. >> >> So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just >> know its effects? > > 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 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 > Not all aspects of Einstein's theory have been proven yet > (e.g. gravity waves), but a large amount of it is has. So it is the only > description of gravity that has passed beyond the stage of theory into a > law of physics. Plain wrong again as showed above. Moreover, Feynman taugh the field theoretic approach in Caltech for years. And Schwinger and Weinberg did something similar. > 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. > 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 "The Liouville Space Extension of Quantum Mechanics" 1996: Advances in Chemical Physics XCIX, 1-120. Petrosky T; Prigogine, Ilya. A generalized quantum mechanics beyond their work is under active research now http://www.canonicalscience.org/research/research.html http://www.canonicalscience.org/research/canonical.html http://www.canonicalscience.org/research/time.html > None of the aspects of these next-gen theories have been proven yet. They were believed to be next-gen theories about 20 or 30 years ago... Today we know that both superstring and M-theories are dead and plain wrong. The future of physics will be leaded by other theories, with superstrings and M-theory reminder as one of greates fiascos of physics. There is excellent textbooks about this, for instance The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/0618551050 (Further nonsenses and sci-pop claims snipped) -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 15 Mar 2010 11:30
kenseto wrote on Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:30:18 -0700: > On Mar 15, 2:42 am, MicroTech <henry.ko.nor...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? >> >> Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a force, >> but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". Many other >> scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental interactions >> (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and >> electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). >> >> Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no >> apparent difficulty: >> Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that >> gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the >> "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he >> refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. >> >> So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just >> know its effects? >> >> Is it an attractive force "mutually pulling" the Earth towards the Sun >> (and vice versa), "causing" the Earth to "fall" towards the Sun? And >> due to the "forward motion" of the Earth, exactly matching the >> "gravitational pull", it stays in orbit (just like any other satellite, >> man-made or not); OR >> >> Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is >> interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" >> along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? >> >> At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the >> other, and not both... >> >> If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does >> the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? >> >> References to published papers (accessible online) would be much >> appreciated! >> >> Henry Norman > > A new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG) is > available in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf DTG is based on the > existence of a stationary, structured and elastic aether called the > E-Matrix occupying all of space. Gravity between interacting objects is > the result of the interacting objects follow the local curvature exists > in the E-Matrix. The local curvature existing in the E-Matrix is the > result of absolute motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix. > > Ken Seto Yours is plain wrong. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |