jump to navigation

Confused March 29, 2007

Posted by dorigo in Uncategorized.
trackback

I am sitting in the conference room just before the start of the Thursday morning session, and I have just been handed a revised program of the day. In it, there is no mention of Louise Riofrio’s talk on her exotic formula for space-time.

This sounds quite strange – I had thought that the issue with her talk had been resolved. Or maybe this is connected to the fact that Louise  wrote yesterday in her blog that she is being detained at Gatwick for some problems with her visa ?

With Louise not showing up, the talk being cancelled, and  anonymous posters here casting doubts on Louise’s identity, the plot has thickened considerably…

Comments

1. nc - March 29, 2007

Regarding Louise Riofrio’s GM = tc^3:

Consider a star. If you had a star of uniform density and radius R, and it collapsed, the energy release from gravitational potential energy being turned into explosive (kinetic and radiation) energy is E = (3/5)(M^2)G/R. The 3/5 factor from the integration which produces this result is not applicable to the universe where the density rises with apparent distance because of spacetime (you are looking to earlier, more compressed and dense, epochs of the big bang when you look to larger distances). It’s more sensible to just remember that the gravitational potential energy of mass m located at distance R from mass M is simply E = mMG/R so for gravitational potential energy of the universe is similar, if R is defined as the effective distance the majority of the mass would be moving if the universe collapsed.

This idea of gravitational potential energy shouldn’t bee controversial: in supernovae explosions much energy comes from such an implosion, which turns gravitational potential energy into explosive energy!

Generally, to overcome gravitational collapse, you need to have an explosive outward force.

The universe was only able to expand in the first place because the explosive outward force, provided by kinetic and radiation energy, which counteracted the gravitational force.

Initially, the entire energy of the radiation was present as various forms of radiation. Hence, to prevent the early universe from being contracted into a singularity by gravity, we have the condition that E = Mc^2 = (M^2)G/R = (M^2)G/(ct) which gives GM = tc^3.

****************

Comparison of two ways to get GM = tc^3:

(1)

Consider why the big bang was able to happen, instead of the mass being locked by gravity into a black hole singularity and unable to expand!

This question is traditionally answered (Prof. Susskind used this in an interview about his book) by the fact the universe simply had enough outward explosive or expansive force to counter the gravitational pull which would otherwise produce a black hole.

In order to make this explanation work, the outward acting explosive energy of the big bang, E = Mc^2, had to either be equal to, or exceed, the energy of the inward acting gravitational force which was resisting expansion.

This energy is the gravitational potential energy E = MMG/R = (M^2)G/(ct).

Hence the explosive energy of the big bang’s nuclear reactions, fusion, etc., E = Mc^2 had to be equal or greater than E = (M^2)G/(ct):

Mc^2 ~ (M^2)G/(ct)

Hence

MG ~ tc^3.

That’s the first way, and perhaps the easiest to understand.

(2)

Simply equate the rest mass energy of m with its gravitational potential energy mMG/R with respect to large mass of universe M located at an average distance of R = ct from m.

Hence E = mc^2 = mMG/(ct)

Cancelling and collecting terms,

GM = tc^3

So Louise’s formula is derivable.

The rationale for equating rest mass energy to gravitational potential energy in the derivation is Einstein’s principle of equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass in general relativity (GR), when combined with special relativity (SR)equivalence of mass and energy!

(1) GR equivalence principle: inertial mass = gravitational mass.

(2) SR equivalence principle: mass has an energy equivalent.

(3) Combining (1) and (2):

inertial mass-energy = gravitational mass-energy

(4) The inertial mass-energy is E=mc^2 which is the energy you get from complete annihilation of matter into energy.

The gravitational mass-energy is is gravitational potential energy a body has within the universe. Hence the gravitational mass-energy is the gravitational potential energy which would be released if the universe were to collapse. This is E = mMG/R with respect to large mass of universe M located at an average distance of R = ct from m.

Analysis of what GM = tc^3 implies:

If you look at GM = tc^3, you see ‘problems’ right away. The inclusion of time on the right hand side implies that there is some variation with time of something else there, G, M, or c.

Louise has investigated the assumption that c is varying while GM remains constant. This tells her that c would need to fall with the inverse cube-root of the age of the universe. She has made studies on this possibility, and has detailed arguments.

I should mention that I’ve investigated the situation that c doesn’t vary, but that G increases in direct proportion to t. This increase of G is the opposite of Dirac’s assumption (he thought G may decrease with time, and was initially higher, a claim refuted by Teller who pointed out the fusion rate dependence on G which would have made the sun’s power boil the oceans during the Cambrian era, which clearly didn’t occur). G variation actually doesn’t affect fusion in starts or the big bang, because electromagnetism would vary in a similar way. Fusion depends on protons approaching close enough due to gravity-caused compression to overcome the Coulomb repulsion, so that the strong force can attract them together. If you vary both gravity and electromagnetism in the same way (in a theory unifying gravity with the standard model) you end up with no affect on the fusion rate: the increased gravity from bigger G doesn’t increase fusion because coulomb repulsion is also increased! Hence, variations in G doesn’t affect fusion in stars or the big bang.

Smaller G in the past doesn’t therefore upset the basic big bang model. What it does do is to explain why the ripples in the cosmic background radiation are so small: they are small because G is small, not because of inflation.

So this is another aspect of Louise’s equation GM = tc^3. It could turn out that something else like G is varying, not c. One more thing about this, some theoretical calculations I did suggest that there is a dimensionless constant equal to e^3 (the cube of the base of natural logs), due to quantum gravity effects of exchange radiation in causing gravitation. Basically, the exchange radiation travels at light velocity in spacetime (it doesn’t travel instantly), so the more distant universe is of higher density (being seen further in the past, and earlier in time after big bang, hence more compressed). Hence, gravity is affected by this apparently increasing density at great spacetime distances. Another factor stops this effect from going toward infinity at the greatest distances: redshift. Gauge bosons should get stretched out (redshifted in frequency) by expansion, so the energy they carry E=hf, decreases. Great redshift offsets the increasing strength of gravitational exchange radiation due to the density going towards infinity as you look to great distances.

This effects is easily calculated, and the result is G = ¾(H^2)/(Pi * Rho * e^3), which is a factor of (e^3)/2 or approx. 10 times smaller than the value implied by a critical density in pre-1998 cosmology (no cc), where you can rearrange critical density to give G = 3(H^2)/(8 * Pi * Rho).

This means that Louise’s equation becomes:

GMe^3 = tc^3.

The dynamics resolve the dark matter problem. I’m writing a paper on this. Previously I’ve had published 10 pages on it in the August 2002 and April 2003 issues of Electronics World because the mechanism for the gravity exchange radiation is linked to that for electromagnetism, but I’d like to try again to get a paper in Classical and Quantum Gravity. The editor of Classical and Quantum Gravity had my last submission refereed by a string theorist in who ignored the science and just said it didn’t fit into the mainstream speculation. (The editor of Classical and Quantum Gravity forwarded me the referee’s report, without giving the name of the referee: it was evident from the report that the referee would be happier if the paper was within string theory’s framework, which is why I suspect he/she is a string theorist.)

2. nc - March 29, 2007

anonymous, you need to be more specific than saying it doesn’t make sense. I’ve just proved it makes sense in comment 3.

Imagine if you said ‘string theory does not make sense’, how would the string theorists deal with you? If they bothered replying at all, they’d ask what specifically you are too stupid to understand…

3. nc - March 29, 2007

I think Tommaso should delete personal abuse such as comment 4 if he has the time. It’s a pity that gutless cowards who can’t do science themselves get encouraged to attack those who can.

4. Kea - March 29, 2007

The plot thickens indeed…. Sigh. Well, at least I have an interesting seminar to go to today.

5. wolfgang - March 29, 2007

Tommaso, anonymous et al.

this link (and the people in the picture) might answer questions about
the identity (and gender) of L.R.:
www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/2004/sep03/ssi.htm

As for her cosmology, I think blog and her papers speak for themselve (and loud and clear imho).

6. Guess Who - March 29, 2007

Nigel, since I don’t like people just being ignored, I will now sacrifice some time which I could use far more profitably to point out a few problems with your “derivation” and conclusions. I don’t expect you to thank me, but at least my conscience will be at peace.

Please note that what I am about to say is far from exhaustive. There are many, many reasons why what you and/or Louise are proposing can be readily dismissed as – to use an infamous quote – not even wrong. I will just point out a few problems which stand out in what you wrote above. So, quoting you:

> In order to make this explanation work, the outward acting
> explosive energy of the big bang, E = Mc^2

You are using the expression for rest mass. That means literally mass at rest in some reference frame. But you know that the early universe was radiative: all particles were moving randomly and very close to the speed of light, so almost all their energy was in the momentum (p) part of the full expression E = sqrt((p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2). Because of the randomness, there was no reference frame in which p = 0.

> the gravitational potential energy E = MMG/R = (M^2)G/(ct).

Most quantities which you put in this expression are ill- or un-defined. In general relativity, which you must (and claim to) use in this context, energy does not stand alone as a separately conserved quantity: it’s just one component of the 4×4 energy-momentum tensor. Your M is supposed to be the rest mass of the universe, which is neither at rest nor, to the best of our knowledge, finite. So you have an infinity squared there. Your R = c*t looks like it could be the Hubble radius (up to some factor of order unity, e.g. 2 in a radiative universe) but you say that it’s “defined as the effective distance the majority of the mass would be moving if the universe
collapsed”. Excuse me, but that would make R = 0.

So, you are equating an incorrect expression for an ill-defined E with an undefined quantity containing a square of an ill-defined, presumably infinite M divided by 0.

> The rationale for equating rest mass energy to gravitational
> potential energy in the derivation is Einstein’s principle of
> equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass in general
> relativity (GR), when combined with special relativity (SR)
> equivalence of mass and energy!

There is no need to “combine” anything. General relativity fully contains special relativity. To do serious cosmology, you need to solve the equations of general relativity. You are not doing
that.

> The gravitational mass-energy is is gravitational potential energy a
> body has within the universe.

Again ill-defined. But let’s say you take the standard FRW solutions of Einstein’s equations, put yourself in the comoving frame and compute the gravitational potential of a test particle according to your prescription. Since the FRW solutions are isotropic, your result will = 0. So now you’re saying that taking the square of an ill-defined, presumably infinite M and dividing by 0 yields 0.

> If you look at GM = tc^3, you see ‘problems’ right away. The
> inclusion of time on the right hand side implies that there is some
> variation with time of something else there, G, M, or c.

Yes. And if you vary c, as you and/or Louise want to, you do not only affect the expansion history; you affect just about all natural phenomena, since c enters all possible equations of physics. When we point telescopes at the sky, we also look back in time, and there’s no dramatic sign of a vastly different c jumping at you. Serious researchers do consider the possibility of small variations in natural constants, c included, and work hard to put observational limits on those variations.

> Louise has investigated the assumption that c is varying while GM
> remains constant. This tells her that c would need to fall with the
> inverse cube-root of the age of the universe.

There goes the chance of identifying R with the Hubble radius (again).

> She has made studies on this possibility, and has detailed
> arguments.

A look at her posted “papers” is enough to falsify this claim.

> G variation actually doesn’t affect fusion in starts or the big bang,
> because electromagnetism would vary in a similar way.

G plays no role in electromagnetism, or in any other interaction besides gravity, so unless you have a Theory Of Everything which unifies general relativity and the standard model of particle physics, this claim is groundless.

> If you vary both gravity and electromagnetism in the same way (in
> a theory unifying gravity with the standard model)

Have you done that? If so, you’ll be collecting your Nobel prize in short order. If not, this is just hot air.

> some theoretical calculations I did suggest that there is a
> dimensionless constant equal to e^3 (the cube of the base of
> natural logs), due to quantum gravity effects of exchange radiation
> in causing gravitation.

You have a working theory of quantum gravity? Previous remark applies.

> This effects is easily calculated

In your hypothetical theory of quantum gravity?

> The editor of Classical and Quantum Gravity forwarded me the
> referee’s report, without giving the name of the referee

This is standard practice.

> it was evident from the report that the referee would be happier if
> the paper was within string theory’s framework

String theory?!? What you and Louise have written here and elsewhere is not even within the framework of special, let alone general relativity. You are literally more than a century behind
the research front. Comparison with string theory is simply absurd.

7. Carl Brannen - March 29, 2007

If I had to make a guess, I would say that Louise told them that she was there to give a talk at the physics conference and since she doesn’t look like the typical physicist, they concluded she was using a stolen passport. But I doubt that they will tell her what the problem is.

30 years ago, a friend of mine tried to get back to the US from Mexico at the El Paso border. At the time it required only a drivers license, which he had, but did not show. Instead, he showed his US passport. In addition, he had a West Virginian backwoods accent, an accent that dates to before the Revolution and sounds very British. If he’d shown his drivers license, they’d have probably assumed that he had emigrated or whatever.

Instead they checked to see his passport to see where he grew up. His accent didn’t match the passport. They pulled him to the side to check out his passport and strip searched him. (He claimed no body cavity search.) We had to wait 3 or 4 hours for him.

Another guy I knew was from Thailand, attending college. He forgot his passport, went across the border to Mexico. To get back, he pulled out his drivers’ license, said “yes” to the “are you an American citizen” question and came across no problem.

8. Fred - March 29, 2007

Thank you nc and GW for tacking us to point concerning the merits of what LR is proposing. Those who promote personal attacks leave us empty along with a slightly bitter taste of shame.

9. delio - March 29, 2007

carl, there is no such a framework as that of “typical physicists”. and if there were, then louise would probably fit it with no major problems, according to the pictures on her blog.

at all meetings i have co-organized or attended i have never ever heard of such silly problems – in particular, not if some evidence of participation in a conference (at the imperial college!!!) is presented. problems may indeed arise with visa, but *prior* to departure.

10. Tony Smith - March 30, 2007

Louise has posted her “Talk submitted for March 29” on her blog, saying in part:
“… Scale R of the Universe is distance from that origin, age t multiplied by c. That is why as t increases, Space expands. It can’t expand at a constant rate, for mass and gravity slow it down. … When t was tiny c was enormous and the Universe expanded like a Bang.

Since the evidence … to detect alpha changing … is still non-conclusive, we can stipulate that product h c is indeed constant …

According to astrophysics, life should not have evolved here at all because at Earth’s formation the Sun was only about 70% as bright. Our average temperature would have been 10° below zero centigrade, frozen solid. … This is called the “Faint Young Sun” paradox.
Here’s a hot young solution. The Sun also turns fuel to energy according to E=mc^2. Adjusting for change in c at various epochs, solar luminosity becomes a nearly level line. …”.

Guess Who said:
“… if you vary c … you do not only affect the expansion history; you affect just about all natural phenomena …”.

In line with Guess Who’s comment, consider:

If Louise varies c and keeps h c constant, then h must vary as 1/c
and
we have E = m c^2 (energy in terms of mass as used by Louise),
and also E = h c / lambda (energy in terms of wavelength lambda),
and also E = h nu (energy in terms of frequency nu).

My simple mind has a hard time figuring out how to reconcile those three formulae for E :

In terms of mass (and Louise’s solar energy production), E varies as c^2 .

In terms of wavelength (recalling that Louise uses h c constant) E is constant .

In terms of frequency, E varies as h and therefore (with h c constant) as 1 / c .

I am not saying that it is impossible to construct a consistent physics model with those characteristic,
but
I am saying that my simple mind is unhappy with such characteristics,
so
I will work on my physics model (see physics/0207095 for an old version before I was blacklisted by arXiv, and my web site for my current work).
Since my model does unify gravity and the standard model (and also allows calculation of particle masses, force strengths, and K-M parameters), and since I am very unlikely to ever win a Nobel prize,
I disagree with Guess Who’s statement that
if one has “… done that [a theory unifying gravity with the standard model] …” then one would “… be collecting …[a]… Nobel prize in short order …”.

Tony Smith

PS – I wish that all the comments on the web about Louise had been about her work and had not sunk to such depths of personal vilification and character assassination.
Even though, as I have said in this comment, I am not happy with the physics of her model,
I still advocate her right to work on it and to present it to conferences and to post it on arXiv.

If it were to turn out that some of her personal enemies had a role in getting her detained around Gatwick, then I think that they should suffer severe consequences for that role.

Although I am not posting anonymously, I can understand why some might want to post anonymously about substantive physics that is (for whatever reason) so controversial that discussion of it might hurt their career path.
However,
I strongly oppose anonymous posts of such things as ad hominem attacks. If you want to attack someone personally, you should be willing to expose yourself personally.

11. Guess Who2 - March 30, 2007

‘Nigel, since I don’t like people just being ignored, I will now sacrifice some time which I could use far more profitably to point out a few problems with your “derivation” and conclusions. I don’t expect you to thank me, but at least my conscience will be at peace.’ – Guess Who

All you do is to assert your ignorance of the foundation of general relativity, which is background independence. Learn some physics.

12. Guess Who3 - March 30, 2007

“Your R = c*t looks like it could be the Hubble radius (up to some factor of order unity, e.g. 2 in a radiative universe) but you say that it’s “defined as the effective distance the majority of the mass would be moving if the universe
collapsed”. Excuse me, but that would make R = 0.” -Guess Who

No, around us there is an average radius where the mass of the universe is located. We see spherical symmetry in all directions.

Calculate the radius out to which 50% of the mass is located. That’s the mean distance. That is not R = 0, it’s thousands of millions of light years away.

Your whole comment could have been written by a 2 year old. Pathetic.

13. Guess Who3 - March 30, 2007

Guess who: what you are saying is that the mean distance at which the mass of the receding universe is located is 0, so the entire mass of the receding universe is right here. This is the whole problem with you string theorists. Not even wrong.

14. Guess Who3 - March 30, 2007

“To do serious cosmology, you need to solve the equations of general relativity. You are not doing
that.” – Guess Who

Wrong, quantum gravity isn’t included in general relativity! Exchange radiation that causes gravity should be redshifted in frequency, losing energy because E=hf.

15. Guess Who3 - March 30, 2007

“> If you vary both gravity and electromagnetism in the same way (in
> a theory unifying gravity with the standard model)

Have you done that? If so, you’ll be collecting your Nobel prize in short order. If not, this is just hot air.” – Guess Who

Actually, while string theory failed, loop quantum gravity works. General relativity complete with background independence (which you don’t understand) arises from summing all the interactions in a spin network by path integrals. Your arrogance and ignorance of basic advances in the last decade is just moronic. The stuff Louise is doing is trying to get predictions from an underlying physical concept. You seem to be confused about this, so maybe you should stick to stuff you can understand, like tying yourself in knots…

16. Starrynight - March 30, 2007

What a remarkable exchange! I recommend everyone buy a copy of Wald!

17. Guess Who - March 30, 2007

Wald is good but in my experience too abstract for a first course. No names mentioned, but the problem with trying to jump straight to advanced material without having the necessary prerequisite knowledge is plain to see above.

The most accessible and concise introduction to GR which I know of, although it’s been around for more than twenty years now, remains A First Course in General Relativity by Schutz. Highly recommended to anyone serious about learning general relativity. It’s far from enough, but it’s a good starting point.

18. Andrea Giammanco - March 30, 2007

> her gender matters because she is claiming to be something she is not and therefore is deceitful. this affects the quality of her scientific work because she is not being honest. honesty is of supreme importance in science dont you think?

honesty is of supreme importance for a scientist when (s)he is doing science. private life is private life.
a scientist is not a politician, it is not important for anybody to know if (s)he is a good person or not.
if we refuse to consider a theory just because we don’t trust the proponent, we may miss some good theories just because they were proposed by the wrong people.

by the way: let’s assume that Louise is really a transgender. we all know that, unfortunately, prejudices affect the judgement of people, even when people is not aware of having prejudices. I find that it would be perfectly rational, for a person who is aware of being a potential victim of inconscious prejudices (e.g. being a transgender, or a gay, or whatever) to hide this information to colleagues. or at least to avoid mentioning when it is not strictly necessary.
(would you argue that it is strictly necessary, for a person with a blog, to declare his/her sexual orientation/status publicly? and why? are you declaring publicly you sexual orientation, your political and religious beliefs, your favourite soccer team to each person you interact with?)

just for completeness of information, I’m skeptical about Louise’s theory. and I’m also skeptical about her opinion that her theory is not taken seriously because she is a woman (I find more simple to assume that her theory would not be taken into account anyway, independently of being right or wrong, just because it is far from mainstream).
but I find incredibly stupid and vile your attack on Louise based on her private life. I really hope that you are not a colleague: I would find unconfortable to know that I could have to interact with a person like you (who could maybe one day use personal arguments against me, who knows…)

19. Guess Who3 - March 30, 2007

“… I’m skeptical about Louise’s theory. and I’m also skeptical about her opinion that her theory is not taken seriously because she is a woman…” – Andrea Giammanco

See http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=412#comment-12409

“In case people are wondering what alexis is referring to, in his latest posting, in the middle of supposedly explaining what is wrong with a list of achievements of LQG, Lubos includes a photo from the website of Louise Riofrio. The photo shows her with an impressive lizard. … trying to humiliate her … In his comment section he and his commenters speculate on which is Riofrio, the woman in the picture or the lizard, with Lubos explaining that he had thought of using a picture of her with a monkey, to better make the point.

“The guy is just completely grotesque and subhuman, it’s amazing that anyone takes him seriously.”

20. Guess Who3 - March 30, 2007

By the way, “A First Course in General Relativity” by Schutz isn’t pertinent to quantum gravity.

Again, you need to learn quantum field theory (not stringy stuff that goes down the lavatory in physics, since it doesn’t predict anything).

Exchange radiation in an expanding universe isn’t taken into account in cosmological solutions to general relativity. Exchange radiation, creating the gravitational field between gravitational charges (masses) which are receding, will be redshifted. It will lose energy because its frequency falls.

‘the flat universe is just not decelerating, it isn’t really accelerating’ – Nobel Laureate Professor Phil Anderson, http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/03/danger-phil-anderson/#comment-10901

This is why the mainstream cosmology (based on general relativity) fails. The dark energy assumed to be preventing gravity from slowing down the expansion, isn’t there. Instead, gravity is reduced between receding masses by the mechanism that the gauge bosons get redshifted. The energy of a quanta is E=hf. Redshift reduces f. Hence E decreases. Simple.

The gravitational coupling constant is reduced if two masses are receding from one another by this mechanism. You won’t learn this from “A First Course in General Relativity” by Schutz or any other book on general relativity for that matter.

It is truly absurd that you suggest otherwise!

21. dorigo - March 30, 2007

Hi all,

I need more time to seep through this bunch of comments / I have not had access to the internet for 24 hours, and am now at an internet cafe with the Gatwick express leaving soon. I just take a minute for now to thank here those who contributed to a civil discussion on Louise’s model, and to ask everybody to keep personal attacks and character assassination away from here.
Cheers,
T.

22. Guess Who - March 30, 2007

This “Guess Who3” is really funny!

> around us there is an average radius where the mass of the
> universe is located

In an infinite universe, that radius is infinite. Are you saying that the
universe is of finite size?

> That is not R = 0, it’s thousands of millions of light years away.

As far as we know it’s infinity. This is certainly different from Nigel’s
“effective distance the majority of the mass would be moving if the universe collapsed” but hardly more useful.

> This is the whole problem with you string theorists.

Who are you calling a string theorist?🙂

> Exchange radiation that causes gravity should be redshifted in
> frequency, losing energy because E=hf.

In Nigel’s hypothetical theory of quantum gravity?

> string theory failed, loop quantum gravity works

Actually, they are both work in progress (how much progress is certainly debated). If either is right, it must reduce to GR in the low energy = long distance limit. Stringers and loopers both claim to have proof that this happens (and that the other side’s theory does not). To my knowledge, neither has expressed any interest in making connection to Nigel’s alternative theory of gravity instead, presumably because GR is well supported by precision tests which make it very hard to produce an exeperimentally viable alternative. The maybe best attempt to date, Bekenstein’s TeVeS, is already in trouble with neutrino mass bounds.

> The stuff Louise is doing is trying to get predictions from an
> underlying physical concept.

No. Louise has taken Newtonian gravity, combined it with the special relativistic formula for rest mass energy and apparently deluded herself and you into thinking that this somehow has to do with general relativity, quantum gravity, cosmology and her being a woman (or not).

> See http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=412#comment-12409

This is a post characterizing Lubos Motl as “completely grotesque and subhuman” and not worthy of being taken seriously. I am told that Motl is a man. Are you suggesting that he is actually transgender?

> mainstream cosmology (based on general relativity) fails

In what way does it fail? (The real value of this claim is of course that it restates your position: that general relativity, i.e. the hoped-for long distance limit of LQG – which you invoke! – is wrong.)

Amazing stuff.

23. nc - March 30, 2007

“> That is not R = 0, it’s thousands of millions of light years away.

“As far as we know it’s infinity.”

It’s not infinity, as the age of the universe is not infinite. Size is proportional to time. Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Mainstream cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model with small positive cosmological constant, fails for many reasons:

(1) There isn’t a small cosmological constant: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=evolving+dark+energy&meta= It’s evolving, it’s not constant… in particular see the graphical comparison at http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/11/evolving-dark-energy/

(2) It’s a failure because it’s ad ad hoc model which doesn’t predict anything checkable. The only thing it predicted in 1998 is by extrapolation assuming constant cc, which is a failure, see http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/11/evolving-dark-energy/

(3) It’s a failure because it ignores the redshift of gauge boson exchange radiation which would be transferred between receding masses in the actual universe we live in. Take that into account, and the galaxies, etc. aren’t being speeded up by dark energy to offset gravity, instead the galaxies are simply not slowing down due to gravity. Gravity falls off with the redshift of the gauge bosons that cause gravity.

General relativity isn’t wrong, it’s incomplete. The source-term for the field, ie, the right hand side of the field equation

R_uv – (1/2)Rg_uv = 8*Pi*GT_uv,

contains the universal gravitational constant G, which is directly proportional to the coupling constant for the strength of quantum gravity. G is proportional to the energy carried by the gauge bosons being exchanged. If recession-caused redshift reduces the energy, then the strength of gravity between two masses falls, as G is reduced. This is a quantum gravity effect, not a general relativity effect.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with general relativity. What’s wrong are the crackpots who don’t understand where quantum gravity corrections are required, and then claim that a correction for quantum gravity is an attack on general theory.

Try studying loop quantum gravity a bit for a change from string.

24. Tony Smith - March 30, 2007

Somehow the comments on this blog entry got to the subject of Lubos Motl,
and Guess Who asked whether Lubos “… is actually transgender? …”.

According to a http://www.physics.rutgers.edu web page tildemotl
(it is still on the web, and I saw it by googling “Lubs Motl” alien),
it seems as though Lubos describes himself so, saying:

“… My name is Abbe Hyupsing Qong and I came from the planet called Zetor here. …
I adopted the Czech nationality and learned English and Czech … my adopted name is Lubos Motl. …
All of us had to prepare special masks to look just as the people living on the Earth.
So whenever you meet me at the Department of Physics and Astronomy in New Jersey or at NASA or our spaceship,
you will see a person looking precisely as the terresterial human beings.
My mask is able to change its gender so I can look both as a girl and as a boy. …”.

Tony Smith

25. guess who xiv - March 30, 2007

this is interesting. guess who 1 was correct when analyzing the theory of LR. there is misunderstanding of basic physics. the terms are ill defined if at all and the derivations are lacking. as guess who pointed out yesterday they are using rest mass expression for energy without using energy as sum of squares including fluctuations due to existence of momentum always. there is no mention of reference frames and where is this distances being calculated from?

to address other comments about gender of LR, well scientists are not politicians true. but if they make claims to the public and misrepresent themselves, that is somewhat disingenuous.she is claiming to be a woman who has been blocked by the male chauvanist establishment. the truth is that she has a theory with more holes then swiss cheese and any males who have gotten on her has nothing to do with her perceived woman hood and everything to do with incompetence. it bothers me simply because there are other women out there who are doing good work and who are sexually harassed and blocked due to male chauvanism, but claims like this dilute the reality of that and can give women in science an even worse time.
it is time to increase standards for presentations at conferences. if someone proposes a new theory that is fine, but they should be able to talk about it in terms of existing theories and explain their moves. it was nasty of the communist to say that about LR but in truth his comment was correct about the science.

it is sad that the situation has degenerated to this level.

26. delio - March 30, 2007

nc, an infinite age is not needed at all in order to have an infinite radius of the universe. as soon as you consider a riemannian geometry, at least. have you ever heard of poincaré’s discs and its radii of infinite length?

27. Andrea Giammanco - March 30, 2007

The communist = Lubos Motl?
Is he really communist, or is it an inference fbased on his nationality?
I’m just curious, the answer will not influence my opinions on Motl and on his work🙂

28. Guess Who - March 30, 2007

nc: Somebody who does not have basic knowledge of GR (to the point of believing that finite age implies finite spatial extension) is simply not ready for quantum gravity. You need to walk before you can run. If you are serious about understanding the universe, hit the books and stop wasting your time on nonsense. As for the cosmological constant, if you understood the literature (or even just Dorigo’s reports from the conference) you would know that all observational data is consistent with it being just that: constant. This fact is one of the reasons for pessimism put forth by Krauss: it now seems unlikely that observation alone will allow us to distinguish a dynamic effect from a plain constant.

Tony Smith: Oh my God, so Lubos Motl is really an alien from the planet Transsexual? But wait, I’m confused, which one is Dr. Frank-N-Furter and which one is Rocky Horror, Motl or Riofrio?🙂

guess who xiv: Really, which movie is this? With the explosive proliferation of Guess Whos I’m beginning to feel like Agent Smith (the original one, mind you). Anyway, you might be surprised to learn quite how political science can be.

Andrea Giammanco: If Motl sees your question, he may suffer a heart attack, young fellow that he is. He is a self-described reactionary and, well, it’s hard to disagree about that.

29. delio - March 30, 2007

andrea: i think l.m. can hardly be considered a communist, regardless of his nationality — and the place he lives at🙂
“the communist” was probably the same “avowed marxist-leninist” described in this ominous post.

30. guess who xiv - March 30, 2007

no motl is not the communist this is what was referring to

31. dorigo - March 30, 2007

Hi all, guess who’s and guess who’s not,

I think this column featured some interesting discussion on a few controversial issues in cosmology, and I would like to comment on those, although I think the value of my contribution would be scarce – but things have piled up and I will be better off doing it in another post.

As for the rest, well… I can only say the following:

– Lubos Motl is a reactionary, not a communist. I fail to understand why people argue here about his political sympathies, since his blog has open comments columns (he censor those he does not like though, and maybe he is right and I am wrong).
– The fact that the daily rate of visits to this post was the highest in the history of this blog is quite, quite depressing. I thought I had written more interesting things elsewhere, but I am probably wrong…

Cheers,
T.

32. nc - March 30, 2007

“nc: Somebody who does not have basic knowledge of GR (to the point of believing that finite age implies finite spatial extension) is simply not ready for quantum gravity.” – Guess Who

In our frame of reference, which is what counts, we see spacetime. In spacetime, we see further into the past with increasing distance. Hence when you look back to a limited time past, you look to a limited distance. This is why you’re wrong.

Spacetime in general relativity does mean that the limited age implies limited size. I’m concerned with the universe we can get imformation from, and since all fields with a gauge boson having zero rest mass must propagate at velocity c, the fields created by distant masses travel through spacetime, not merely space.

This sort of ad hominen attack, after you are ignoring all the science, is just what is expected from someone why knows nothing about science.

“You need to walk before you can run. If you are serious about understanding the universe, hit the books and stop wasting your time on nonsense.” – Guess Who

It has already been explained to you, general relativity isn’t complete, and I’ve given the specific reason. Gauge bosons can’t be exchanged between receding masses without a degradation of energy. This weakens the gravitational coupling constant.

Hence, the corrected cosmology from general relativity once you allow for this quantum gravity effect explains the lack of slowing down of distant receding masses (Perlmutter’s 1998 discovery). Just dismissing the facts of redshift as totally nonsense and burying yourself in an incomplete theory is not doing science. Doing science is working on new ideas, and making developments that are checkable.

33. Guess Who - March 31, 2007

nc, you continue to make a complete mess of elementary relativity. Anybody who knows this stuff can tell.

Your usage of the term spacetime is incorrect; you give a crude description of the past light cone and of the Hubble radius, but evidently do not know the correct terminology; you confuse them with spacetime; you state that “since all fields with a gauge boson having zero rest mass must propagate at velocity c, the fields created by distant masses travel through spacetime, not merely space” as if moving through spacetime was something reserved to zero mass bosons (no dear, everything moves through spacetime; zero mass particles, whether bosons or not, are constrained to move on the light cone).

And after providing this new sample of basic errors, you talk of “ad hominen attack, after you are ignoring all the science”?!?

There is nothing ad hominem about pointing out facts. And the fact is that you would not currently pass an exam on special relativity, let alone GR. Not because you disagree with it or consider it incomplete, but simply because you do not know it even at an elementary level. And since you do not know it, you are in no position to either agree or disagree with it. You just don’t know.

When you don’t know, you can do one of two things: learn or pretend to know. You are currently doing the latter, and fooling absolutely nobody who has mastered even just the basics of relativity. I can’t imagine what you hope to gain from keeping this up.

If you are genuinely interested in knowing, and not just in pretending that you do, you need to learn the material. You can do it. It’s not all that difficult. Millions have done it before you. It takes a little bit of work, that’s all.

After you master special relativity, you can go on to relativistic quantum mechanics (assuming knowledge of basic quantum mechanics) then quantum field theory and general relativity. From your current level, and assuming adequate intelligence, you will probably need a couple of years of full time study to digest it all.

Then you will have the basics to start looking at LQG, strings, and other proposed theories of quantum gravity. And after that, maybe even to start creating your own.

These are facts, and sincerely meant advice.

34. nc - March 31, 2007

“nc, you continue to make a complete mess of elementary relativity. Anybody who knows this stuff can tell.” – Guess Who.

I’ve given all the evidence above. You know nothing about QFT, you think spacetime isn’t part of SR or GR, you can’t predict anything. You don’t know what you’re talking about. No wonder you’re an anonymous coward, making false allegations about people’s sexuality, and people’s physics.

35. nc - March 31, 2007

“nc: Somebody who does not have basic knowledge of GR (to the point of believing that finite age implies finite spatial extension) is simply not ready for quantum gravity.” – Guess Who

The fact that you know nothing is proved here by your claim that finite age doesn’t prove finite extension.

Having proved you’re a moron, you then making up false claims about what you think other people know. None of them are correct.

36. dorigo - April 1, 2007

Ok, I thank everybody for falling short of using four letter words here. Some of you stayed far from it, a few got close. I appreciate everybody’s contribution as long as there are no ad hominem attacks. Please keep that in mind. I had to delete or revise a small number of comments above.

Cheers to all,
T.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: