Einstein went there in the 1930s, and did almost nothing. In fact, Einstein went there, searched for a unified field theory along a path that was clearly wrong and at the same time published papers in which he said that no unified field theory was possible. But Einstein had done a few things before.
What does it mean to do better than Einstein at the IAS? First, it means to tell everybody to take your wrong path as well, while knowing that it makes no sense at all to follow it.
On the subject of unification, the IAS has a strange result. The collection of the smartest minds of the US worked together for decades with an output:
Nothing.This is the second part of what doing "better than Einstein" means at the IAS.
Next time, try a woman.
The issue is Generalization--NOT unification
ReplyDeleteUnification is a natural result of Generalization
SM and GR cannot be unified in their present status
The first step should be to regularize SM and GR
Then SM should be generally relativized in the same sense that non-relativistic QM was specially relativized,resulting in Dirac's Equation.
Near Planck's scale,causality and invariance will probably loose their meaning
If you know of any person with proper qualifications willing to do graduate studies in this direction,please feel free to inform me
Abraham
Abraham,
ReplyDeleteeven string theory regularizes the standard model and general relativity. But it is wrong. There are so many ways to regularize the two theories. Finding the the correct way is another matter.
Clara
DeleteYou are totally right
As a small step,I regularized SR and I am now in the process of formulating an appropriate Lagrangian
I also regularized the Uncertainty Principle
Next I intend to regularize Dirac's equation and then I will start confronting GR,first dealing probably with a flat space
Regularizing SM is a different issue,but as you say,ST is the wrong way
Maybe I should deal with SM by using the regularized Dirac's equation ,continuing to QFT and arriving at SM
As I said the finish would be to modify SM such as to comply with a regularized GR
Abraham
Abraham,
ReplyDeleteYou regularized special relativity? I hope you are joking. There are no problems in special relativity.
You regularized the uncertainty principle? I hope you are joking. It has no problems.
There is only one task: regularizing SM when combined to GR. Other tasks are nonsense. Watch out.
Clara
DeleteWhen the speed of an elementary particle approaches c,its mass goes to infinity-this is a singularity-namely unphysical
When the relativistic gamma is properly corrected,the mass of any elementary particle goes to the same finite value (Schiller says it is planck's mass--maybe)
Next,in the usual Uncertainty Principle ,you can get absolute accuracy in position,with the price of infinite inaccuracy in momentum.
But in physics there is no absolute accuracy in position because there is minimum length
So when you correct properly the UP,you get a generalized UP with no zero accuracies and infinite values of anything allowed(ask Schiller)
So this is what I did and it has been published--just for you to know
As you can see,life has surprises...
Schiller has interesting intuitions...
Abraham
Careful, pproaching c you approach infinity, but you never reach it. There is no singularity. Same result for uncertainty.
ReplyDeleteClara
Delete--First,you never approach infinity by making a finite number of steps(and this is the only thing we humans can do)-so how can anything reach speed=c is a separate question...but it is a fact..
--Einstein said speed cannot become greater than c-
he never said speed cannot become c---actually this is what hapenns with neutrinos...speed=c and non-zero mass...and always finite energy..
--Besides,photons move at speed c and their rest mass is not necessarily zero--please see a recent PRL paper on that
--Even Schiller says mass of elementary particles cannot become greater than planck's mass but if you do not correct Einstein,you can get any mass no matter how big..
--So there is a singularity in SR and UP and I regularized them---in an acceptable way--I cannot say it is the only way--I can say it is a simple way and it does the job decently--namely it doesn't change ANYTHING in the present range of physics
Abraham