Timeline for What is actually waving in a gravitational wave if spacetime is not a thing (just a mathematical construct)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2021 at 16:18 | comment | added | Andrew | Nah, I'm happy to move on. My advice to you (which you are free to take or not) would be that if you want to convince people of your idea, you should get it published. People will be much more likely to accept your paper if you explain quantitatively how it reproduces known results and if you make one or quantitative predictions that can be tested with an experiment. Good luck! | |
| Aug 31, 2021 at 15:12 | comment | added | foolishmuse | @Umaxo The original question in this thread is "what is actually waving in a gravitational wave." I'll point out that mine is the only response in this thread that actually provides a real, physical answer to this question. It might not be correct, but it is an answer. So please take a look at my actual ideas and provide some feedback. | |
| Aug 31, 2021 at 15:08 | comment | added | foolishmuse | @Umaxo As I say in the introduction to the paper, this theory merely attempts to provide an answer to the statement "matter tells spacetime how to curve." So far I have not seen any other reasonable theory that shows this particular answer. Yes, the references in the paper are certainly to mainstream papers. What I have done is combine all of these ideas in an interesting and new way to provide the answers we are all looking for. I call the theory speculative so that readers understand it is new. I hope it is implied that it is mine, but that shouldn't matter anyway. | |
| Aug 31, 2021 at 15:04 | comment | added | foolishmuse | @Andrew You are my peers. Go for it. | |
| Aug 31, 2021 at 11:03 | comment | added | Umaxo | @foolishmuse anyway it seems weird to start promotion of your own theory with words "There is a speculative new theory". Can't you just say it is yours? | |
| Aug 31, 2021 at 10:57 | comment | added | Umaxo | @foolishmus The references in the paper are to mainstream physics, I do not see any reference to any computation made within the theory, nor to any paper that would actually defined the theory and showed it is equivalent to all of relativity and modern science... | |
| Aug 31, 2021 at 0:11 | review | Low quality answers | |||
| Aug 31, 2021 at 0:39 | |||||
| Aug 30, 2021 at 23:13 | comment | added | Andrew | The burden of proof is not on me. If you think you're onto something, get it peer-reviewed, give talks about it, and convince the theoretical community they've been wrong about essentially everything for the past 100 years. | |
| Aug 30, 2021 at 23:02 | comment | added | foolishmuse | @Andrew Actually it agrees with all of relativity and modern science. It merely provides a deeper explanation of what spacetime actually is. Yes, LQG is only a theory right now - I accept that. Take a look at the paper and you will see the references. If you can find something that is actually incorrect in the theory, I'd like to know about it. | |
| Aug 30, 2021 at 23:00 | comment | added | Andrew | This "theory" completely ignores the entirety of 20th century physics. It's not even possible for me to say if it is mathematically well-defined or not based on the description here, which doesn't include any references. Based on the words, it would need to reformulate special relativity and quantum mechanics in a completely different mathematical language, or else it would be not even wrong. | |
| Aug 30, 2021 at 22:57 | comment | added | foolishmuse | @Andrew This is about the gluon field, not gluons in themselves. Analogous to the electromagnetic field surrounding a magnet and how spinning electrons cause an excitation of the electromagnetic field surrounding the magnet. I added a link to the paper. And in the very first fraction of a second of the universe, there was only quarks and gluons and gravity, nothing else. So I would consider this as evidence of the idea. | |
| Aug 30, 2021 at 22:56 | history | edited | foolishmuse | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 267 characters in body
|
| Aug 30, 2021 at 22:55 | comment | added | Andrew | I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense for many reasons... gluons can't exist as isolated particles, and time dilation follows directly from Lorentz invariance and has no causal connection with gluons. I think while you shouldn't talk about speculative physics on this site, if you are going to do it, you should at least include a reference so people know what you're talking about. | |
| Aug 30, 2021 at 22:52 | history | answered | foolishmuse | CC BY-SA 4.0 |