Prev: Einstein "fingers" and relativity
Next: Space and Time
From: George Hammond on 17 Nov 2009 07:08
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:36:24 -0800, George Hammond
<Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote:

Post script:

J.Y., Could you please comment on Tipler's opinion
concerning Feynman's famous 1962 quantum gravity theory:


First let me state that Frank Tipler is of the
(theological) opinion that the Cosmological Singularity
(i.e. the Big Bang) is actually "God" (Tipler�s
"quantum-god", I guess). But, as you can see this opinion
is irrelevant to his mathematical-physics opinion concerning
Feynman�s famous 1962 quantum gravity theory.

Okay, having explained that, we come to Frank Tipler�s
famous physics quotation on page 126 of his 2007 book
entitled _The Physics of Christianity_. His statement about
Richard Feynman�s 1962 theory of quantum gravity is as
follows:

"Of course, the superstring theorist deny that
mathematical beauty is their main reason for working on
supersymmetry. They claim an experimental justification,
namely the absence of a consistent quantum gravity theory.
This claim is nonsense. Richard Feynman discovered a
consistent (renormalizable is the technical term) theory of
quantum gravity 40 years ago, and this theory is
essentially unique. However the superstring theorists find
the Feynman theory "spiritually" unacceptable because it
necessarily has a Cosmological Singularity. Thus we come to
the real reason why many modern physicist finds standard
quantum gravity unacceptable; it implies the existence of
God! If the existence of the Cosmological Singularity --
God -- is accepted, then it becomes mathematically possible
to transform the renormalizable theory of quantum gravity
into a theory that not only is term by term finite but, in
addition, has a finite power series in the coupling
constants. In effect, infinities that would otherwise occur
in the laboratory are transferred to the Cosmological
Singularity. In other words, God stabilizes the
multi-verse, thereby preventing it from collapsing into
nonexistence. But for secularists, God must be eliminated
at all costs. If necessary, they are willing to abandon
experimental science itself."

A you can see, Tipler holds the mathematical opinion that
if you allow the existence of a Cosmological Singularity
(Big Bang) then Richard Feynman�s 1962 theory of quantum
gravity actually becomes RENORMALIZABLE and actually yields
a finite power series in the coupling constants.
As you can see this is a purely mathematical physics
statement which is either TRUE OR FALSE and is totally
independent of any theories of "God".
Frank Tipler, who like Richard Feynman was one of John
Wheeler�s post docs at Princeton, is a formidable
mathematician, having discovered the famous Tipler Cylinder
at a tender age and setting the entire mathematical physics
community on its head.
Given that, do you believe that Feynman�s 1962 quantum
gravity theory can actually be re-normalized if you allow
the existence of a Cosmological Singularity? And why does
no one else seems to think so!
And finally�� do you think that someone, possibly you,
should be looking into Tiplers claim that Feynman�s quantum
gravity theory is renormalizable and "term by term finite"
if the Cosmological Singularity is allowed to exist?
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
From: eric gisse on 17 Nov 2009 10:11
George Hammond wrote:
[...]

> [Hammond]
> If classical GR explains classical God, then certainly
> "quantum gravity" is going to advance our knowlege of the
> God phenomenon even further and could even yield some
> dramatically surprising results.

[...]

I really do feel sorry for you and wish you would get help.
From: Jay R. Yablon on 17 Nov 2009 11:38

"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREMOVE(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2009.11.17.10.41.32(a)canonicalscience.com...
> Jay R. Yablon wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:41:28 -0500:
>
>> "George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:tmm2g59ftit213efbgsh9cnkpfaata5dqk(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:50:03 -0500, "Jay R. Yablon"
>>> <jyablon(a)nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the linear approximation, the metric tensor g^uv is related
>>>> to
>>>>the gravitational field h^uv according to (k=sqrt(16 pi G)):
>>>>
>>>>g^uv = eta^uv + k h^uv (1)
>>>>
>>>>Further, the "graviton" field psi^uv is related to h^uv according to
>>>>(what is the best thing to call psi^uv, in contrast to h^uv?):
>>>>
>>>>psi^uv = h^uv - .5 g^uv h (2)
>>>>
>>>> I would like to know what (1) and (2) become, exactly, when the
>>>>gravitational fields become very strong. I believe what happens is
>>>>the
>>>>the sqrt(-g) factor kicks in, so that (1) now becomes:
>>>>
>>>>sqrt(-g) g^uv = eta^uv + k sqrt(-g) h^uv (3)
>>>>
>>>>and that the relationship (2) stays intact. Is this so? If not,
>>>>what
>>>>are the correct relationships for gravitational field of any
>>>>strength?
>>>>
>>>> If the above is so, then combining (2) and (3), we obtain:
>>>>
>>>>k sqrt(-g) psi^uv = (2-sqrt(-g)) g^uv - eta^uv, (4)
>>>>
>>>>which subtracts off the constant flat background eta^uv. Thus, if
>>>>we
>>>>take a variation (delta) of each side, which removes out the
>>>>Minkowski
>>>>eta^uv=constant background, (4) leads to:
>>>>
>>>>k delta(sqrt(-g) psi^uv) = 2 delta (g^uv) - delta (sqrt(-g) g^uv)
>>>>(5)
>>>>
>>>>which in the linear sqrt(-g)=1 approximation in rectilinear
>>>>coordinates
>>>>leads to:
>>>>
>>>>k delta(psi^uv) = delta (g^uv) (6)
>>>>
>>>>and so up to the constant k, psi^uv and g^uv vary together. But, in
>>>>the
>>>>non-linear case, (5) seems to suggest that sqrt(-g) psi^uv has two
>>>>terms
>>>>contributing to the variation, one in relation to sqrt(-g) g^uv as
>>>>in
>>>>the linear theory, and the other in relation to delta (g^uv).
>>>>
>>>> Again, is this correct, and if not, what are the correct, exact
>>>>relationships in a field of unlimited strength?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>Jay
>>>>__
>>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> If what you're saying is true, can't you demonstrate it by rewriting
>>> (1) as:
>>>
>>> g^uv = eta^uv + k(h^uv + higher order terms in h^uv)
>>>
>>> where the (unknown) series of higher order terms in h^uv is defined
>>> so
>>> as to make g^uv de facto "exact", and then do the same calculation
>>> you
>>> did above and show that all the h^uv terms still subtract out
>>> regardless of what they are and that you arrive at the same result
>>> as
>>> (5). Is that possible?
>> . . .
>> George,
>>
>> Aside from a sqrt(-g) factor which you omit, you are exactly correct.
>> Your reply helped me makes sense of exactly how to use
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#Mathematics.
>>
>> I am reminded that you are actually quite a good and insightful
>> physicist, which as I have remarked before, many readers probably do
>> not
>> see because they see all your "God stuff" and do not look any
>> further.
>>
>> Because the metric tensor g_uv occupies -- shall we say -- a
>> "prominent
>> place" in your thinking, stay tuned to my upcoming posts. I am in
>> the
>> midst of using the path integral to quantize gravitation and the
>> field
>> g^uv (h^uv). You would call it "quantum God," but I will not go
>> there.
>> ;-)
>>
>> Jay.
>
> Maybe you, the undergrad dropout, and the "good and insightful
> physicist"
> would take a look to the response to your duplicate message
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/bdd317d5e14fda57
>
> before continuing to write so many nonsense as the three are doing
> here :-D

You obviously have no sense of humor. I usually avoid responding to
this sort of thing, but I obtained my undergraduate degrees (that's
right, plural) from MIT, with honors. So, please stop those ridiculous
slanders. Now I understand why Fred kicked you off of SPF.

Nice touch, also, citing another post made by you, yourself.

Jay.
>
>
> --
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
> BLOG:
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html

From: eric gisse on 17 Nov 2009 14:13
Jay R. Yablon wrote:
[...]

> You obviously have no sense of humor.

YOU DIDN'T KNOW?

Christ, the only time this guy seems to get a giggle is when he's being
purposefully dishonest.

[...]
From: BURT on 17 Nov 2009 15:50
On Nov 17, 11:13 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Jay R. Yablon wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > You obviously have no sense of humor.
>
> YOU DIDN'T KNOW?
>
> Christ, the only time this guy seems to get a giggle is when he's being
> purposefully dishonest.
>
> [...]

GR reveals how motion changes in SR. Both gravity and motion have a
limit. If there is a speed limit there is an acceleration limit as a
consequence.

Mitch Raemsch
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Einstein "fingers" and relativity
Next: Space and Time