"The Question is: What is The Question?"
John Archibald Wheeler 2003
Paul
Your distinctions below seem vague to me and the really interesting
mysteries are IMHO elsewhere. I mean Lenny Susskind's ideas, the ideas
in that book "Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale", my own
approach http://qedcorp.com/APS/ that I am trying to connect with more
mainstream approaches. The closest interesting problem here IMHO is the
relation between the "passive" and "active diffeomorphisms" in GR and
how to define observables in quantum gravity, background independence etc.
Passive diff at at single event P, i.e. different local maps or
representations of same territory. All my objections to Hal's PV are at
the passive diff level. The active diff's move or push forward P to P'
without needing a connection for parallel transport along a path. Then
there is the "Einstein hole problem" and the issue
whether the set of P are "distinguishable" and how to "localize" with
different fields Fuv etc (including guv) "moving over each other"
(Rovelli on quantum space-time & loop quantum gravity)
I see no evidence that the math of GR is empirically wrong in its proper
domain. Also Einstein's picture is beautiful. I cannot understand what
Yilmaz or Hal Puthoff on PV in relation to Yilmaz are actually proposing
either physically or mathematically and since
no one who is anyone in the field does either, I think it is a safe bet
that nothing will come of it. Of course, I continue to remain interested
in anything really specific that Hal Puthoff comes
up with pertaining to "practical" "metric engineering" (Hal's term) in
relation to the "UFO" problem that we are both working on in different
ways. I hope Hal shows up in London March 8 - 13, Eric Davis also,
James Woodward, anyone interested you can make it on their own dime, and
we can pow wow on the
issues.
On Saturday, December 20, 2003, at 05:33 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
"I meant:
Einstein equivalence was not merely supposed to be made *possible* by
this "weak equivalence" proportionality -- there is a vast difference
between *explaining* weak equivalence, on the one hand, and merely
*assuming*, it on the other."
Paul Zielinski wrote:
"OK. But we can get all that without Einstein strict equivalence. You
get all that in Yilmaz's
theory.
So you have to ask, what *was* specifically Einsteinian about Einstein
equivalence?"
Answer: "Complete physical equivalence" - A. Einstein.
"This was supposed to *explain* the strict proportionality of
gravitational and inertial mass, known by Einstein to have been
empirically verified to extreme accuracy by Eotvos.
So-called "weak equivalence" was not merely supposed to be made
*possible* by this proportionality: there is a vast difference between
*explaining* weak equivalence, on the one
hand, and merely *assuming*, it on the other."{
.
|
