Timeline for Can GR be derived by postulating a maximum force?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2021 at 19:37 | answer | added | user85598 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 14, 2011 at 3:40 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| Apr 7, 2011 at 3:00 | history | bounty started | John | ||
| Apr 5, 2011 at 22:47 | comment | added | Ginsberg | @John This is a neat idea. I tried to read the paper, but Schiller is simultaneously too vague and contradicts himself, making it practically impossible to figure out what is going on. However there is a mainstream author who notes that GR seems to predict a maximum tension arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210109 and he describes what he means by that much more precisely. So there may be a way to reformulate Schiller's idea correctly. As it stands though, I agree with Carl: "it's junk". | |
| Apr 3, 2011 at 21:22 | comment | added | user346 | @Edward I hope we can both agree the claim is incorrect ... I have not said anything so far about agreeing or disagreeing with Schiller's claim. I have yet to read his work. It is not high on my priority list. He might have a point but I will let someone else do the autopsy of his paper for now. | |
| Apr 3, 2011 at 21:05 | comment | added | Edward | @Deepak Thanks for clarifying. Your initial comment seemed to come off as saying you agree with Schiller's claim here, which took me aback. I hope we can both agree the claim is incorrect. I considered writing an answer, but am glad someone else at least posted something. It would be nice to see an answer attempting more analysis of Schiller's actual derivation and conterarguments though. | |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 3:22 | comment | added | user346 | I hope that clears any misunderstanding that might have arisen from my first comment. | |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 3:19 | comment | added | user346 | @Edward, yes of course, Jacobson's work is unimpeachable. But there are lots of papers whose calculations are correct but whose conclusions are disregarded by the broader community. Jacobson's 1995 paper and followup work has, unfortunately, not received the attention it deserves. This is because if you really accept the validity of his reasoning then you have no option left but to regard the Einstein equations as an equation of state. Most physicists aren't quite ready to accept the resulting implication that one cannot "quantize" Einstein's equations anymore than you can quantize PV=nRT. | |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 1:34 | answer | added | Carl Brannen | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 1:14 | comment | added | Edward | @Deepak I think most people know of Jacobson's work, or at least I would consider his math uncontroversial. Although the tentative conclusions and hints some extrapolate from it, like Verlinde and his entropic gravity, are, umm, controversial. Jacobson's work itself is fine. Looking at the linked paper, all of the, umm, 'hand-waving' as John puts it, is in trying to get to the start of Jacobson's work. @John It would be very very difficult to answer this politely, so it almost comes off as a trolling question. I don't think you are going to get many(any?) responses. Maybe Lubos will do it. | |
| Mar 31, 2011 at 12:43 | comment | added | Roy Simpson | Adding to the above, in these papers there is an introduction of $T_{ab}$ - as matter flow - in a vacuum situation. So something non-standard is going on there. Also in the book I have seen that the corresponding minimum length only works if SR is false at that length. | |
| Mar 31, 2011 at 8:18 | comment | added | user346 | @John the inevitable replies you will get will say that Christoph ("Motion Mountain") Schiller is a crackpot etc. etc. It is highly unlikely that more than a handful of people in the physics community are familiar with Schiller's work or Jacobson's for that matter from which Schiller apparently derives his argument. Point being this is a controversial topic that is likely to lead to mudslinging and acrimony. | |
| Mar 31, 2011 at 7:48 | history | asked | John | CC BY-SA 2.5 |