Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.physics.research    |    Current physics research. (Moderated)    |    17,516 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 16,074 of 17,516    |
|    rockbrentwood@gmail.com to Lawrence Crowell    |
|    Re: Existence of CMB and early radiation    |
|    03 Apr 18 07:12:30    |
      On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 1:38:11 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:       > What you lay out below is in greater detail than what I said. I suppose       > I should have said Riemannian geometry is the mathematics general       > relativity is based on. Riemann-Cartan geometry is a technical       > modification. The equivalence principle is a physical statement for the       > connections used in GR, in particular the geodesic equation.              The equivalence principle, itself, is paradigm-neutral, and applies       across the board both to GR and non-relativistic gravity (whose       underlying also has geodesics, but is not Riemannian). Sometimes what       people refer to by the statement is a mixture of (1) and (3); (1) being       that the motion of matter is determined by its initial position and       velocity independent of its constituency and (3) being that the       spacetime is locally Minkowski.              I put (2) (the continuity equation) up ahead of (3) intentionally. If       you had to choose between violating the continuity equation (and       conservation laws) versus relaxing (3), I think most people would give       (2) higher priority. This is the situation you face with singularities       -- where (2) is most definitely violated! All the more so, when you have       no go results which virtually mandate the presence of singularities in       your solutions.              Remember that GR, itself, (its Lagrangian) was essentially *singled out*       from other possibilities by the requirement that it yield a conservation       law. The moment you allow it to be violated in your solutions, you've       undercut the very foundation of the theory itself.              I think Lydia's point about radiation dominant solutions going       asymptotically with a metric like dt^2 - t (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) for t ~       0 is the key point. That basically forces you into signature change as t       -> 0!              But it would have helped to see a similar construction for black hole       solutions (that makes the "Euclidean Wormhole" solution more       transparent).              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca