juanrga

I emphasized in my previous message #14 (which you read and replied) that the SS equation is more fundamental and general than the WdW equation. I did also explicit that the SS equation is "defined in a generalized Hilbert space beyond the scope of the WdW"... Evidently your above question is nonsensical. You also misread the Wiki article, which shows that it is not my fault.

A basic introduction is given at http://en.wikipedia....vistic_dynamics. Therein "coordinate time" is the x0 and the "invariant evolution parameter" or "parametrized time" is [math]\tau[/math]. This fundamental time [math]\tau[/math] is defined globally, for the universe as a whole, and it coincides with the quantum mechanical concept of time. Wheeler and DeWitt confounded the "t" in quantum mechanics with the "t" in general relativity and developed the nonsensical WdW equation, which leads to nonsensical claims about a timeless universe...

You misquote me. I said: "Time is, in essence, the evolution parameter of Universe as a whole". That is different than what you write above! I am talking about the fundamental generator of time translations, which is usually denoted by K. I also said that K is not H. The Wheeler & deWitt equation is related to x0, but I also said to you that this is not the fundamental time of universe. The WdW is a rather discredited and trivial equation. In more fundamental treatments, it is substituted by a more general and sophisticated equation as the Stueckelberg-Schrödinger equation, for instance, [math]i\hbar \frac{\partial |\Psi\rangle}{\partial \tau} = K |\Psi\rangle[/math] where [math]|\Psi\rangle[/math] is defined in a generalized Hilbert space beyond the scope of the WdW. Here [math]\tau[/math] is Universe time.

If you read my message you would notice at least three things: (i) Nowhere in my message I mentioned General Relativity, because the general relativistic concept of time is very far from being fundamental; (ii) I wrote about the generator K (K is not H) and (iii) I differentiated evolution time (sometimes denoted by [math]\tau[/math]) from x0. Note: The notation is standard and can be found in papers and books, but for avoiding further misreadings... let me add that [math]\tau[/math] is not proper time and K is not Kelvin.

SLAC claims that BaBar Data Hint at Cracks in the Standard Model. The excess decays have to be still confirmed, but they claim that data already rules out the Two Higgs Doublet Model.

So far as I know chemists are working with different hypothesis about the origin of chirality in life: A parity violating energy difference does that one isomer was selected over the other. A fluctuation in a far from equilibrium system near a bifurcation point selected one. Circularly polarized light generates asymmetric stereoselection via photochemical processes.

The DM hypothesis is wrong by two reasons: First, DM models are in contradiction with lots of data, whereas the same data is in agreement with models as MOND. Second, DM has never been found in despite of hundred of observations and experiments made. Any test has reported a null result, somewhat as tests of the aether failed and obligated the development of relativity.

"Historia de la química" by William H Brock is a materpiece. This is the book where I did learn that Newton was a chemist and that he did research in his own alchemical laboratory! My volume is in Spanish and I do not know exactly what is the English version. I suppose that is this

The first main point that I tried to state on my previous post was that the average physics expert is not always able to differentiate reliable work from fraud and plain wrong nonsense. The thousands of plain wrong and fraudulent papers published in the top journals are the proof. I have given some examples, including the Schön scandal, which is considered one of the biggest frauds in physics. The second main point that I tried to state on my previous post was that the average physics expert is almost always unable to differentiate true cranks from pure genius. As said in my previous post, almost all the works awarded a Nobel Prize were first rejected by the average physics expert. So far as I know, Vixra was born to accept any work over the basis of this second point (not to accept only what the average physics expert thinks that would be published). The vixra blog has a series of posts titled "crackpots" who were right" --episode 1 starts with B. Belousov-- with examples of true genius whose scientific work was considered crap by the average physics expert. I do not know what is your definition of "absolute gem", but there are preprints at Vixra published in respectable journals such as Physical Review D. Edit: The original interview to Murray Gell-Mann (where he explains how his Nobel awarded work about quarks was then considered crank by most physicists) is now behind a paywall, but an open copy is available in txt format at CERN. At the end, Gell-Mann explains how he is being considered again a crank by the Establishment. Gell-Mann is again fighting the orthodoxy...

Nobody would believe that papers published in "reputable journals" are automatically legitimate, whereas those are not published therein are automatically crap. A bit of research shows: Too many wrong and even fraudulent papers have been published in the so-called top journals (with a superb strict and rigorous refereeing process). Search the Schön scandal for a typical example. Just this week I did learn that certain key papers in chemistry have been withdrawn from top journals, including Science, because it is now understood that the papers were wrong. Most if not all Nobel laureates saw their work rejected by the "reputable journals" and they were called crackpots by their colleagues. If I am not mistaken Murray Gell-Mann has an interview where he explains how physicists considered that his work on quarks was "crack-pottery" (before he won the Nobel Prize, of course). Even the great Isaac Newton (then journals did not exist) saw his pioneering work rejected by his colleagues. Some very important recent development in science have been published outside the "reputable journals". A typical example is Perelman's work on the Poincaré conjeture. Perelman's work was published on the web!! Still he was awarded the Millennium Prize and the Field Medal (a kind of Nobel Prize for mathematics) for that work.

Not only any experiment made since a century ago verifies that c is a constant, but c is listed --in the tables of universal constants-- as one of the constants that characterize our universe http://en.wikipedia....ersal_constants

Initially you said us that p was "momentum". After receiving a pair of critical replies you changed your discourse to p is "mechanical momentum" and said us that "canonical momentum" was denoted by P, not by p. Some further critical replies latter you are starting to admit now that p can denote "canonical momentum"... in QM literature. If I cite the page 460 of Wald textbook on general relativity (where he defines "momentum" as [math]\partial L / \partial \dot{q}[/math]), would you agree that some general relativists use the term momentum as I use? Or will you maintain that we confound momentum with canonical momentum? And if I cite Feynman textbook on QED, where he uses p for momentum ([math]\partial L / \partial \dot{q}[/math]) and [math]\pi[/math] for kinetic momentum [math]\pi \equiv (p - eA)[/math], would you admit that some particle physicists use the same terminology and notation that I use? Or will you maintain that we do not know what canonical momentum is?

Feynman about philosophers: Feynman about philosophy of science: I agree with him.

Saying ''just the metric'' [math]g_{\mu \nu}[/math] is a massive oversimplification, but... your approach would be consistent when you proved [math]g_{\mu \nu} \ne 0[/math]. Anyway, I don't really think you are following my problems very well -- I am well aware of the Einstein Equations and the metric. This is not what I am talking about. I was concerned strictly with the SC metric would does have inconsistencies. Elfmotat had the right suggestion for me http://en.wikipedia....i/Vaidya_metric I'm wondering now if Hawking radiation would account for loss of radiation in a non-rotating black hole, but since the Schwartzschild metric is static and t-symmetric, I am wondering if Hawking's work has been able to solve equations for a static black hole. If one cannot do it in any way, I'd dare say the Schwartzschild metric does not really purport to a real type of object. No. The SC metric is not inconsistent. It is a perfectly admisible solution to the Hilbert & Einstein equations under well-defined physical assumptions. And, as already said before, the SC metric has been well tested in half dozen of different tests. In fact, the SC metric is probably the best tested metric of general relativity. Your claim that "the Schwartzschild metric does not really purport to a real type of object" is unfounded. Modifications to the SC metric are known as well.

The figure represents your point of view and not mine. It has nothing explicit to say about whether metaphysics is meta-scientific or can be be called a science. Post 19 asks why anyone would want to call metaphysics a science, which is what I thought we were discusing. The figure represents the current status of three main scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology) and some scientific subdisciplines. You can find textbooks, journals... on each one of the subdisciplines listed therein. For example, chemical physics is placed in the intersection between physics and chemistry in the figure because belong to both. Even the wikipedia starts its article on chemical physics with "Chemical physics is a subdiscipline of chemistry and physics". Post #19 asks something completely different. The first question is «Why some people want to extend the concept of "physics" doing it equivalent to the concept of "science"?». Physics is not a synonym for science, but physics is a subset of science. Even if we assume that science cannot rest on itself (which is something that I doubt as said before), but in another discipline; that discipline would be named metascience, not metaphysics, as many philosophers believe. In fact, a new branch of philosophy named philosophy of chemistry was born in recent years in an attempt to correct the misunderstandings and mistakes made by the self-proclaimed philosophers of 'science' during centuries. Regarding this thread, journals on philosophy of chemistry are filled with hundred of articles explaining why chemistry has not been reduced to physics. This fact gives a clear answer to the question made by the OP. Physics does not win over everything. I think that I already gave a precise and accurate definition of science. A "logically systematic metaphysical theory" is not a scientific theory, because the former does not use scientific methods for its testing. Apart from the fundamental difference in methodology. Philosophers are notoriously bad at doing science and their logically systematic theories are usually scientific nonsense. Before I noticed how most philosophers are totally ignorants of chemistry, but they are not better at physics. Feynman, in his famous lectures on physics, devotes some time to discuss why philosophers approach to the real world is misguided. He uses a chair as example and then using a modern atomic approach explains why the real world chair is different to what philosophers think that a chair is. This is a well-known episode. If you have not a copy of the lectures here is an excerpt.

Everyone knows that Sun will disappear, finally, and then the SC metric will be not working anymore. Everyone knows that the SC metric is not valid for long distances, because it is ignoring the cosmological constant term. Everyone knows that. If one want to obtain a more general metric, e.g. a time-dependent metric valid at large scales as well, one solves the Hilbert & Einstein equations and obtain gab.

The SC metric is enough to study light-bending, mercury perihelion anomaly, and other so-named classic tests of GR up to PN-order in complete agreement with observations.

The mistakes are all yours, and that includes your confusion of canonical momentum with mechanical momentum. Nobody else in this forum would make such a mistake. Simply start a thread and pose the question and they'll enlighten you It is fair to emphasize that now you write "mechanical momentum" only after I corrected your early posts. In your early posts you never wrote "mechanical momentum" but you wrote "momentum" (an example is your #3) you only wrote "the momentum of a point particle is". If you are now suggesting that where you wrote "momentum", you did really mean "mechanical momentum", then part of the criticism that I did in my response #4 and in other places vanishes, evidently. However, other corrections to your mistakes remain, including that "kinetic momentum" is a better term than "mechanical momentum".

Flat spacetime theories as the relativistic field theory of gravity (FTG) give the correct value using a flat space. For curved spacetime theories as general relativity (GR), it is very misleading to split the acceleration into fictitious 'gravitational' plus 'spatial curvature' components, because quantities in GR are defined over the physical spacetime and this is curved. The physical reason which GR and FTG give twice light bending than Newtonian gravity is because Newtonian gravity is a scalar theory, whereas GR and FTG are tensor theories (the graviton is spin-2). Precisely Einstein's first computation was in his 1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light, where Esintein used a scalar theory of gravity developed before GR.

And solid state physics, astrophysicists, and many other physicists; also most of chemists and biologists... Although the correct name is "invariant mass" or simply mass, not "proper mass", neither "rest mass". "Rest mass" is specially a misnomer for light particles, because photons are never at rest. Your concept of "inertial mass" (aka the old concept of "relativistic mass") is almost not used today in science. Cosmologists and general relativists use what you call "rest mass": A No-Nonsense Introduction to General Relativity by a well-known cosmologist. Or just check what general relativists Taylor & Wheeler write in their Spacetime Physics (2nd Ed.):

Take a look to the figure in the post which you are replying. Read also #19, specially the first question. The meaning of terms in the sciences often differs from the meaning "in the everyday sense". Since this is a science forum, I am using the standard meaning in the analytical sciences.

He was linking to a comic. You would not take a comic too seriously... In fact, it is impossible to separate physics, biology, chemistry... because the boundaries are fuzzy As said physics is a branch of science. We could discuss if science can rest on itself or cannot and a 'metascience' is needed. The discussion is not very different to that maintained by meta-mathematicians: Some believe that metamathematics is prior to math, other disagree. My point is that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy and that it does not provide a 'foundation' for physics (neither for science). "Analysis" has a precise scientific meaning as in analytical chemistry. The word is not used in philosophers sense as in analytic philosophy. "Differ" in the sense that it is more general and up to date. For instance, the APS definition is a naive physicist's definition of science which is in clear disagreement with the science made by chemists, for instance. See also the criticism/remarks by David Edgerton and Jean Marie Lehn. The chapter by Jean Marie Lehn explains why reductionism is dead in supramolecular chemistry and substituted by integrationism.

Okay. It's a science of logic but not a natural science. In the previous paragraph I emphasized how science was separated from philosophy several centuries ago. Therefore, a "branch of philosophy" cannot be a "branch of science". I do not agree that metaphysics is a kind of science. Moreover, as emphasized there, an unified approach to science does not differentiate between natural, social, or other sciences.

Several centuries ago science split from philosophy thanks to the development and application of the scientific method. The incredible success of science, the exponential-like development of tested knowledge and its subsequent application to real-life problems is firmly rooted in the wise discovery that logic reasoning alone is not enough. Physics, as a branch of science, is based in the scientific method. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy.

This is what I did mean when I wrote "GR and QM are mutually incompatible".