Re: RAH and Light speed

In article <1140546973.924960.294300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
genewardsmith@xxxxxxxxx says...
Gerry Quinn wrote:

Both Feynman's (and many other people, such as Pauli's) idea of how to
proceed (extend quantum field theory to gravitation within an
underlying flat space, and bootstrap up to general relativity) and
Einstein and Wheeler's idea of how to proceed (assume the spacetime
given by general relativity is fundamental, and try to understand
non-gravitational physics geometrically) turned out to be failures.
However, neither is really dead, since modern approaches to this very
difficult problem, such as brane theory, can be described as a
combination of these basic approaches.

Anything can be described as anything. Not always honestly, though.
Brane theory has no origin in general relativity. Since any theory can
be expressed geometrically, the popularity or otherwise of a geometric
approach to a new theory is irrelevant.

The foreword by John Prescott and Kip Thorne to Feynman's _Lectures on
Gravitation_ refers to the work of Robert Kraichnan in the 40's and
50's, developing a theory along similar lines to what Feynman did
later, and notes his recollection that he got very little support for
his efforts.

I would say the idea that there is a particle called the "graviton" was
and is extremely popular and influential.

It is now. It wasn't then. "Einstein [..] was appalled by an approach
to gravitation that rejected his own hard-won geometrical insights" -
Prescott and Thorne.

In a shop not too long ago, I noted a large book called _Gravitation_
on sale at around EU100. Glancing through it, I found the graviton was
mentioned only in passing, on page 917.

The view didn't get to be 'popular and influential'
without counsiderable resistance from the geometry-obsessed
establishment. [Their rotten edifice is clearly collapsing nowadays,
and not before time.]

It is? What's it being replaced with--ether?

Probably not ether, although approaches based on particles or other
entities operating in flat spacetime can be considered as being in the
same tradition as ether theories. But the ridiculous melange of
wormholes, naked singularities, black holes leading into paper-doll
universes or other exotic topologies - this will in time be seen not as
a 'golden age' (as some deranged acolytes still have it) but as an
embarrassing period where mathematics was mistaken for physics and
damaging obfuscation was the order of the day.

- Gerry Quinn











.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >>I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... Without this restrictive principle it would be ... > unless the principle of general relativity were used. ... What would physics look like without gravitation? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >>I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... Without this restrictive principle it would be ... > unless the principle of general relativity were used. ... What would physics look like without gravitation? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
    ... It says that gravitation is a manifestation of spacetime curvature. ... Do you agree that General Relativity is the theory as put forth by Einstein ... aware of the Lagrangian formulation of his mechanics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • FFiMP: Spacetime Curvature and Gravitation
    ... SPACETIME CURVATURE AND GRAVITATION ... According to a well-known relativist and a coauthor of Gravitation, ... considerations always give correct solutions. ... his general relativity as a constructive theory. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • FFiMP: Spacetime Curvature and Gravitation
    ... SPACETIME CURVATURE AND GRAVITATION ... According to a well-known relativist and a coauthor of Gravitation, ... considerations always give correct solutions. ... his general relativity as a constructive theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)