Re: The Traditional Superficial Explanation of Relativity

On Apr 3, 6:24 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juan...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Shubee, the curvature (geometric) approach to gravity is not prefered by
particle physicists and astronomers. I believe that Nobel winner
condensed matter physicist Robert B. Laughlin also rejects any
fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity.

Juan,

I believe that you're right. I recall Wolfgang Rindler telling me that
he didn't think that particle physicists were physicists at all
because they didn't accept the geometric presuppositions of
relativists. I don't recall his exact words.

No strange that Nobel winners particle physicists as Weinberg and Feynman
wrote their own books on nongeometrical approach to gravity

http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Gravitation-Frontiers-Physics/
dp/0201627345

http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Cosmology-Principles-Applications-
Relativity/dp/0471925675

Feynman book is still more nongeometrical. One of its reviewers says

{BLOCKQUOTE
This is a more fundamental approach than the usual differential geometric
framework and shows what the equivalence principle really means in terms
of fundamental symmetries. }

I would love to learn the more fundamental approach.

Thus the problem is not with students, physicists usually liking non-
geometrical books but with general public, who has been misinformed by
many 'Hawkings' and 'Greenes':

I didn't say that students were a problem. I said that the problem is
with physicists who don't write on the fundamental approach at the
undergraduate level. The geometry bandwagon disseminates tons of
materials for Einstein's formulation at every level but I can't even
find one physicist that can explain Poincaré's Lorentz-invariant
theory of gravity:

http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-...
limitations_20.html

Another problem is media. This is part of a mail i received close a month
ago:

{BLOCKQUOTE
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman wrote some very unflattering remarks about
relativists and their tactics. Yet the science media is too intimidated
by relativists to quote such remarks, even when they come from someone
with Feynman's prestige. Chris Hillman used to be [...] worse than Steve
Carlip or Tom Roberts. Whenever he was losing a logical argument, his
habit was to drop some undecipherable tensors on the hapless
correspondent as a pure intimidation tactic. You can imagine how media
people react to such things -- basically, with fear.

}

Can you quote any of Feynman's unflattering remarks about relativists?

As Planck said, it seems that only time will correct that.

Do you
have any desire to do this?

Website

http://canonicalscience.org

and blog

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com

will contain viewpoints and micro-thoughts about why the geometric
formulation of gravity is not fundamental anymore and may be reemplazed
by a more general (and complex) formulation. Both sites will contain
adequate citation of academic literature on the topic of recent advances
in nongeometrical gravity.

Do you know of any presentation that
explains or simplifies Poincare's Lorentz invariant theory of gravity?

http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf

Sorry, I only know research literature.

How is Poincare's paper on a Lorentz invariant theory of gravity,
translated into English, not research literature? Or did you mean to
write that you only know "recent literature"?

But take a look to sections 2.1 and 2.3 on

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003

That's infinitely more complicated than http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf
How is it that you, a physicist interested in Lorentz invariant
theories of gravity, have nothing to say about Poincare's approach?

http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp2007gg.pdf

Shubee
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Difference between physics and mathematics
    ... Newtonian gravitational force) or if gravity is a ficticious force ... But i was asking for the force in a field formulation. ... aspect of the geometry, ... Particle physicists and string theorists go beyond and think that one ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Traditional Superficial Explanation of Relativity
    ... particle physicists and astronomers. ... fundamental character for a geometric formulation of gravity. ... The geometry bandwagon disseminates tons of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Traditional Superficial Explanation of Relativity
    ... by particle physicists and astronomers. ... any fundamental meaning for the geometric approach to gravity. ... field as producing a change in the geometry of space and time. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
    ... Unrelated comment because DPI and field formulations of gravity are not ... abandoning geometry because seriously flawed. ... In my own work on dual gravity, the geometric formulation also arises as ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Traditional Superficial Explanation of Relativity
    ... by particle physicists and astronomers. ... The Weinberg quotation that relativist Carroll choosed to attack Weinberg ... any fundamental meaning for the geometric approach to gravity. ... field as producing a change in the geometry of space and time. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)