SCIAM: New theory of Gravity

bojan · #1 02-12-2009, 08:04 AM

Very interesting article...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...sc=WR_20091201

renormalised (Carl) · #2 02-12-2009, 10:51 AM

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

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 · #3 02-12-2009, 10:59 AM

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

sheeny (Al) · #4 02-12-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

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

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

Al.

renormalised (Carl) · #5 02-12-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheeny

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

Al.

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

sjastro · #6 02-12-2009, 03:58 PM

The mathematics behind gravity phase transitions sounds interesting.

Steven

sheeny (Al) · #7 02-12-2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

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

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

. Every idea/hypothesis/theory is only as good as it's last success...

Al.

mswhin63 (Malcolm) · #8 02-12-2009, 09:42 PM

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 (Rob) · #9 02-12-2009, 11:12 PM

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

Regards, Rob

sjastro · #10 03-12-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheeny

But challenging ideas as successful as General Relativity is a sign of healthy science

.......

Al.

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 (Carl) · #11 03-12-2009, 11:05 AM

Quote:

If a theory is healthy why challenge it in the first place?

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Gotta make sales!!

xelasnave · #12 03-12-2009, 12:14 PM

Fantasistic

...I took it that he thinks it works via "push"

.
Thanks for the link Bojan

alex

Barrykgerdes · #13 03-12-2009, 12:25 PM

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

Baz

sjastro · #14 03-12-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

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

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.

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 · #15 03-12-2009, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Fantasistic

...I took it that he thinks it works via "push"

.
Thanks for the link Bojan

alex

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

Steven

xelasnave · #16 03-12-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

Steven

You are right Steven

... everything you can think of is supportive of push gravity

... it is getting to the point where there is no arguement that can reasonably stand against it

... still I am happy to entertain alternative ideas

alex

sjastro · #17 03-12-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

You are right Steven

... everything you can think of is supportive of push gravity

... it is getting to the point where there is no arguement that can reasonably stand against it

... still I am happy to entertain alternative ideas

alex

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 · #18 03-12-2009, 01:30 PM

Here is a chap who has gone into it rather deeply

(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

.

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

.

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 · #19 03-12-2009, 01:42 PM

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 · #20 03-12-2009, 01:48 PM

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.