"Rex" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 4, 1:30 am, Uncle Al wrote:
Rex wrote:

Special Relativity and General Relativity are pretty boring.

[snip crap]

Idiot. SR is GR with G=0.

1. quantising General Relativity

GR founding postulates c=c G=G h=0. Can't be quantized by definition.

Idiot

2. quantising a different classical theory, while still having
general relativity emerge as a low-energy (large-distance) limit.

ALL classical gravitation theories postulate h=0. "Classical" =
"non-quantized"

Idiot.

3. having general relativity emerge as a low-energy limit
of a quantum theory that is not a quantization of a classical
theory

You don't know the difference between weak field and strong field vs.
classical and quantum limits.

Idiot.

4. having both general relativity and quantum theory emerge
from a theory very different from both

[snip crap]

A high school pendulum with sin(theta)=theta and the full expression
with a power series of angle cannot wildly diverge from a common
origin, ditto Newton and Einstein. The common background is still
there wahtever the decimal trim.

Idiot.

This assumes QM and GR coming from a
another theory where you can overdide probabilities,
etc.

Idiot.


You are the mother of all idiots. The above 4 possibilities
come from your colleague: See this intreresting 58 page paper:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903072

It appears in the $53 book "Physics Meet Philosophy at
the Planck Scale". What is good is that 80% of the
papers mentioned in this book can be found at arxiv.

Do not put too much stock in the above mentioned paper. It is very
improbable and implausible that special relativity is wrong and some
philosophers like to write papers to try to undermine relativity. Also, the
papers at arxiv that challenge relativity have a lot of problems. Both
string theory and M-theory are the best candidates for grand unification of
the quanta and spacetime. The paper you cite has a number of errors in it;
for example it falsely claims that the diameter of quarks are about 10^-18
meters. In the standard model, quarks have no size at all, that is they are
points. The standard model of particle physics is what is called a point
quantum field theory. In string theory, quarks can have a size of about
10^-35 meters, the Planck size. In fact that is one of the primary
distinguishing characteristics between point quantum field theory and string
theory: In both string and M-theory, the quanta have a little bit of spatial
extent.


R

On Sep 5, 3:28 pm, "RLG" wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Sep 4, 1:30 am, Uncle Al wrote:
Rex wrote:

Special Relativity and General Relativity are pretty boring.

[snip crap]

Idiot. SR is GR with G=0.

1. quantising General Relativity

GR founding postulates c=c G=G h=0. Can't be quantized by definition.

Idiot

2. quantising a different classical theory, while still having
general relativity emerge as a low-energy (large-distance) limit.

ALL classical gravitation theories postulate h=0. "Classical" =
"non-quantized"

Idiot.

3. having general relativity emerge as a low-energy limit
of a quantum theory that is not a quantization of a classical
theory

You don't know the difference between weak field and strong field vs.
classical and quantum limits.

Idiot.

4. having both general relativity and quantum theory emerge
from a theory very different from both

[snip crap]

A high school pendulum with sin(theta)=theta and the full expression
with a power series of angle cannot wildly diverge from a common
origin, ditto Newton and Einstein. The common background is still
there wahtever the decimal trim.

Idiot.

This assumes QM and GR coming from a
another theory where you can overdide probabilities,
etc.

Idiot.

You are the mother of all idiots. The above 4 possibilities
come from your colleague: See this intreresting 58 page paper:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903072

It appears in the $53 book "Physics Meet Philosophy at
the Planck Scale". What is good is that 80% of the
papers mentioned in this book can be found at arxiv.

Do not put too much stock in the above mentioned paper. It is very
improbable and implausible that special relativity is wrong and some
philosophers like to write papers to try to undermine relativity. Also, the
papers at arxiv that challenge relativity have a lot of problems. Both
string theory and M-theory are the best candidates for grand unification of
the quanta and spacetime. The paper you cite has a number of errors in it;
for example it falsely claims that the diameter of quarks are about 10^-18
meters. In the standard model, quarks have no size at all, that is they are
points. The standard model of particle physics is what is called a point
quantum field theory. In string theory, quarks can have a size of about
10^-35 meters, the Planck size. In fact that is one of the primary
distinguishing characteristics between point quantum field theory and string
theory: In both string and M-theory, the quanta have a little bit of spatial
extent.

R- Hide quoted text -

What part (or pages) in the above paper is it mentioned that special
relativity is wrong? The paper is simply giving a bird eye view of
the
approaches to quantum gravity.

Rex


- Show quoted text -

On Sep 6, 2:27 pm, "RLG" wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Sep 5, 3:28 pm, "RLG" wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message

roups.com...

What part (or pages) in the above paper is it mentioned that special
relativity is wrong? The paper is simply giving a bird eye view of
the
approaches to quantum gravity.

Read all of page 27, the author is suggesting relativistic invariance is
wrong.

R

Well. The portion is just exploring Bohmian mechanics interpretation
whose pilot wave nature violates lorentz invariance. So if you just
junk
Bohmian approach, then you can ignore the ramnifications of its
consequences. As I have said, that paper is just giving a bird eye
view of approaches to quantum gravity.

rex

On Sep 5, 10:27 pm, "RLG" wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Sep 5, 3:28 pm, "RLG" wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message

roups.com...

What part (or pages) in the above paper is it mentioned that special
relativity is wrong? The paper is simply giving a bird eye view of
the
approaches to quantum gravity.

Read all of page 27, the author is suggesting relativistic invariance is
wrong.

....does he have *evidence* to support that idea?


R

"Rex" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 5, 3:28 pm, "RLG" wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message

ups.com...



What part (or pages) in the above paper is it mentioned that special
relativity is wrong? The paper is simply giving a bird eye view of
the
approaches to quantum gravity.


Read all of page 27, the author is suggesting relativistic invariance is
wrong.

R

On Sep 3, 10:51 pm, "RLG" wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message

ps.com...



We know of the difficulty in probing planck scale, however there
is another way to to know which quantum gravity theory is
the right path for us. The theory must be able to explain
teleportation. So what kind of quantum gravity or quantum
spacetime theory is there available with enough degree of
freedom to describe teleportation of macroscopic objects
such as a chair? So far, I've seen one that has capability to
do it. It's this:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504062

What else?

Actually, string theory and M-theory are the best candidates for unification
and they do not advocate the dubious and highly implausible idea that the
formulas of relativity need modification.

What supports your subjective feeling that it is "highly
implausible"? It's plausible that any theory in science may fail
outside the ranges in which it has been tested.

You say SR has been tested up to .999...999 c? Maybe that's the wrong
scale. Maybe we should use the energy scale, which in fact goes to
infinity as v - c. In this case, there is always infinite room at
the top.

Eric Gisse wrote:
On Sep 3, 10:18 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
There are solutions of "GR with G=0" in which SR is not valid. Some
examples: all of the gravitational wave manifolds, and even the flat
manifold with topology SxR^2xR.

Do you have any good resources for those wave manifolds? I have seen
them before, but I have no idea how they are obtained or what
qualifies them for such a name.

I have no good reference. There is at least one book that enumerates
known solutions to the field equation, listing hundreds of them. I
remember Chris Hillman referenced it, and his pages might still be on
the web. A query on sci.physics.research will surely find it, as might a
web search.

The manifolds I refer to consist of vacuum everywhere, but are not flat
-- there are gravitational waves propagating throughout. I believe some
have topology R^4 so the waves "zoom in from infinity", but others have
topology S^3xR and possibly other spatially-compact forms (with periodic
boundary conditions on the waves).


My only understanding of waves comes from perturbation theory.

Classical electrodynamics also has wave solutions (called radio and
light), as does GR. Indeed, most theories of physics are second order
and often have wavelike solutions.


Tom Roberts

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:34:07 GMT, Tom Roberts
wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:
On Sep 3, 10:18 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
There are solutions of "GR with G=0" in which SR is not valid. Some
examples: all of the gravitational wave manifolds, and even the flat
manifold with topology SxR^2xR.

Do you have any good resources for those wave manifolds? I have seen
them before, but I have no idea how they are obtained or what
qualifies them for such a name.

I have no good reference. There is at least one book that enumerates
known solutions to the field equation, listing hundreds of them. I
remember Chris Hillman referenced it, and his pages might still be on
the web. A query on sci.physics.research will surely find it, as might a
web search.

http://www.amazon.com/Exact-Solution.../dp/0521461367

Actually that one looks a bit lightweight and worthless. I think this
is the one that everyone hypes:

http://www.amazon.com/Exact-Solution.../dp/0521230411

Since I have some extra money from /selling/ books, it makes cosmic
sense to spend some money on /buying/ books. Is Kramer _really_ worth
spending 150 on? I don't want to buy a paperweight - my crystal ball
serves that purpose adequately.

I also might want to buy a [another] PDE book because I have ran into
a wall with solving the Einstein-Cartan variant of the Schwarzschild
solution. Assuming reduction to Schwarzschild gives me a /nice/
splitting of the g_tt term into f(t)+g(t) but still gives nonlinear
PDEs.

Using Bianchi identities has handed me more equations - which seems
more solvable than the ones resulting from the Ricci tensor, but I
think I messed up since Maple says that the PDE system that is one of
the Bianchi equations along with one of the Ricci equations is
inconsistent.

I figure I found one of three things:

a) A bug in maple / grtensorii
b) An internal inconsistency in Einstein-Cartan theory
or c) A screwup in my math.

I know which one I'm betting on. Though the latter half of a wouldn't
terribly surprise me because getting the relevant equations into
grtensorii has been a pain in the ass. I don't see any easy way to
redefine the Christoffel symbols, so I have to define them from
scratch. Then I get confused between with how grtensorii defines them,
and how MTW/Carroll define them...ow my goddamn head. I wonder if I'd
get anything tractable out of an integral transform...


The manifolds I refer to consist of vacuum everywhere, but are not flat
-- there are gravitational waves propagating throughout. I believe some
have topology R^4 so the waves "zoom in from infinity", but others have
topology S^3xR and possibly other spatially-compact forms (with periodic
boundary conditions on the waves).

This is what I mean - how do you know they are wave solutions?

Perturbation theory gives you wave solutions but they are all of the
same general form so there must be wave solutions that /aren't/ from
perturbation theory. I have seen a few, but I don't know where they
come from [other than the obvious-but-unhelpful "the field equations"
answer].

I know I've seen an online resource for all the exact solutions to GR
before..

Oh wait.

http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~jimsk/

Too bad keyword search is broken, and I don't have Kramer, and I have
*NO* clue as to the meaning of rest of the classifications.



My only understanding of waves comes from perturbation theory.

Classical electrodynamics also has wave solutions (called radio and
light), as does GR. Indeed, most theories of physics are second order
and often have wavelike solutions.

Ooh, not what I meant.

I have plenty of understanding of wave theory from the classical
perspective. It'd be odd to get this far in my physics education
without having seen the wave equation, or the D'Almbert solution and
such.

What I mean is my only understanding of /gravitational/ waves comes
from general relativistic perturbation theory.



Tom Roberts

Eric Gisse wrote:
I figure I found one of three things:
a) A bug in maple / grtensorii
b) An internal inconsistency in Einstein-Cartan theory
or c) A screwup in my math.

I know which one I'm betting on.

Don't be too hasty. I've found two bugs in Microsoft VC++, and strongly
suspect I've found a different one in g++ on Mac OS X (neither apply to
g++ on Linux). Those are much better tested and used by a vastly larger
group of users than either maple or grtensorii.

Of course it's possible that one of the VC++ bugs applies
to maple on Windows (unless they're using the latest
service pack, which finally got around to fixing it)....


Tom Roberts