Art Wagner wagged:
"I come not to save Minkowski spacetime but to destroy it and he that
loses flat spacetime for my sake, though he were dead, yet shall he
live!" J.S.
On Apr 5, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Tony I am looking at Wald p. 411 I think I am right. His remarks about
gravitons are strictly "linear gravitons" on the globally flat
background - not at all what I am talking about.
Look, you cannot get superconductivity from a weak perturbation of a
normal metal.
Same thing here. You cannot get FULL STRONG FIELD BACKGROUND EMERGENT
GRAVITY from a weak perturbation of globally flat Minkowski space-time.
The analogy is
Minkowski Space-Time ~ Normal Metal above Tc
Curved Space-Time ~ Super Conductor or Super Solid below Tc
Here below Tc means scale L > Lp.
It's OBVIOUS on p. 411 that Wald is only doing first order spin 2
quantum field theory on FIXED Minkowski space-time - completely
irrelevant to what I am doing. Your objection is wrong most definitely
if it is only based on the remarks you cited from p. 411.
On Apr 5, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
No Simon. All you are doing is making a classical metaphor here that
completely ignores the battle-tested Body of Knowledge. You are trying
to re-invent the wheel here. You simply cannot picture the problem as
close-packing of ball bearings even N-Dim ones - unless you can show how
it maps to the standard formalisms. Saul-Paul Sirag is able to do that
by showing how string theory is related to error-correction codes, which
is where your picture comes in. But you cannot use it directly like you
are attempting here.
OR, IF you do, if you do not have a mathematical derivation of at least
Einstein's vacuum equation
Ruv = 0
in an appropriate coarse-grained limit, then you do not really have
anything that the professionals would find even remotely interesting.
The methodology is strict.
Also I tend to agree with Susskind & Co that there is nothing
fundamental in the 73%-23% dark energy/matter split. Also that ratio
keeps changing with data. It's all WEP in an infinity of worlds. It's
different in the universe next door.
On Apr 5, 2005, at 5:05 PM, simondaniel wrote:
"Would still argue that may have been his blunder, because it is not
actually foamy. Needs to consider basic spacetime constraints like
Kepler packing, that the foam can never enclose more space than 74%
(PI/SQRT(18)), and more interesting stuff as consequence. Did he ever
consider the QUESTION 'How Dense is Quantum Foam" or the maximum?"
It's entirely THE WRONG QUESTION in my theory. Of course, I could be
wrong, but so far, it's looking good compared to MANY observations.
Popper tests to falsify my theory or Paradigm:
1. No gravitons.
2. No quantum foam.
3. No real dark matter particles that explain Omega ~ 0.23
All as a matter of deep principle.
Gravity totally disappears at the Planck phase transition! All inertia
disappears. We are back to the pre-inflationary unstable chaotic
globally flat Minkowski vacuum. All rest masses disappear! That's why
quantizing guv is UNRENORMALIZABLE. No gravitons and no quantum gravity
foam are to be found. That idea was Wheeler’s greatest blunder. Great
men make great mistakes and lesser men waste their careers chasing
after them.
All attempts to re-quantize emergent ODLRO fields fail, e.g.. quantum
gravity is unrenormalizable!
"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
Therefore, all attempts at "quantum gravity" must fail!
Why? It's the wrong question!
.
|
