Science > Physics > Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 76.0: Barrow vs Penrose vs PI
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2007 03:11:48 PM |
| Object: |
Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 76.0: Barrow vs Penrose vs PI |
From Osher Doctorow
Two new papers have just appeared on arXiv, one on Sir Roger Penrose's
theory of Quantum Gravity as further developed by Danial Sudarsky of U.
Naxional Autonoma de Mexico, "A signature of quantum gravity at the
source of the seeds of cosmic structure?" gr-qc/0901071 v1 13 Jan 2007,
10 pages, and the second "The ups and downs of cyclic universes," by T.
Clifton of Stanford and Sir John D. Barrow of U. Cambridge,
gr-qc/0901070 v1 12 Jan 2007.
The second paper comes to some negative conclusions on (Neo-) cyclic
Universe theories, and the first paper expands Sir Roger's theory on
Quantum Gravity according to which there is no need of Observers or of
Parallel Universes.
I will only make a few comments now because of time limitation.
A. For a person who supposedly believes in quantum theory applying to
consciousness, trying to dispense with Observers as Sir Roger does
seems to verge on a contradiction.
Also, his argument with David Deutsch in the same University isn't a
Mainstream characteristic, and yet Sir Roger has made a habit of
keeping ties with people from the same or similar U.K. and even
Canadian ("allied with U.K.") Universities (e.g., Lee Smolin). Is this
a second "contradiction"?
B. Sir Barrow uses "toy models" to try to destroy glass houses in his
paper, which differs from my use of PI "toy models" to try to build
houses. My use of PI and my defense of PI has usually been in terms of
Simplification - it's simpler than other theories and methods, not the
victor of "Survival of the Fittest". But Barrow attempts, as much of
the Mainstream is inclined to do, to use toy models to obtain either
contradictions or "implausible scenarios" for rival theories. This is
too reminiscent of the negative graffiti-artists or trolls on
sci.physics for me to fail to mention it. Incidentally or not, Ph.D.
Mainstream Qualifying Exams resemble Native American Gauntlets of the
past - only the "fittest" are supposed to escape scathing criticism.
It's the essence of both Totalitarian State-Violence and "Democratic"
Free Market Survival-of-the-Fittest, and I don't like both of them.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "Bob A" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 76.0: Barrow vs Penrose vs PI |
16 Jan 2007 03:42:12 PM |
|
|
"OsherD" <> wrote in message
news:1168981907.933473.269060@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
From Osher Doctorow
Two new papers have just appeared on arXiv, one on Sir Roger Penrose's
theory of Quantum Gravity as further developed by Danial Sudarsky of U.
Naxional Autonoma de Mexico, "A signature of quantum gravity at the
source of the seeds of cosmic structure?"
That is "Quackdumb Gravieity", and "A duck splat at the source of cosmic
structure causes quackdumb energy gravyity"
"Toy Models", of course.
Sandbox Physics, literally.
It's the essence of both Totalitarian State-Violence and "Democratic"
Free Market Survival-of-the-Fittest, and I don't like both of them.
Communist, Fidel needs you.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 76.0: Barrow vs Penrose vs PI |
16 Jan 2007 07:10:16 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Bob A, also known as nospam at nospam.com, wrote:
Sandbox Physics, literally.
Communist, Fidel needs you.
I notice that Bob A, this nth instantiation of the highest
graffiti-troll spammer on sci.physics (nospam at nospam.com), spent his
last 5-10 posts on non-quantitiative forums including one on James Bond
in the U.K. As for Sandbox Thinking, the conclusion that somebody
opposed to both Big Government and Big Corporations is a Communist,
must surely be Sandbox Thinking.
Osher
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 76.0: Barrow vs Penrose vs PI |
16 Jan 2007 03:22:44 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
I should mention that Daniel Sudarsky of Mexico does not use his paper
in the way that Sir Roger defends and expounds his theory, and in fact
Sudarsky is quite constructive and positive throughout his paper. He
has 25 papers in arXiv.
Also, Sir Barrow has usually been much more circumspect in his
conclusions (he has even leaned over backwards not to offend other
theorists on various occasions). Perhaps T. Clifton of Stanford, his
coauthor, can tell us something about the change in tone?
This is also a good opportunity for readers to look up Quantum Gravity,
Penrose Interpretation, Quantum Mechanics - the Penrose Interpretation,
and similar keywords and titles on Answers.com, Wikipedia, Wolfram,
etc.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
