Science > Physics > Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 65.0: Teleparallelism (torsion) and usual GR (curvature) as Expansion-Contraction Theories
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
05 Jan 2007 12:37:24 AM |
| Object: |
Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 65.0: Teleparallelism (torsion) and usual GR (curvature) as Expansion-Contraction Theories |
From Osher Doctorow
The usual GR is curvature-oriented so to speak, while Teleparallelism
is torsion-oriented, and both are arguably Expansion-Contraction
oriented as I pointed out recently in the Section on rotation. If a
take a planar section or even a plane or surface and "push it inward or
outward" around some point, we generate curvature and with an
appropriate couple for example we get torsion. Rotation, curvature,
and torsion can be regarded as either attempted or successful
expansion-contraction and involve more than one direction or more than
one directional motion at a time at a point which is the essence of
expansion-contraction.
But expansion-contraction belongs to the Riccati Differential Equation,
especially through its special cases the exponential
growth/contraction/decay and Logistic supply-limited (etc.) growth, the
latter having as general solution a ratio of linear functions of
exponentials. As readers of my previous threads are aware, Probable
Influence/Causation (PI) and Birkhoff Causation have the Riccati
Differential Equation as a Fundamental equation.
"Teleparallel" has 109 papers in arXiv, and using John Baez' term "New
General Relativity" or NGR gives several additional papers (try "new
general" as keywords, etc.).
Since all these theories (GR, Teleparallelism or NGR, PI, Rotation or
Kerr-Newman BH-Mass theories) have expansion-contraction as
Fundamental, how do we decide between them and why?
I'll try to continue this shortly.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 65.0: Teleparallelism (torsion) and usual GR (curvature) as Expansion-Contraction Theories |
05 Jan 2007 12:53:40 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
The best criterion for deciding between the different theories
mentioned, and I might as well add Superstring/Brane and Loop Quantum
Gravity (LQG) theories, is Einstein's emphasis on SIMPLICITY. The
simplest theory is PI. The black hole astrophysics theory of mass
(e.g., hadron) generation is only a little more complicated with a
little care. GR and Teleparallelism are more complicated, and
Superstring/Brane Theory and LQG are even more complicated arguably in
some ways but Superstring/Brane Theory is also simpler in other ways
(see below).
When we look carefully at GR, for example, we that that it has
"overkill" with regard to curvature. It has too much curvature, in too
many ways (scalars, tensors, etc.).
What I think the various theories are, is different degrees of
approximation of the Fundamental concept of Expansion-Contraction. In
GR, it is largely buried in an over-abundance of machinery which, by
the way, involves not only many-directions-at-a-time motion but
one-direction-at-a-time motion without much organized discrimination or
distinction. Expansion-Contraction is many-direction-at-a-time
motion.
Superstring/Brane Theory improves on GR in a surprising way, namely its
Branes visualized as (hyper-) surfaces make
multiple-direction-at-time-motion much clearer, as in collisions of
branes and inter-brane relationships in Randall-Sundrum type theories.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
