Saturday, December 03, 2005

General Relativity

I took GR because I thought Neil Turok was dreeeamy.

Well I dunno? He certainly got me thinking about brane world collisions, along with steinhardt, that’s for sure. We are most certainly dealing with a cosmological placement here with General relativity, but has been extended, as we look at string/M theoretical successes.

You had to make "certain assumptions I know" in order to get here in the picture, and you had to have some inkling of what gravitational waves were and how they were transmitted.

Completed 720 degree rotations, as "tidbits" of the process which are given to us from a cosmological standpoint.

So what is transmitted in the bulk in terms of "gravitational lensing" has some relation, to what we see in the picture above. Look at the placement of the gravitons in bulk perspective and how they are concentrated on and around the brane.

So it is not without reason that we see bulk perspective as a extension and not scientifically up to the challenege because Peter Woit say so?

Modifications to General Relativity

So "six weeks" we should have known something by now with respect to below statements? Jo-Anne, of cosmic varaince selected this answer next to the Pioneer Anomalie.

Eric Adelberger on Aug 12th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
Please don’t get too excited yet about rumors concerning the Eot-Wash test of the 1/r^2 law. We can exclude gravitational strength (|alpha|=1) Yukawa violations of the 1/r^2 law for lambda>80 microns at 95% confidence. It is true that we are seeing an anomaly at shorter length scales but we have to show first that the anomaly is not some experimental artifact. Then, if it holds up, we have to check if the anomaly is due to new fundamental physics or to some subtle electromagnetic effect that penetrates our conducting shield. We are now checking for experimental artifacts by making a small change to our apparatus that causes a big change in the Newtonian signal but should have essentially no effect on a short-range anomaly. Then we will replace our molybdenum detector ring with an aluminum one. This will reduce any signal from interactions coupled to mass, but will have little effect on subtle electromagnetic backgrounds. These experiments are tricky and measure very small forces. It takes time to get them right. We will not be able to say anything definite about the anomaly for several months at least.

As stated maybe this "anomalie" might be significant and for scientists it is necessary such a quirk of nature be seen and understood. I relayed Einstein's early youth and the compass for a more introspective feature that such anomalies present.

The Eotwash Group is a sign of relief, for the speculative signs attributed from other scientists, made this topic of extra-dimensions unbearable and unfit for the general outlay for scientists who did not understand this themselves.

Deviations from Newton's law seen?

So what does Lubos have to say about this in his column?

Lubos Motl:
The most careful and respected experimental group in its field which resides at University of Washington - Eric Adelberger et al. - seems to have detected deviations from Newton's gravitational law at distances slightly below 100 microns at the "4 sigma" confidence level. Because they are so careful and the implied assertion would be revolutionary (or, alternatively, looking spectacularly dumb), they intend to increase the effect to "8 sigma" or so and construct different and complementary experiments to test the same effect which could take a year or two (or more...) before the paper is published. You know, there are many things such as the van der Waals forces and other, possibly unexpected, condensed-matter related effects that become important at the multi-micron scales and should be separated from the rest.

On Relativity again

According to General Relativity, the key qualities of strong sources of gravitational waves are that they be non-spherical, dynamic (i.e. change their behavior with time), and possess large amounts of mass moving at high velocities. So prime suspects should exhibit one or more of the following characteristics.

  • 1. Spinning

  • 2. Mass tranfer

  • 3. Collpase

  • 4. Explosion

  • 5. Collision

  • As to “online resources” for General Relativity, is there one preference if you do not have access to the Hartle book or the other?

    Lecture Notes on General Relativity, by Sean Carroll

    These lectures represent an introductory graduate course in general relativity, both its foundations and applications. They are a lightly edited version of notes I handed out while teaching Physics 8.962, the graduate course in GR at MIT, during the Spring of 1996. Although they are appropriately called \lecture notes”, the level of detail is fairly high, either including all necessary steps or leaving gaps that can readily be filled in by the reader. Nevertheless, there are various ways in which these notes differ from a textbook; most importantly, they are not organized into short sections that can be approached in various orders, but are meant to be gone through from start to finish. A special effort has been made to maintain a conversational tone, in an attempt to go slightly beyond the bare results themselves and into the context in which they belong

    Or a link to this one for a historical look?

    The Special and General Theory


    1. Dear Plato,

      General relativity has a causal mechanism, Maxwell's "displacement current" energy.

      By the way, Peter Woit has admitted on Motl's blog that he believes Witten should get a Nobel Prize for contributions to QCD.

      This, after Witten's shameless promotion of string theory as the final theory of gravity:

      ‘String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity.’ – Edward Witten, April 1996 Physics Today.

      Apparently, Woit did some calculations 20 years ago which confirmed Witten's mathematical insights in QCD, and was so impressed that he still worships Witten today, despite string theory.

      I've amended my home page to point out that Woit is prejudiced in favour of Witten. This is why Woit only attacks Motl for his harmless fun, instead of going for the real threat to gravity research, Witten.

      Best wishes,

    2. In regards to Peter woit, it doesn't matter what he does at this point, he still comes across as a jilted lover, who was passed over. So eveything thing and everybody is wrong, while he is right.

      His moderation, still harbours tones of resentment no matter how constructive he thinks he is in relation to the vey basis of which as a mahematician he supports?

      It was all a conspiracy against him....Really?

      Why would he try to erase the mathematcal structure? He sees a better mathematical structure that should supplant it? Okay, so he said Witen did this and it looks better?

      It' starting to sound like ole hat to me without the explanation henind it as to why string/M theory is a failure as a theoretical model.

      I guess since he's such a nice guy everyone should take his word for it, eh?

      Mine is only taken from a generalized view, and what I see from the repetition of a group who as long saids the right thing about rejection of string/M theory, will be maintained as the status quo of his blog.

      As to a casual mechanism? The graviton, like the photon provides for some interesting visualizations when held in context of the bulk perspective?

      Maybe a theory of "gravitational waves" are not something Peter Woit can theoretcially hang his hat on either?

    3. "In regards to Peter woit, it doesn't matter what he does at this point, he still comes across as a jilted lover, who was passed over. So eveything thing and everybody is wrong, while he is right."

      This just makes you sound paranoid, making personal attacks whe the issue is scientific. I posted Peter Woit my Electronics World articles and such like a month ago, but he hasn't replied yet.

      He is a maths lecturer who did some work in nuclear physics in the 80s. You could equally dismiss anyone who stands up for anything as "coming over as a jilted lover", it just shows how paranoid you are.

      I'm depressed that the man is not going all-out to build the final theory using causal mechanism, but he is free to do as he wants on his own blog. He regularly deletes my comments.

      In fact, the first comment of mine he retained is my rejection email from editor of PRL:

      Sent: 02/01/03 17:47
      Subject: Your_manuscript LZ8276 Cook
      Physical Review Letters does not, in general, publish papers on alternatives to currently accepted theories …

      Yours sincerely, Stanley G. Brown, Editor, Physical Review Letters

      Notice, Plato, that I don't call Stanley Brown a "jilted lover" because he is a mean, paranoid, man. I have respect and just say he is ignorant because he has not read my paper, he has not checked it, he just behaves unscientifically.

      woit replies to me on the blog:

      I'm tempted to delete the previous comment, but am leaving it since I think that, if accurate, it is interesting to see that the editor of PRL is resorting to an indefensible argument in dealing with nonsense submitted to him (although the "..." may hide a more defensible argument). Please discuss this with the author of this comment on his weblog, not here. I'll be deleting any further comments about this.

      Posted by Peter Woit at July 7, 2005 07:27 PM

      This shows Peter needs to read this:

      Peter needs to see this: ‘(1). The idea is nonsense. (2). Somebody thought of it before you did. (3). We believed it all the time.’ - Professor R.A. Lyttleton's summary of inexcusable censorship (quoted by Sir Fred Hoyle in ‘Home is Where the Wind Blows’ Oxford University Press, 1997, p154). Peter does not provide any ‘more defensible argument’ for dismissing the experimental facts as nonsense than did PRL.

    4. Sorry, the link to Woit's page dismissing my work is here:

    5. What do you think of the corrections to my blog entry on General Relativity?

      I add modification's to it, so you understand that String/M theory is not just some "figment of Peter Woits imagination" dismissing the theoretcial structure out of hand when it is supported by the very math he rejects?

      How strange? Because he has a better way?

      If he can top what is currently going on from his mathematical perspective, then all the power to him.

      It would definitely help me to see another way. But he hasn't offered anything, but his sarcasm.

      Your mad about what was pointed out in your assessment of Josephson. So you project paranoia. It's not mine :)

      Don't be lead and bamboozald by Woit's discontent. Live your life "freely" without accepting such a burden and stress, that is not yours to bear.


    6. Dear Plato,

      Thanks for your advice and for your interest in the fact the mechanism of gravity predicts the strength of gravity. It is really good that you don't give me advice about my personal life.

      The world is not a very nice cosy place. It is full of bigotry and people who are ignorant ignoring others or having the temerity to hand out advice. Your advice may stem from your own perspective.

      There was once a Queen who lived very well indeed, as she had a lot of taxpayers funding. Her subjects were starving, as they had no bread. Instead of helping them, she gave them the most helpful beneficial advice her ignorant wisdom knew:

      "Eat cake."

      How stupid the subjects were, not to think for themselves! How horrible they were, to be bitter and complain. How good the Queen was, to do her very best to help.

      Best wishes,

    7. The picture you link to of Randall's is horse**** crackpotism, a Ptolemic type epicycles model, when reality is simpler. On my page I've got the mechanism.


    8. So Randall picture is crackpotism while on your page you have the mechanism? :)

      As you said, it is not a nice to do to suggest that one is mad, paranoid.

      Yes my own advice would stem from my prspective and I respect that you would say this.

      About ownership of things that we would imply over and over again about others, coming home to roost?

      The one article of interest, lead to Josephson was interesting. While it is here you might take great comfort to know that you are not alone in your suggestions, I woudl have failed I guess in a big way as a student of science.

      For my beliefs about the resources from which all of us draw.

      If it meant that one might have thought different and was able to project their eye in the quantum nature of the world and come back with mathematcial methods to speak about? These things then of course I too would be amazed.

      Imagine an eye to the quantum nature and dynamics of reality, and from the models used, drawing upon the mind's mathematical prowneess to create mathematics that would take you or eye:) for that wonderful journey.

      Your second article would require proof of who Karmann was or who Elizabeth was. I am to take these things for granted? :)

    9. Dear Plato,

      I've just finally got the gravity formula, obtained from the mechanism on my page, on Peter Woit's blog:

      He may delete it for being off topic. The same mechanism leads to many other predictions for electromagnetism and particle masses, see my home page.

      Plato, you would not find me being off-hand about these people if they were genuinely interested. They are not. I don't think you are. I don't think you have any affiliation to t'Hooft. He does not write in his book about the Ultimate Building Blocks any deep love for Plato or other ancient crackpots of philosophy. He comes across in his publications as interested in formulae, tested predictions. He got a Nobel prize for a tested prediction. I can't and won't believe that he, having won a prize, will sell out to the occult side of physics that people in the street laugh at.

      Best wishes,

    10. He comes across in his publications as interested in formulae, tested predictions. He got a Nobel prize for a tested prediction. I can't and won't believe that he, having won a prize, will sell out to the occult side of physics that people in the street laugh at.

      Of course!

      He takes a stand on the Josephsons in our society as well, and loves bird watching. I won't critize him for his bird watching either:)

      But the fact of the matter is the consistancy of the procedures that have been followed had been from a historical perspective and integrations within todays sciences.

      They look backwards first.

      Gerard t'hooft, Lawrence Krauss, John Baez.

      Those who recognized who Lewis Carroll was (?), who lead us through all the avenues of path integrals, in a strange language of fiction? Wher edid Alice go into Mirror world, and the anti- matter creation is also fictional, even thsoug being a very minor amount, it's potential is vast?

      The implications of insights on holography, as shadows on the wall? They had a wider perspective then those like us, who look at the shadows on the wall.

      They had a realizations about the values of energy as it shines, and burns in our sun, to what it casts outwards to the indications and valuation seen in the calorimeters.

      I showed you that and you quickly forgot about dampt dweller didn't you?:)

      That I would have my "quirk of nature" is no less the realization that no one has to be interested in what you have to say, and to think you are "entitled" this because you have found the way, might have raised eyes?

      You consider(?) that the basis of our reality sharing would have been one I thought most humane?

      Most caring about the progression from a most sensitive and emphathetic understanding about what brings us into the world of science?

      This is what the subject of Einstein or a Faraday does for me, not the bold claims that wipe away history in one fell swoop.

      I have been very kind in my assessment, and left you lots of room to share your perspectve. I do understand that if you felt this too occultist, that you might steer away.

      That's fine:)

      I am after the seeds of the thought processes involved, not to denounce where all the science had taken me?

      I would have to assume a larger pedestal, then the very cloak of Plato. Maybe more like Witten, or as you assume, more then Woit? Becuase you speak for him?


      I said I was a simple man of simple folk. I have nothing to offer but what was made aware in my perspective. These could most certainly be wrong and I leave room for the "table ruler" to be smacked down on the desk to take me out of my stupor.

      Unfortunately, all do not come awake and the profound change is minimal for some people?

      Maybe we reached a pivatol point, from "retrogression," to advancements needed in our scientific attitudes?

      Maybe these deep penetrations of the vast resource of ideas manifest, will reveal a better way, and thus a warmer reception to what anyone if applied, might have succeeded from deep introspection, about the very nature underlying? Had we paid attention?

      It might have began on a socialogical level and then made its way to reponsibilties and developements of attitudes about our brothers and sisters?

      If we had thought them all part of the greater family?:)


    11. Dear Plato,

      The tragedy is the division which occult physics brings with it. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can speculate. To see using censorship to protect one speculation is to see dictatorship.

      Suppose Randall is right. What value? Where is her formula for G? What is her prediction of the strength of gravity? Compare the string theory predictions to those on my home page.

      The only defence the string theorists have against me is ignoring me, and offence. They can't let me engage in discussion because I've worked out the answers to the problems, and can defend the thesis. If they find any objection, I'll address it scientifically, and if it is genuine, I'll abandon the work.

      How can someone researching simplicity possibly compete with 10 dimensional multiverses for exciting media stories?

      Anyway, I won't discuss with you any more, you are certain I'm wrong, and that string theory is right.

      By the way, Peter Woit might share the same views as yourself. His only interest in exposing strings as "not even wrong" is because he is ethical. He does not go in for crackpot work like mine any more than you do. He is afraid of the damage string theory is doing to physics by over-assertiveness.

      I don't "speak for him", I'm just trying to correct your ignorance of what his background is and what his views are. You seem to think of anyone who is not prejudiced in favour of stringy ideas as being a crackpot, ignorant or an egotist. Is the exposure of mainstream crackpotism to fresh air really bad for science?

      Is orthodoxy science just because it is in peer-reviewed journals?

      Best wishes,