LIGO story, exciting? Yes and No

Is General Relativity (GR) a correct description of Nature after the gravitational wave is now DIRECTLY observed?

Absolutely Not!

Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler (http://profmattstrassler.com/2016/02/11/advance-thoughts-on-ligo/ ) gave a very good assessment on this.

One, Gravitational Wave is an old story, nothing to get exciting about.

Two, the birth of an entirely new field of science (gravitational-wave astronomy) is exciting.

 

Yes, we now have a new tool to observe this universe. But, GR is still a very bad description of Nature.

 

For science, especially for physics, the Occam’s razor plays the key role. It works like this.

For two theories, A and B.

Case one, if B produces identical result as A but was published after A, then A is true while B is false. Reasonable, as B produces zero new benefit.

Case two, if A is accepted first while B has something new over A, B is still false if B does not answer ALL open questions in A.

Case three, if A is accepted first while it becomes a subset of B and B answers ALL open questions of A, then A becomes false and B is true.

 

With the Occam’s razor above, GR was falsified long ago.

First, GR is totally useless for almost all the open issues of today:
{failing to predict and to answer the dark energy and dark matter issues, especially for deriving the Planck CMB data,

failing to calculate the nature constants (Cabibbo/Weinberg angles, 1/Alpha, etc.),

failing to play any role in Standard Model (SM), especially the rising of the SM particle zoo,

failing to be compatible with the quantum principle, let alone to DERIVE it,

failing to explain what the quantum spin is all about,

failing to explain [Why is there something rather than nothing?]

failing to explain the fact of quantum entanglement,

failing to explain the Hierarchy Problem,

failing on almost ALL (every) key issues.}

 

If no other model is able to answer those key issues, GR of course is still true in terms of Occam’s razor. But, but, but, …, all those open issues are totally resolved, see:

{ https://medium.com/@Tienzen/here-is-the-correct-answer-5d1a392f700#.h1z8oo9io for the issue of [Why is there something rather than nothing?]

http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html for deriving Alpha,

https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/ for dark energy and dark mass, the Planck CMB data,

For all other issues, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/the-final-toe-theory-of-everything/ }.

 

I am now showing one issue here.

What is the quantum entanglement/quantum-gravity?

quantument

Figure 1: the topology of this universe

 

The center of the figure 1 is the North Pole, the outer circle is the South Pole {the entire circle (with infinite geometric points) is just a single point}. When we split a quantum state at North Pole and send them to point A and B. The distance between AB can be viewed as 2r (radius of the circle). The CAUSAL transmission between the two points takes time t = 2r/C. Yet, in reality (nature, with quantum entanglement), the distance between AB is zero (being the same point); so the real transmission takes t’ = 0/C, the instantaneous, the spooky action.

For two particles C and D, their causal distance CD is measured with photon, and the causal transmission time is t = CD/C. On the other hand, the gravity arises from each particle (C, D or E) bouncing between the real and the ghost point, and their distances to the ghost point (such as the South Pole) are the same regardless of their causal distances that CD > CE. That is, their gravity interaction strength is measured with the causal distance (1/r^2) while their transmission rate are all the same (for CD, CE or DE), as they are linked through the ghost point.

Quantum entanglement is also linked via this ghost point, and thus their transmission rate is also instantaneously.

With this, quantum gravity consists of three parts.

One, how to give rise to quantum spin (1/2 ħ), see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/visualizing-the-quantum-spin/ . Yet, the important point of this is that the spin (1/2 ħ) particle takes 720 degrees rotation for getting back to its original position because the space/time quanta rotates 180 (spin-2) for every 360 rotation for fermions.

Two, how to give rise to dark energy (expansion with acceleration), see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html . This also DERIVEs quantum principle,

Three, the quantum entanglement is in fact having the same mechanism as the gravity-transmission, see https://medium.com/@Tienzen/quantum-gravity-mystery-no-more-1d1bf39ad255#.qs69g6a58 .

 

The above shows that this universe has two parts, the causal-sphere (event horizon) and the non-causal-sphere (bonded only by gravity/quantum entanglement). So, every gravity interaction plays out in two spheres. In the causal-sphere, the gravity interaction does have a causal expression which is the gravitational wave.

 

GR WAS a great science achievement but is now totally falsified in terms of Occam’s razor. It in fact is a road block for the advancement for physics in the past 40 years.

 

With the direct observation of gravitational wave, the GR is now complete and is time going into the trash can, see https://medium.com/@Tienzen/yes-gr-is-very-successful-as-gravitational-lens-ff65efb63889#.2fkk1ybfm . By all means, gravitational wave is only an ATTRIBUTE of gravity, not the interaction media for gravity.

 

Note added (February 28, 2016):  Sean Carroll wrote on (Feb. 11, 2016, http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/02/08/guest-post-grant-remmen-on-entropic-gravity/  ): {… it’s that the answer is likely to be something more subtle than just “take classical general relativity and quantize it.”  Quantum gravity doesn’t seem to be an ordinary quantum field theory.}

Amen!

Yet, in that article, he is talking about the entropic gravity.

There are two arrows in this universe: {Arrow of time; Arrow of entropy}. But, these two arrows are totally different on their bases, although the arrow of time does make contribution to the arrow of entropy.

Gravity is totally (100%) an emergent of time. So, the entropic gravity is at best playing a part in gravity.

 

Why are you always writing this kind of bullcrap?

“The Multiverse is almost definitely real beyond any reasonable doubt, but what version of the Multiverse you subscribe to makes all the difference in the Universe.” (See, https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-the-multiverse-and-the-road-not-traveled-3086a2ca0daf#.k8t7kx4ol )

 

Your name is “Ethan Siegel”. Others can give you a nick name of some kinds {xxx Sie, yyy Eth, etc.}, but those names are not you.

 

The type one and two are by all means not multiverse regardless of who is trying to confuse the readers. You are covertly hyping the multiverse nonsense by calling type one and two as multiverse. This is wrong and dishonest.

 

The type 3 and 4 are by all means scientific nonsense. Why are you talking about them as part of scientific speculations?

 

Only type 5 is a genuine multiverse, and it can be ruled out with two simple points.

One, it is the fallout from string unification failure of being unable to make contact to THIS universe (calculating the nature constants of THIS universe, providing a language description for the quark model, etc.) and thus by claiming that there are zillion sets of nature constants; thus, there is no way to calculate the nature constants of THIS universe. Then, if the nature constants of THIS universe can be calculated, its claim is invalidated right the way.

 

Two, if we can further show that the way of calculating the nature constants of THIS universe is bubble (vacuum) independent, the multiverse nonsense will be crashed right the way.

 

The two points above are clearly showed in the article { http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html }, and this article is now viewed by thousands people. If you pretend of not knowing about this article, you are not honest to yourself as you are informed about this article many times because that I have commented on many of YOUR articles on this issue. Of course, writing this kind of bullcrap is your right (guaranteed by the US constitution), but you are morally wrong to your readers by feeding them craps.