Talk:Quantum gravity/Archive for 2010

Weinberg-Witten theorem... WTH?

this section seems just a little useless. I'm no expert on physics or quantum theories or anything, but it seems almost like this theorem was seperated from the other theorems and models in the "candidates" section. It seems like someone was trying to promote their own theory, I don't know. Nameless9123 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Worsley in #References

Here I reverted the addition of Worsley, Andrew (2009), Formulation of Advanced Quantum Gravity, Physics Essays 22:(3) pp 364-377, ISSN 0861398 {{citation}}: Check |issn= value (help). This is not an appropriate source for this article, and was not used in building it. In any case, such additions should always be discussed here at the good faith request of any editor; re-inserting without discussion is edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies I am relatively new to Wiki editing and many thanks for highlighting my mistakes. I understand the rationale behind your revision presented above and I will continue with my comments here in the Wiki editing ethos described.

Therefore, I would like to discuss the above paper and its association with the Wiki page on quantum gravity. I have read the paper a number of times; it is original and well argued. It is also a peer reviewed and published paper. From the design of the page I can see a number of options:

• The paper could be described within the article itself and the referenced in the appropriate way.

• As the paper is available externally from Wiki could be added to the External Links section.

• The paper could be viewed as providing an approach not currently described in the Wiki Page and could be included in the Other Approaches section.

Comments or thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garfield Salazar (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No comments received to date. I am unsure whether there is a policy regarding a timescale for comments, but may I suggest three weeks from the date of a request for discussion is reasonable? After which it can be considered that no objections have been received and the suggested course of action described is acceptable. Therefore, comments will be awaited until 27th April 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garfield Salazar (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This paper had no impact on the research community so far. Therefore it is too early to add it to this wiki page. Udifuchs (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we solve the problem of quantum gravity by proving the hypothesized quantum gravity does not exist at all?

Yes, we can. The brief answer is in http://mechanism-revealedphysics-bz38.blogspot.com/

BCZ§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by BingchengZMRP (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a self-published work where you attempt to argue that General Relativity is incorrect. Wikipedia is unfortunately not a suitable venue for this sort of thing (per WP:OR and WP:RS). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why; so silly?

Why are physicists trying to combine gravity to a model that already has it? For the sheer fun of infinities?

Gravity is included in the "arrow of time". Gravity and Time are the same thing.

Please, what am I missing? --Neptunerover (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is irrefutable. Time = Gravity. If you reverse one, the other reverses. If you stop one, the other stops. While this is not directly observable, it has already been proven mathematically. They are intertwined completely and cannot be separated from each other. For how this can be so, see Yin and Yang. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Proven mathematically" means nothing. 2+2=4 is proven mathematically, But what in the physical world is 2,4,+ or =. Don't confuse mathematical CONCEPTS with PHYSICAL objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.239.130 (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

An Approach to Quantum Gravity

This approach has had wide scientific exposure. There are two published papers and it is in Encyclopedia Brittanica (www.eb.com). There are ten pages on Google on this approach to quantum gravity. In the interests of scientific furtherance I intend to add this as a link within Other Approaches in two weeks. Its an adaptation of Newtonian gravity which can be translated into quantum gravity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garfield Salazar (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No comments posted, hence brief entry made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garfield Salazar (talk • contribs) 00:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC) I am unclear as to why the reference I placed was removed, this a a reference to a published paper on the subject. The only comment was 'repetition' although this is the only reference to this paper on Wiki.

It is a reference to a recent primary and likely unreliable source, an essay. Those edits also introduce triple repetition of the same title. Materialscientist (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a peer reviewed paper in hard copy. I'm not sure why this would be stated as unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.233.93 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The "journal" in which this paper was published is so bad, it is not even funny. The only name I recognized on its editorial board is D. Kruskal - Rutgers University. This journal was created in 2010, while Prof. Martin D. Kruskal died in 2006. Udifuchs (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)