What are your thoughts on conformal gravity theories and the possibility of there being additional terms that affect long-distance measurements?
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | LHC gets colder than deep space
"LHC gets colder than deep space"
"The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment has once again become one of the coldest places in the Universe (...)
The cool-down is an important milestone ahead of the collider's scheduled re-start in the latter half of November."
Have just read the news on BBC.
I'm not 100% sure what you are asking so if I head in the wrong direction do you mind clarifying it for me a tad? As far as CG theories are concerned I am not one to subscribe to them per se. They should great and look purdy and Yes they fit nicely and what not into the little box we are putting them in but it to me seems a bit "forced" to me. Think of it about how Max basically feels about Hawking radiation lol :D With that said, I know that G. Relativity has had its fair share of ups and its downs through last century and really since its inception, but when Einstein initially introduced what he saw as a "constant term" to account for the what was back then an actual "observational fact" that our Universe was static universe, only to turn around and have to remove it again a couple of years later when Edwin Hubble (Using what we now know as Hubble's law) discovered that the Universe was indeed expanding.
Now I realize that Mannheim's (conformal gravity) CG theory takes on the cosmic expansion debate head on in one of the most radical of all the alternative gravity theories that exist today. I am not much a fan of many of these fringe "Einstein plus" ideas but that's just me. Shit like the Tensor vector scalar gravity and the MOdified Gravity ideas aren't something that I subscribe to. I mean how do you just up and modify of play the PC card andby basically calling your fringe ideas "add ons" while in a round about way saying that GR and Newtonian gravity aren't as good as yours. I mean as sexy as that sounds then why are we not celebrating and universally accepting the theories of VSL and give Nobels out to João Magueijo and/or Lee Smolin for their work in that field? I mean one could make the case that both are deserving for criticism they both have taken in the past. If Magueijo and Smolin cant be right then neither can anyone else! >;(
Now I realize that what those theories were designed to do was to scale down Einstein's equations and relegate them to a smaller solar system models and removing them completely on the larger Galactic universal model and for the larger distances. Now this is the part where and why I think it is trying to be forced; because it neatly and comfortably removes the need for us to answer that pesky little problem of "Dark matter" or "Dark energy". To me it's trying too hard to fill in the blanks, think of it as skipping questions on the SAT or any other aptitude test and claim that you are a genius because you got the ones you chose to answer correct. But with that said and what I see as the Achillies heel is that neither of those theories are able to suitably (at least to me) explain or take into consideration the cosmological constant
There is still A LOT of work to be done for us to be able to completely understand and to grasp the full concepts and implications of what CG means for and on modern Cosmology. I mean, disagreeing with GR and accepted ideas on gravity are one thing, but trying to systematically replace what Einstein, Hubble, Newton and other great scientist have done before you seems a bit..... retarded.
You did a pretty good job of addressing what I was getting at. Mannheim's CG theory was the main theory I was alluding to. I'm not familiar with most of the details of all the alternative gravity theories but what I do know is that most of the proposed solutions to the dark matter / dark energy problem seem to be either ad hoc or are dependent on finding some reasonable evidence for at least one of the proposed dark matter candidates, most likely from the LHC. If we don't get any closer to an answer on the dark matter problem in the next 5-10 years, where does that leave us?
Given that working out the details of something like the CG theory requires a ridiculous amount of machinery (considering you have at least 28 degrees of freedom for even the most symmetric cases), and adding the fact that it's not exactly an orthodox position to begin with, all I'd say is that you'd have to have some serious doubts about existing theories about dark matter to devote the time to fleshing out such a theory. On the plus side, the theory is quite accommodating for quantum gravity so I suppose it's one of those things where the jury's still out until some more evidence comes in (on both sides).
Of course, any theory that essentially says that what came out of Einstein and Newton doesn't hold up at long-distance scales (or possibly short-distance scales, e.g. Adelberger's work) will automatically have some baggage just because of the weight those names bring with them.
I'm not a big fan of modified gravity models, gravity works fine, the problem is with QM.
I'm quite convinced that Einstein knew Relativity could reproduce all known effects in the Universe, but knew he could not make it do that without sacrificing something he could not bear to give up.
Causality.
I'm in the dark matter is a real particle, dark energy is a mislabeled result of black hole production reaching a certain level, and quantum mechanics formulated as non-local effects is wrong, camp.
It's hard getting people to give up any aspect of causality though, but I don't require any new forces or fields or unseen effects, and in fact trim the ones we do know down to simpler principles... which seems a sign to me that there is something to this approach.
So we've come full circle to the original top of the thread! Bravo, I'm looking forward to the end of the world if you guys are!
I brought marshmallows and gingerale to snack on!
Spoiler: show
M-m-m-marshmellows and g-g-g-thbppt-ginger ale.
I'm waiting for them to clear out the last bastions of hope for the Higgs particle, and to discover signs of a stable up/anti-up/down/anti-down tetraquark particle which appears to be stable and completely non-interactive electromagnetically, filling the role as a dark matter candidate perfectly.
Then I'll bust out the soda pop and candy.
I am going to devote the next few pages to dark matter discussion. Mmmm dodecaquarks...
But seriously when speaking in terms of the LHC take into account its size (A tad over 17 MILES) and then take into account that something the size of pea or as small as a pin hole can bring it down. The time being taken is precautionary at best, they have had it on and running the date you saw if for official testing.
So don't fret, all is well.
Wouldn't a dodecaquark just be 3 protons/3 neutrons/2 extra quarks?
![]()
Max! I was being facetious rofl
I'll tious your face!
lol
But still, the last half of November can't come soon enoughGlad we have a time frame to look forward to at least. I wonder if we'll hear more crazy chlorine drinking stories before it starts up again, or if the general public has completely forgotten about it.
I'm sad most people don't know what the SSC was.
I learned it was canceled in science class at school, I was probably the only kid in there who was seriously upset and confused by it.
How could anyone let anything stand in the way of science?
Ah, youthful naivete.