tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post1576643303368245801..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: No, you cannot test quantum gravity with X-ray superradianceSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-46143752013207556742015-03-23T21:30:47.437-04:002015-03-23T21:30:47.437-04:00@Zephir, King of the Spews,
http://www.youtube.co...@Zephir, King of the Spews,<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBxcC8zV46E<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtItBX1l1VY<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rjbtsX7twc<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2INJiNpZFBIUncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-86113981371059405752015-03-23T17:49:30.149-04:002015-03-23T17:49:30.149-04:00/*Deviations from general relativity aren’t the sa.../*Deviations from general relativity aren’t the same as quantum gravity*/<br /><br />Why not? Which theory other than quantum mechanics can influence gravity and relativity?Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77391047881477249052015-03-23T14:31:11.065-04:002015-03-23T14:31:11.065-04:00Sabine: again with respect, what I'm saying is...Sabine: again with respect, what I'm saying is not obsolete, it's correct. Follow my previous links, and also see <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html" rel="nofollow">Baez</a>: <br /><br /><i>"Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a force, but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-54281437742766474942015-03-23T13:39:32.246-04:002015-03-23T13:39:32.246-04:00John,
I couldn't care less what you think a g...John,<br /><br />I couldn't care less what you think a gravitational field is or what you think Einstein though it is. You're not making any sense to me. I am telling you the authors used a totally standard treatment of gravitational redshift. I will delete further obsolete comments of yours. Thanks,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70128283388875743022015-03-23T13:30:44.593-04:002015-03-23T13:30:44.593-04:00Sabine, with respect, you're missing the point...Sabine, with respect, you're missing the point. See the article: <br /><br /><i>"...the stage is an integral part of the show, bending and warping around the actors according to the rules of general relativity. The actors — atoms and molecules — respond to this shifting stage, but they have no influence on how it warps and flows around them. This is puzzling to us... In general Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65974787915658954312015-03-23T11:21:45.358-04:002015-03-23T11:21:45.358-04:00John,
Thanks for the references, but I really don...John,<br /><br />Thanks for the references, but I really don't think there is an issue here. The authors use a totally standard treatment of gravitational redshift in curved backgrounds, the Schwarzschild metric in particular. If anything is an issue it's that I found this isn't the place to explain how this comes about and thus was very sketchy in my explanation. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-17333153201834683752015-03-23T11:01:08.257-04:002015-03-23T11:01:08.257-04:00http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear...http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html<br />http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossfe.html<br /><i>Phys. Rev.</i> <b>129</b>(6) 2371 (1963), DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.129.2371<br />Ultracentrifuge hub vs. rim is inert toward rate of time re rotation.<br />http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html<br /> Harvard Tower experiment. Neutron starsUncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82803009551126795912015-03-23T10:12:56.788-04:002015-03-23T10:12:56.788-04:00Sabine: OK noted, I do concur with your article. B...Sabine: OK noted, I do concur with your article. But there's maybe an issue here, and it could be important. See <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014" rel="nofollow">this</a> and note that as per <a href="http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html" rel="nofollow">Einstein's Leyden Address</a>, a gravitational field is inhomogeneous space wherein the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-2243578337088564732015-03-23T06:28:47.076-04:002015-03-23T06:28:47.076-04:00john,
Please read "strength of the field&quo...john,<br /><br />Please read "strength of the field" as a sloppy way to say "position in the background curved by the presence of a large source" as there is neither a field nor a potential here. It is entirely irrelevant to my explanation though. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7222854834828718742015-03-23T05:41:41.110-04:002015-03-23T05:41:41.110-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17277418652411278565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35530885394813623462015-03-23T05:23:17.714-04:002015-03-23T05:23:17.714-04:00"If you place the crystal in a gravitational ...<i>"If you place the crystal in a gravitational field, the proper time will depend on the strength of the field".</i><br /><br />Surely it depends upon the depth of potential? The strength of the field relates to the gradient in potential, which relates to the gradient in proper times plotted between the floor and the ceiling. If your light clock on the floor runs at the same rate as Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57279465789340176352015-03-23T05:21:16.971-04:002015-03-23T05:21:16.971-04:00"Just because it's something with quantum...<i>"Just because it's something with quantum and something with gravity doesn't mean it's quantum gravity."</i><br /><br />I'll add this to my collection of pithy aphorisms.<br />Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.com