SCIAM: New theory of Gravity

[bojan]

Very interesting article...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space&sc=WR_20091201

[renormalised]

That is going to cause one huge argument...I can hear the rumblings now:eyepop:

Quite a few seem eager for the theory, but the rumblings have already appeared...some of these guys are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole by jumping through hoops for GR/SR and it also appears that some of them just aren't plain adventurous enough to take a theoretical risk with their ideas (e.g. Gia Dvali abandoning his ideas just because it violated the current paradigm...what a wuss...what if he was actually right).

[allan gould]

Very interesting article, especially if it does away with the modern day epicycles of Dark Energy and Dark Matter

[sheeny]

Ah, that's what we like! A bit of intellectual biffo!:)

Al.

[renormalised]

Problem is, Al, sometimes that can translate into actual biffo biffo!!!!:eyepop:

[sjastro]

The mathematics behind gravity phase transitions sounds interesting.

Steven

[sheeny]

No doubt. It's a symptom of becoming too attached to an idea to maintain rational debate:)...

But challenging ideas as successful as General Relativity is a sign of healthy science:thumbsup:. Every idea/hypothesis/theory is only as good as it's last success...

Al.

[mswhin63]

Very good comment Al, have seen so many articles for and against Einstein and and others the thread becomes a slanging match and loose interest in it.

Each throrist has done a great deal to get us to where we are now and quite possible has allowed us to discover the next theory.

"Healthy science" brilliant analogy.

Good luck with this next theory.

[Robh]

An interesting marriage and divorce of space and time.
Let's see if the experts can make the relationship palatable!

Regards, Rob

[sjastro]

I think it's quite the opposite more like the tall poppy syndrome at work. If a theory is healthy why challenge it in the first place? It's like the engineering maxim if ain't broken then don't fix it.

Despite the title and first paragraph which contradicts the main body of the article, this new gravitational theory doesn't actually challenge GR. Its accepts GR is applicable for low energy scales which is the current state of the Universe.

And as usual articles like this make horrible bloopers. "The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness". Quantum field theories use the concept of time as developed by SR.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

Simple answer to that is, "Why do people climb mountains":D

If you don't challenge a prevailing paradigm, you get no progress or at least no progress worth writing home about. That's precisely what Einstein did himself...as did others.



Precisely, but you have to give the editors some leeway, and the reporters a bit of "journalistic license":P:D

Gotta make sales!!:P:D

[xelasnave]

Fantasistic:thumbsup: ...I took it that he thinks it works via "push":rolleyes:.
Thanks for the link Bojan:D

alex:):):)

[Barrykgerdes]

No matter how good it is it won't get anywhere unless the polititians accept it as a vote catcher!;)

Baz

[sjastro]

A theory or paradigm that is challenged is perceived as "unhealthy" in the first place otherwise why challenge it.

Einstein is a case in point. He didn't wake up one day and decided to overturn Newtonian physics "because it was there", he took it on board as observation saw an impasse between Newtonian physics and electrodynamics.

And what he ultimately did was to show that Newtonian physics wasn't incorrect but extended it in the form of SR and GR theories.

GR will go the same way in the form of a Unified Field Theory:).

Steven

[sjastro]

A blank sheet of paper is more supportive of your push gravity.:D

Steven

[xelasnave]

You are right Steven:thumbsup:... everything you can think of is supportive of push gravity:D... it is getting to the point where there is no arguement that can reasonably stand against it:P... still I am happy to entertain alternative ideas:)


alex:):):)

[sjastro]

Sorry for my sarcasm Alex.

It's amazing how the human mind can read anything into a situation if one is determined enough.

Steven

[xelasnave]

Here is a chap who has gone into it rather deeply:eyepop: (in my view)... and he used more than one sheet of paper so he must be good;)...and just look at the books he has read:D.

ANYWAYS my point is there are many others who like the idea of push seemingly less crazy than me...well that is not hard I expect:D.

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp

ANYWAYS such a site tells me I dont have to worry about the matter as there are many others who like the idea (surprising if you note some of the names)

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

AND to think I though I had an original idea....mmm greatly mistaken ..the idea has been considered by many.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Kinetic_gravity
alex

[bojan]

Alex,
this website (EMRP) is absolute rubbish.
Yes, we have our democratic liberties (to think what we want) but this does not mean we are right by trying to propagate anything just because it is "against".
And, other people (who think this is rubbish) have right to say so.. the only difference between "pro-pushers" and "anti-pushers", in most cases the latter have good and valid mathematical arguments against push*trons (the star here is to bypass the filthy language filter), while "pro-pushers" are mostly straw men.

[xelasnave]

No need to appologise Steven I am totally aware of my morospophic condition when it comes to push... if not for such a condition I would have given up the idea years ago... still I do not think I am the only person to have such an affliction... I maintain even big bangers have it... and certainly there would not be any religion that could not seize upon any fact presented that did not offer to them more evidence of substance to their belief... fortunately I really dont fully believe in anything but love reading about everything and of course most of all I enjoy considering the composition of nothing....what else can an old fella do when he is down to only two dogs to pat.

Have a great day I am going sailing now and will rely on the pushing power of the wind not the sucking power of high pressure verses low pressure and wing arodynamics:D.

alex:):):)

[Paddy]

Thanks for the link Bojan, very interesting idea. I have no way of really understanding the maths and physics of it, but it often seems to me that the need to hypothesise dark matter and energy arises from a limitation in our understanding of matter, space and time and their relationships to each other. I will watch with interest.

[sheeny]

There could be an element of tall poppy syndrome there... wouldn't you like to be the one who worked out how to unify GR and QM? :D I have to agree with Carl's response, but to add my own spin... if you don't challenge ideas/hypotheses/theories then they are simply dogma. And that is not healthy science!

I have to disagree!:)

As an engineer, I see much value in "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" for all sorts of reasons.:) But that is engineering and economics, and not pure science.

GR is broken, like it or not: it isn't compatible with the other similarly successful theory, Quantum Mechanics.

Maybe, this solution/modification will work.:shrug: Time and good application of the scientific method will tell.:):thumbsup: It is a novel solution worthy of exploration, especially if it can deal with the 2 great anomalies of our time: dark matter and dark energy.



Yeah, well as Carl said, there is some journalistic licence being applied there. In the fullness of time, if the actual model doesn't work, it doesn't work... no biggie. That's just how science works.:)

Al.

[sjastro]

Alex,

At the very least you should provide supportive evidence for own ideas.

Given that you have proposed a multitude of push particle candidates over the years, to produce an example which is the very antithesis to push particles (the use of electromagnetic radiation for doing the "pushing" instead of particles) is very strange.

Here is EMRP shot down in flames.
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/02/another_revolution_in_physics_1.php

[sjastro]

One can argue on the same basis that QM is broken because it's not compatible with GR on large scales.

The reality is that neither GR or QM (or QFT to be more precise) are "broken" theories, they are incomplete theories which is not the same thing. Both have been stunningly successful at the scales at which they operate.

Consider Newtonian theory of gravitation. It is an incomplete theory and an approximate solution to GR yet it is far more extensively used in celestial mechanics than GR. Clearly it is not a broken theory.:)



As mentioned previously I'd like to study the mathematics behind the idea.

Steven

Steven

[GeoffW1]

Ahhh, biffo

[renormalised]

A theory maybe healthy, but is it fit??. No theory has everything 100% correct or, indeed, in it's favour. That's why Einstein challenged accepted Newtonian notions, then created a new paradigm on top of the old one...extending it to the new theory. GR and SR are in the same box as Newton...they are being challenged, stretched and maybe broken, but they are still parts of a larger jigsaw puzzle. They may be just put back in places we haven't heard of, yet:D

However, in some cases, no matter how healthy an old paradigm appears to be, it may still need replacing by a new one, when newer knowledge presents itself.

[shane.mcneil]

I'm glad to see the gravity debate is still alive and well. :D

Shane

[xelasnave]

Now where was I?:)

My point is this ... who really knows anything that is not based on a belief:shrug:...I dont think any idea formed or entertained by any human is assured of infalibility (except in the mind of the holder of that idea)... but I do prefer a "push" style of gravity rather than the standard model approach that needs a mythical construct called super symetry and other "universes" where the force of gravity leaks to such that it can be a weak force in this universe.. gravity is not a weak force just because humans can not dtect "all of it"...

I find that approach to science laughable and have no difficulty in regarding it as highly suspect ....yet the standard model is current belief as to how it all works... each particle has super partners??? things popping into and out of exsistence ???...really how can anyone go for such an approach?

I am surprised anyone buys this approach with absolute belief they are correct and they have all the answers...but respect their right to believe what they like...

Those advocating the standard model as being solid science need to throw light on all their "dark" matters before saying other views are wrong...those who let their imagination run wild but then try to exclude others from the game should review their elitist approach...

It is unfortunate we have folk who seek to eliminate alternative views because they know they are right and everyone in opposition are wrong.


alex:):):)

[Nesti]

I have to agree with my tutor (mentioned before). He spent his entire life as an Astrophysicist, working for NASA, studying stellar dynamics etc. What he said has always stuck with me. He said to me that light is transverse, gravity is quadrupole...it might not be able to be brought into the fold because it is a totally separate phenomenon. Why does it have be anyway (Rhetorical)?

There's also a problem facing modern science; modern communication. 100 years ago a paper would need to be writen-up, submitted and reviewed before it was ALLOWED to be published. Today you can send half-baked ideas to the New York Times and get 15min of fame...and then, fizzle!

[Nesti]

We always seem to get back to the gravity debate (3rd time I've posted that I think).

[Nesti]

Amen!

Einstein may well be perfectly correct in SR & GR, yet insufficiently complete at the same time (He knew this too). I feel one day this will show to be the case, that relativity can be built upon.

Example:
“The wave function does not in any way describe a state which could be that of a single system; it relates rather to many systems, to an 'ensemble of systems' in the sense of statistical mechanics”
- Albert Einstein, 1936 -

You could easily assume that each particle type had its own Metric Tensor field (like Einstein's Tensor in GR), and layered into spacetime, these fields somehow interact with each other through an overarching field. Then just as the Einstein's Tensor and Energy Momentum Tensor relate directly to each other, there's a direct connectedness to everything...no need for unification!

And before the hot-heads start shaking their fists, it's just an example to demonstrate my point, I'm not saying it's real.

[mswhin63]

Theory on gravity may take forever to resolve to a degree, I believe that any theory that can be used for practicle purposes should be considered as the correct and most accurate theory. Other theories once they are used for practicle purposes and provide a more refined calculation then that can be used as the current define theory.

Any theory without or limited practicle purposes should be theorical research only and not considered to dispute or even downtread other theorist which Einstein seems to cop a lot of.

Remember Einsteins theories allow humans to venture to the moon and that is saying something. Good on ya Einstein, lest we forget your acheivements.

[xelasnave]

Hi Steven thanks for the link.
If I had to select a particle I guess I would go for a nuetrino but I suspect the possibility remains that there may be something out there ..a particle related to the e m spectrum..that will fit the bill... which we have yet to discover or speculoate upon.

I wish I could provide more answers than questions rather than merely hold a belief of a general way things may work... as I have said before somewhat as a joke...we start with an assumption that everything can be placed on a sheet of paper in simple terms..all our sums fit this bill.. as science has eliminated the aether science will find answers that will not enlist the aether..so our sheet of paper starts wihout a consideration of a fundamental..in my view ... if there is no aether the voids must be truely empty but of course they can not be so... energy from everywhere passes thru so they are not empty ..what we find in the voids should be universal one could think but at least in them we can not deny the obvious...there must be a pressure of energy or particles from outside... observation from anyplace in the universe must show energy reaching that point (any and every point in fact) from an almost infinite number of tradjectories... so even in the realm of nothing we can speculate there must be a pressure..be it energy or particles ..to me this suggests that such pressure could be universal and it is the flow of all energy from everywhere that may well be the prime aspect of space time..the building blocks of all fields in my view (unsupported belief) ..Also I do not see there need be any arguement between GR and push..in fact I feel one supports the other....but thats just me. I feel folk try to get one up on old ideas by destroying them to instal their own... I think GR is based on a flawed premise but still hold it in respect because it works so it seems.. also I think DrA was tinkering with the push concept when he was considering the possibility of a cosmological constant...and it was that which started me thinking... so blame him;)

As to any site I put for a link I do so because I find parts that are interesting... one error will not cause me to disregard the posibility small truths can still be found...

I have not been thi9nking about this stuff for a while which is good as I am standing back further than in the past... and I can now say... I dont know if push is right or wrong but I do enjoy considering all I find on the subject of gravity as I am more convinced I am just as ignorant as all humans when trying to work this matter out:D:P:).

Have a great day:thumbsup:.

alex:):):)