Reply to comment
Re: A "Two-Choice Dilemma"
January 23, 2008
by Halliday,
1 year 43 weeks ago
Comment: 27119
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Jim:
Short of going through a mathematical derivation of Gravitational waves (deeper than the level given in previous references, which you don't appear to have taken advantage of), and I know how you hate the mathematical approach, you are left with the two choices I outlined. For there is no way Gravitational Waves, as predicted by the field equations of General Relativity can be "excised" while maintaining the substance of the theory (the field equations).*
As I, and others have pointed out, the Gravitational Wave predictions are inextricably tied to the field equations of General Relativity, without any reference to "gravity as a force" or "gravity having energy". (Except to the extent that the nonlinearities of the field equations may imply some form of "energy" like characteristic, and/or the predictions of decaying orbits imply such a transformation. It's only secondary, not primary or necessary for the derivation of said prediction.)
I will give you one last chance... If you make your choice in your "two-choice dilemma", rather than avoiding the dilemma (as most tend to avoid such, until they pluck up the courage to undergo the anxiety and pain of growth, thereby), I will help you with the next stage.
Otherwise, I will delete your blog from my bookmarks and never visit again.
Until then, fare well.
David
* The best one could accomplish would be to start over from the "Arnold" hypotheses, and derive a new theory.
It way, I emphasize MAY, be possible to modify the field equations such that no such waves are produced while maintaining the other measured predictions, but no one has accomplished anything like this. Furthermore, unless one modifies the theory such as to rid it of the indefinite metric (like that of Special Relativity) it is almost certain that any dynamical character of spacetime will lead to waves.
Keep in mind, when Einstein created this theory I'm sure he had no intention of creating anything like Gravitational Waves, just as he had no intention to create a theory that predicted an expanding (or contracting) universe. It simply came as a part-and-parcel consequence. (A controversial one at that, as I and others have already pointed out.)