Tuesday, August 04, 2009

TGD in vixra

At last the pdf articles of Matti pitkanen about topological geometrodynamics have been uploaded to vixra.

If someone wants to beguin he would read Topological Geometrodynamics: Overview. Advise, despite the "overview" word in the title that pdf has 1000+ pages.

There are many other papers that the reader can find by himself in vixra.

I am aware that TGD is considered crackpot. For example Lubos said in a recent post (not specifically about TGD) that TGD only existed in Matti Pitkanen's imagination. Maybe, but I think that Matti is a nice smart guy, with a correct behaviour, and he deserves the right that someone with an accredited academic position claiming that TGD is crackpot would do a proper debunking of TGD (a reasonable part of it, it is not necessary to debug the whole 1000+ paper).

But surely I am not the right person to do such a debunking. Instead I'll debug in a separate post another paper in vixra, The Graviton Background Vs. Dark Energy. The abstract says:

In the model of low-energy quantum gravity by the author, cosmological redshifts are caused by interactions of photons with gravitons. Non-forehead collisions with gravitons will lead to an additional relaxation of any photonic flux. It gives a possibility of another interpretation of supernovae 1a data. Every massive body would be decelerated due to collisions with gravitons that may be connected with the Pioneer 10 anomaly. This mechanism needs graviton pairing and "an atomic structure" of matter for working it. Also an existence of black holes contradicts to the equivalence principle: any black hole should have a gravitational mass to be much bigger - about three orders - than an inertial one.

As the readers of this blog can deduce the author of this paper is presenting a TLT (tired light theory) as a replacement of the big bang. And the will remember that I had being considering the possibility that a TLT mechanism could be used to give and explanation of the supernovae data that is being interpreted as evidence of an accelerated expansion of the universe. I have developed a little bit more my ideas and I am not sure if they work, but as far as I see what that article says makes not special sense. I'll try to explain why in the next post.


Matti Pitkanen said...


it is rather amusing that someone in his right mind and possessing skill to read manages to say that TGD exists only in the imagination of Matti Pitkanen taking into account that there is extensive and detailed documentation of TGD with page number around 10.000!

I understand that average career builder glue to everything that he does not understand with crackpot label. But the mindset of people like Lubos remains a complete mystery to me. Person who is regarded as brilliant, undeniably understands physics, and probably possesses good symbol manipulation skills behaves like a complete idiot. Why a person with this potential regresses to a mere propagandist? Why doesn't he develop his own TOE?

There is no manner to communicate with people with this mindset. They refuse to read except what names have written, they refuse to discuss, they just make strong statements peppered by personal insults without any real background knowledge. Something has gone badly wrong with these people and it seems that no one can help them.


Javier said...

Well, I think that if Lubos would be forced to create a TOE he would create a new version of string theory so there is no case.

I disagree with the point that it is impossible to communicate with him. In fact in a certain sense he is very communicative. You can be sure that the universisites are full of people less talented than him who are totally opaque to talk people even about their favourite topics.

From that point it is a privilege that a top notch string theorist would share it's knowledge on the subject with people outside academy.

Of course a different question is to try to talk with him about non mainstream physics.

Anyway, despite the comment I think that he possibly respects you more than he respects people like Smollin, Woitt and other. Of course I could be wrong about it, but that is something that only he knows for sure.

donkerheid said...

Greetings, Javier

If one encounters stories about physicists that are several decades old, it turns out how hugely different the situation was. There was nothing shameful to propose a new approach, because it is obviously a great intellectual achievement. It might only be wrong. But now everything is labelled crackpot. How you think this could change? And when?

What is the general opinion about Smolin? I only read one of his books, but I liked him very much.
Lubosh' critics on him didn't make any sense to me.

Javier said...

Well, if you read nowadays books you will neither find "crackpot" in them.

For example Leonard Susskind and Brian Green mention Smollin in their divulgative books, in particular his criticism with the moduli, and how it was saved. They say that it was good Smollin would show the problem.

I think that people tend to be very polite when writing books, so they don't reflect all what is going on. On the other hand a few decades ago there was no internet and outsiders had no other way to make their work widely available than publishing in peer to peer reviews and so becoming not so outsiders, or publishing books of very limited diffusion. In that way there was no need over-react against them.

Another factor that I think is very relevant is the delay between theory and experiments. String theory, LQG and TGD (and others) are about quantum gravity and they are all hard to falsify. That means that there are competing theories which only way to judge is internal consistence and compatibility with known physic. And the defenders of "alternative" theories don't agree with the observation of string theorists that their theories are inconsistent (well, if string theorists say anything about them at all). For sure a conclusive experimental refutation would kill intermediate all wrong theories and there would be less occasion for all those nasty confrontations.

About Smollin, well, I know him by some interventions in famous blogs and by some of his articles, not by his books. My impression is that some of the viewpoints that he defends are not of his own invention and that there is a certain line of thinking coinciding with his viewpoints and perspectives in the academic world. Possibly his mistake has been to try to promote that viewpoints too strongly without a good enough self achievements in physic (or maybe a too optimistic view of them) to give him a certain impunity. Also the possible proponents for "new Einsteins" haven't resulted as he could have expected, and in that aspect he hasn't failed alone.

donkerheid said...

By several decades I mostly meant the pre-war era.

As he tells, Smolin wasn't prepared to spend his professional carrier in such a still-water. So he really wants to do something progressive, that's not shameful in my eyes :) even if he doesn't succeed or if he only embraces others' good ideas.
New Einsteins, well. Surely, potential Einsteins are killed early. Nearly Einstein himself was! When I read his book, the term Einstein seemed to me rather a metaphor, symbolizing deep, philosophical thinking that is rendered unnecessary by the present pragmatism. These men are needed, otherwise fundamental questions are not too likely to be raised, and real breakthrough will not happen.

Maybe particle accelerators are not the only means to prove a TOE. TGD has an impact on all branches of physics, consciousness and life. Simpler experiments must be possible to propose, if we take this into account. Matti surely could say a lot of interesting things about this :).