Wikipedia "Speed of light" article
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Halexandria Update; Family Trees; Gods; Tiamat; Sitchin; von Daniken; KJV; sun stood still
Next: Quantum Duality makes it so that consistency must be a variable and not a constant #264: Correcting Math
From: Rock Brentwood on 23 Dec 2009 16:01 On Oct 28, 7:04 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > One gets the uncomfortable impression that physics needs a fundamental > reformulation consistent with information and techniques acquired > since the 1920s. String theory ain't it, nor SUSY. That's the Follow the Crowd approach. What everyone seems to forget is that the Wisdom of the Masses phenomenon (in which the collective intelligence of a group gets things right more than any of the group's members) also has a flip side: the Stupidity of the Masses (i.e., because the group is right more often than its members, when the group actually DOES get things wrong, it's magnified by the fact that EVERYBODY is wrong!) There is one objective way to judge matters. If a problem has attracted the best and brightest for the better part of a century, and nobody's come up with a clear-cut answer, then that probably means everybody is going down the wrong path. So, you can use the Lemming Test as an objective means to determine what approaches are NOT the right answer. SUSY and string theory are the wrong answer, solely because they fail the Lemming Test. The very precept of there being such a thing as Quantum Gravity has failed the Lemming Test. Gravity is not quantizable and for a very elementary reason. The metric and frame field are not part of a "natural bundle", but can only be defined as part of a "gauge natural" bundle, if you accept a local Lorentz symmetry as a gauge group. Gauge-natural bundles can be effectively thought of as a partitioning of a natural bundle, each subbundle giving you an INEQUIVALENT sector; no two inequivalent sectors can be quantized within a single coherent state space. A field cannot be quantized in any quantum theory that only has the diffeomorphism group, unless the field is part of a natural bundle. The connection is. The frame field and metric are not. This may be one of the reasons Einstein looked early on at the idea of "purely affine" geometries. It's why Kijowski and his people (who produced the LNP 107 volume) took on the idea of trying to formulate gravity as a purely affine theory. But if the metric appears as a fundamental field, then this breaks the local GL(4) frame symmetry down to the orthogonal group SO(3,1). The fields reside on a Lorentz bundle, but not on a natural bundle. The reduction GL(4) -> SO(3, 1) is actually a form of symmetry breaking. The 10 degrees of freedom lost in going over from the 16-d.o.f. GL(4) symmetry to the 6-d.o.f SO(3,1) symmetry match (in number) the number of frame components or metric components and they give you the parametrization of a given subbundle. Each subbundle has its own vacuum state. Two vacuum states from two subbundles cannot be combined into a quantum superposition. The index to the vector sectors (that is, the 10 degrees of freedom comprising the metric/frame) are, in effect, a CLASSICAL and un-quantizable field. In other words: Penrose was right.
From: Uncle Al on 24 Dec 2009 14:42
Rock Brentwood wrote: > > On Oct 28, 7:04 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > One gets the uncomfortable impression that physics needs a fundamental > > reformulation consistent with information and techniques acquired > > since the 1920s. String theory ain't it, nor SUSY. > > That's the Follow the Crowd approach. What everyone seems to forget is > that the Wisdom of the Masses phenomenon (in which the collective > intelligence of a group gets things right more than any of the group's > members) also has a flip side: the Stupidity of the Masses (i.e., > because the group is right more often than its members, when the group > actually DOES get things wrong, it's magnified by the fact that > EVERYBODY is wrong!) > > There is one objective way to judge matters. If a problem has > attracted the best and brightest for the better part of a century, and > nobody's come up with a clear-cut answer, then that probably means > everybody is going down the wrong path. Either needs more genius or better observation to restrict or redefine founding postulates. The minds are in place, the maths are rigorous (as much as QM can be rigorous), consistent, and non-predictive. We all know Uncle Al's position on this, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Somebody should look. Everything already exists to do the observation: Equipment, test masses, experimental protocols, personnel, and teleparallel gravitation theory. Somebody should look. > So, you can use the Lemming Test as an objective means to determine > what approaches are NOT the right answer. SUSY and string theory are > the wrong answer, solely because they fail the Lemming Test. http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/reality.png Science is empirical. http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/god.jpg The universe ignores majority votes. > The very precept of there being such a thing as Quantum Gravity has > failed the Lemming Test. Gravity is not quantizable and for a very > elementary reason. Or quantizations are fundamentally in error at the starting line. Quantized gravitations require an odd-parity Chern-Simons term in addition to even-parity Einstein-Hilbert action. All quantized gravitations demand the Equivalence Principle directly or obliquely (BRST invariance in perturbational string theory). If chemically and macroscopically identical, opposite parity atomic mass distributions falsify the Equivalence Principle, there's your problem solved on both sides. > The metric and frame field are not part of a "natural bundle", but can > only be defined as part of a "gauge natural" bundle, if you accept a > local Lorentz symmetry as a gauge group. Gauge-natural bundles can be > effectively thought of as a partitioning of a natural bundle, each > subbundle giving you an INEQUIVALENT sector; no two inequivalent > sectors can be quantized within a single coherent state space. Lorentz symmetry would be (trace) violated by a trace chiral pseudoscalar vacuum background restricted to the massed sector (inert to EM). Detection woul require exquisite apparatus (Eotvos balance) and test masses (opposed single crystal enantiomorphic space groups P3(1) and P3(2) glycine gamma-polymorph, or P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 quartz). No prior observation, lab or astronomic, would be contradicted. Somebody should look. > A field cannot be quantized in any quantum theory that only has the > diffeomorphism group, unless the field is part of a natural bundle. > > The connection is. The frame field and metric are not. This may be one > of the reasons Einstein looked early on at the idea of "purely affine" > geometries. It's why Kijowski and his people (who produced the LNP 107 > volume) took on the idea of trying to formulate gravity as a purely > affine theory. > > But if the metric appears as a fundamental field, then this breaks the > local GL(4) frame symmetry down to the orthogonal group SO(3,1). The > fields reside on a Lorentz bundle, but not on a natural bundle. The > reduction GL(4) -> SO(3, 1) is actually a form of symmetry breaking. > The 10 degrees of freedom lost in going over from the 16-d.o.f. GL(4) > symmetry to the 6-d.o.f SO(3,1) symmetry match (in number) the number > of frame components or metric components and they give you the > parametrization of a given subbundle. > > Each subbundle has its own vacuum state. Two vacuum states from two > subbundles cannot be combined into a quantum superposition. The index > to the vector sectors (that is, the 10 degrees of freedom comprising > the metric/frame) are, in effect, a CLASSICAL and un-quantizable > field. > > In other words: Penrose was right. The jury remains in the court until all the physical evidence is disclosed. Gravitation is a geometry not a stockroom. Somebody give http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/ a boot to the head. You'd think they'd grow tired of guaranteed measuring zero from their stockroom, <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/lowfrontier2.pdf> but you'd be wrong, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/publon.htm Ask Dr. Schund Somebody should look. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |