From Osher Doctorow
We're supposed to believe, according to the Mainstream physicists who
have by their lack of mathematical and physical talent empowered the
Finnish and Greek and so on extremists (who oppose probability, logic,
force, and even Newtonian mechanics unless it's kept as a relic), that
GR and Quantum Theory are the most 99.999999... etc. accurate
thing.
The Black Hole scandal shocked even the GR people. The Scandal is the
very existence of Black Holes, which if you read enough papers in
arXiv and Front and elsewhere on the internet "threatens the
foundations of physics". It's true that Einstein and Schwarzschild
discovered black holes at least among Mainstream physicists (I've read
recently that Kerr or one of the other "special metric" people, I
forget who, may have been before him). However, hardly anybody
mentioned it for decades, and once it began to have observational
indications in astronomy and astrophysics, the Loop Quantum Gravity
and the Imperial College London people among others tried to "round
off" singularities entirely by claiming that they didn't occur due to
a "bounce" or "near miss", for example in the early Universe. The
Princeton group itself divided, with Nathan Seiberg favoring a
Universe that actually went through the physical singularity as part
of the neo-cyclic scenario, while Gott for example argued that "pre-
observer time loop" (one of the most amusingly illogical concepts that
I have ever known) avoided singularities and whole cycles entirely.
A similar scandal is the Quantum Gravity Scandal, which is the failure
of both Quantum Theory and GR to come up with a theory of Quantum
Gravity that has any plausibility. Actually, confinement in QCD is
almost as scandalous, with nobody in the Mainstream having the
faintest idea how to explain it in a plausible framework (though lots
of after-the-fact patching up has been tried).
What almost nobody ever says is that black holes have infinite tidal
forces. This means that Newton's concept of force and not GR's or
SR's (Special Relativity's) is a better explanation of black holes.
Amusingly enough, Stephen Hawking seems to have tried to get around
that by theorizing that black holes evaporate in finite time, sort of
like "ending in a whimper" which is supposed to make the whole thing
of less concern, but lately Hawking's theory appears to fail for a
large class of black holes at least. Hawking, of all things,
occupies Sir Isaac Newton's Chair at Cambridge University, U.K., where
by some weird illogic he has almost always taken the most Mainstream
view of everything after his and Sir Roger Penrose's first articles on
black holes. He is a devotee of the entropy statistical
thermodynamics and statistical mechanics school even in black holes,
which I have heavily criticized in past threads on sci.physics.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
