Re: Accuracy vs. Relevance
- From: "Juan R." <juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Nov 2005 05:09:22 -0800
I Vecchi
Personally, I know the scandal of light bending measurement by
Eddington, who fudged the solar eclipse data to make the results
conform to general relativity (see for example
[http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html]
for some data. An article generalizing and correcting the web document
is in press).
However, sincerely I newer thought that 'manipulation' could succeed
today in solar systems tests. It is well known that some manipulation
of the current sense for the word 'prediction' is done in speculative
fields as string theory. I also know part of scandal in cosmology where
people invoke non-empirically tested ideas for justifying the standard
big bang 'hot' model.
I sincerely doubt that GR has been really tested in Solar system tests.
Since part of the data is 'manipulated' for agreement. For example,
computational programs used in astronomy usually obtain orbits of
planets from Newtonian gravity, next compute the apparent image of
object from retardation of light and automatically add relativistic
corrections such as perihelion anomaly. However, I newer saw some
rigorous derivation of the Newtonian limit from general relativity and,
in fact, some of so-called 'derivations' are wrong in several crucial
details. Of course, many relativists disagree with me, but until today,
none of those relativists has provided serious thoughts about this
topic and this is the reason that still paper on HOW obtain the
nonrelativistic limit of GR are published in literature.
So far I know, none relativist has provided explanation to the fact of
absence of aberration on gravity. I have read some works attempting to
prove that experimental absence is compatible with retarded LW
gravitational potentials, but I have checked details and discovered
that 'derivations' on literature are, in my opinion, incorrect.
> Why should I necessarily believe something that I cannot check by myself?
Maybe because being a 'believer' you newer will be called 'crank',
'crackpot', etc by the mainstream!
I completely agree with the GPB team on the limited experimental
support of GR. For example, in Mercury tests one does not measure
equation of orbits, only the 43'' of anomalous perihelion, one newer
measures spacetime curvature just interpret data (in fact a simple
mathematical re-geometrization of V-GR to teleparallel space T and
curvature vanish!!!), I even sincerely doubt that GR time dilation have
been measured. In a similar work about SR I proved (If i did not
mistake) that SR time dilation formula is really UNTESTED and that a
previous 'manipulation' of experimental data is needed for SR passing
the two-clock system test .
I simply did a detailed mathematical and theoretical study of
procedures, data, and formulas used in the test [Time dilation for a
3-clock system and the Lorentz transformation. In press].
I also agree on that "deep theoretical problems -- some old and some
new -- remain". For many people, GR appears both a theory inconsistent
and unfinished.
I. Vecchi I completely agree with you. The only form for guarantying
that GR theory fits to data is providing raw data to any scientist who
can/want check it. Anyone remember the famous Potassium on HD 88230?
It appears to be that some fitting of GR to non-spherical galaxies is
done via statistical assumptions about the data that after is fitted.
Since that those 'assumptions' are not predicted by GR and since that
are rather arbitrary, I consider that far from a real fitting one is
just 'adapting' theory to data via four or five arbitrarily tuned
parameters.
I agree with Wigner thoughts. In fact, so far I know the problem of
systems of reference is one of fundamental unsolved problems of GR.
Basically one begins doing assumptions (e.g. Friedman metric on
cosmology) and next interpret results.
In fact, I begin to suspect that the problem of the impressive failure
to quantize gravity by any form (LQG, triangulations, FTG, Lorentzian,
perturbative covariant, paths, superstring and M-theory, NCG, twistors,
etc,) is firmly related to the fact that GR may be incorrect.
For example, my own approach to quantum gravity was:
i) Serious study of current ways. I find all of them unsatisfactory
(including both string M theory and LQG).
ii) Serious re-evaluation of GR.
iii) Launching of a new gravitational theory.
The point iii) has permitted to me write down a first version of
quantum gravity. For example, during more that 2 decades the WdW
equation has been unable to obtain quantum metrics whereas that
superstring theory is based in an ill-defined perturbative expansion
whereas nobody know that is the nonperturbative regime (the still
unformulated M 'theory'). However, once i forgot GR i 'solved' (of
course research still may be reviewed by rest of comunity) those
problems.
In my opinion, the quantization of gravity pass from a previous
abandoning of GR.
Jonathan Thornburg
One of first laws of experimental science is that experiments may be
repeatable by others. When one presents processed data to rest of
community, original data and treatment of data (filters, empirical
adjust, statistics, etc.). In fields as chemistry, the transparency on
experimental work is one of basic points. However, it appears that some
big projects are blinded to external review.
Since I have worked in the field of experimental biogeochemistry, I
know how detailed some manuscripts are!!! But you cannot offer to your
colleagues the final data without possibility they check original data.
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Accuracy vs. Relevance
- From: tadchem
- Re: Accuracy vs. Relevance
- References:
- Accuracy vs. Relevance
- From: I.Vecchi
- Accuracy vs. Relevance
- Prev by Date: Re: Light slower than CG?
- Next by Date: Re: Theoretical help
- Previous by thread: Re: Accuracy vs. Relevance
- Next by thread: Re: Accuracy vs. Relevance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
