Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #590829

Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/26/2016 12:38 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 10:30:15 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>> On 7/25/2016 11:47 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I thought that this deserved its own thread.
>>>
>>> To Steve Carlip:
>>>
>>> Re:
>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
>>>
>>

>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
>>>
>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
>>>

>> [you should go see a dentist]
>>
>>
>>
>> Some of Steve Carlips Honors and Awards;
>>
>>      Fellow, American Physical Society
>>      Fellow, Institute of Physics (UK)
>>      Editorial Board member, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A
>>      Divisional Associate Editor, Physical Review Letters
>>      Kramers Professor, Utrecht University, 2007
>>      Member, Nominating Committee, International Society on General
>> Relativity and Gravitation, 2004-
>>      Member, Executive Committee, American Physical Society Topical Group
>> in Gravitation, 1998-2001
>>      Editorial Board member, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 1995-2004
>>      National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award (NYI), 1993
>>      Department of Energy Outstanding Junior Investigator Award, 1991
>>      Elected to Phi Beta Kappa, 1974
>>      Referee for about 35 different physics journals
>>      Grant reviewer for national science agencies of nine countries
>>      Invited speaker at 4-5 conferences a year
>>
>> Memberships
>>
>>      American Physical Society
>>      International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation
>>      Institute of Physics
>
> What does Carlip's ass smell like today, Sergio?

> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...



More from STEVE CARLIP for you, mapou001, fall down and worship him, now!;

My Research

     "Quantum gravity is notoriously a subject
     where problems vastly outnumber results."
     -Sidney Coleman

One of the deepest problems of modern physics is that of reconciling our 
well-established theories of fundamental processes at very small scales, 
as described by quantum field theory, with those at very large scales, 
as described by general relativity. Efforts to formulate a consistent 
quantum theory of gravity date back to at least 1930 -- here is a nice 
history -- but despite eighty years of work, we still seem far from an 
answer. While such a unification is probably unimportant at laboratory 
scales, it is vital for understanding the physics of strong 
gravitational fields: in the cosmology of the very early Universe, for 
example, and in the formation and evaporation of black holes.

But the study of quantum gravity is difficult, and the main thing we 
have learned in these years of research is that the obvious approaches 
don't work. The difficulties are partly technical -- general relativity 
is a complicated, nonlinear theory -- but we face deep conceptual 
problems as well. According to general relativity, gravity is a 
consequence of the geometry of spacetime. That means that when we talk 
about quantizing gravity, we really mean "quantizing space and time 
themselves." We don't know what a completed quantum theory of gravity 
will look like, but we will surely end up with a picture of the Universe 
quite unlike anything we now imagine.

In the past few years, two promising new approaches to these problems 
have emerged. The first is string theory, a model in which elementary 
particles are not treated as pointlike objects, but instead as extended 
one-dimensional "strings." (Here is a nice nontechnical introduction.) 
The second is a reformulation of general relativity in terms of new 
variables -- "self-dual connections" or "Ashtekar variables" -- that 
behave more like those of conventional quantum field theories. This 
approach is now often called "quantum geometry." More recently, a new 
method, "causal dynamical triangulations," has also shown promise. Gary 
Au has written a nice nontechnical paper based on interviews with 
physicists working on string theory and quantum geometry, and I have 
written a more technical review of a variety of approaches to the problem.

An alternative general strategy for research is to explore simpler 
models that share the underlying conceptual features of quantum gravity 
while avoiding the technical difficulties. For example, general 
relativity in 2+1 dimensions -- two spatial dimensions plus time -- has 
the same basic structure as the full (3+1)-dimensional theory, but it is 
technically much simpler, and the implications of quantum gravity can be 
examined in detail. Similarly, quantum black holes may be simple enough 
to allow us to learn concrete lessons about the full theory.

For the past few years, I have concentrated on four areas of research:

     Looking at (2+1)-dimensional quantum gravity as a sort of testing 
ground for approaches to the full quantum theory;
     Trying to understand the quantum gravitational basis of black hole 
thermodynamics;
     Investigating other "windows" into quantum gravity, such as causal 
dynamical triangulations -- relatively simple settings, models, and 
approximations that may offer insight into quantum gravity without 
requiring a complete theory; and
     Exploring a variety of other issues involving quantum gravity and 
"low dimensional physics," including string theory.

I have also run a seminar on career prospects and options for physics 
graduates.

(2+1)-Dimensional Quantum Gravity
General relativity in 2+1 dimensions -- that is, two spatial dimensions 
plus time -- has proven to be a very useful model for exploring the 
conceptual foundations of quantum gravity. In three spacetime 
dimensions, general relativity has finitely many physical degrees of 
freedom, and there are no freely propagating gravitational waves. As a 
result, quantum gravity reduces to a special instance of ordinary 
quantum mechanics, and problems such as nonrenormalizability that are 
associated with quantum field theory disappear. But the model is still a 
coordinate-invariant theory of spacetime geometry, and most of the 
conceptual issues of the full theory remain.

In all, roughly 15 different approaches to quantizing (2+1)-dimensional 
gravity have been developed. Most of these are discussed in a book I 
wrote in 1998 for Cambridge University Press. The model has offered 
insight into such issues as the nature of time in quantum gravity, the 
source of black hole entropy, and the question of whether the topology 
of space can change. Here is a paper I wrote with Jeanette Nelson 
comparing two interesting approaches.

A recent review article I wrote on general relativity in 2+1 dimensions 
for the on-line journal Living Reviews in Relativity can be found here. 
Another review is here, this one discussing what we know about the 
microscopic "statistical mechanics" that presumably underlies 
(2+1)-dimensional black hole entropy. An older and more general review I 
wrote on (2+1)-dimensional black holes is here. For some research papers 
on the statistical mechanics of the (2+1)-dimensional black hole, look 
here and here.

In some ways, ordinary (2+1)-dimensional gravity may be too simple. 
Recently, a number of physicists have become interested in a slightly 
more complicated version, topologically massive gravity, which has a new 
propagating "graviton." I have been involved in this work; two papers 
are here and here.
Black Hole Thermodynamics
Thanks to the work of Hawking and Bekenstein, we have known for 25 years 
that black holes are thermal objects, with characteristic temperatures, 
entropies, and radiation spectra. But we still do not really understand 
why black holes behave this way -- we don't know what microscopic 
quantum states are responsible for the "statistical mechanics" that 
leads to these thermodynamic properties. This problem serves as a key 
test for any attempt to quantize gravity: a model that cannot reproduce 
the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy for a black hole in terms of microscopic 
quantum gravitational states is unlikely to be right.

An important focus of my recent work here has been an attempt to 
understand how much of the statistical mechanics of black holes can be 
determined purely from general symmetries, independent of the details of 
quantum gravity. I have shown that a symmetry mechanism is at least 
plausible. (Here and here are some papers, and here is a review.) This 
idea would help explain one of the mysteries of this field, sometimes 
called the problem of universality: the fact that very different 
approaches to quantum gravity, with different starting points and 
different underlying degrees of freedom, all seem to give the same 
answer. This overview won the 2007 Gravity Research Foundation essay 
prize; here is a less technical summary.

Another interesting issue is whether "quasinormal modes" -- the damped 
oscillations of a disturbed black hole -- can tell us anything about 
black hole quantum mechanics. I've written two papers on this subject, 
one on (2+1)-dimensional black holes and another on the 
higher-dimensional black holes that are understood in string theory.
"Windows"
When faced with a question that seems too hard to answer, a physicist's 
first reaction is likely to be, "Let's find a simpler question." In the 
absence of a full-fledged quantum theory of gravity -- a complete, 
self-consistent theory that agrees with observations -- a natural 
strategy is to look into simpler "windows" into quantum gravity that 
might give us useful clues without requiring a complete answer. Black 
hole thermodynamics, for instance, offers a simple setting in which to 
probe complex problems; (2+1)-dimensional gravity provides another 
simple model.

Lattice quantum gravity may be another such window. The basic idea of 
putting a continuous theory on a lattice, approximating it by a simpler 
discrete theory, has had considerable success in quantum chromodynamics 
(QCD). The gravitational version is similar, but unlike QCD, where 
fields live on a fixed lattice, gravity is the lattice: just as the flat 
triangles in a a geodesic dome approximate a sphere, varying edge 
lengths or patterns of connectivity in higher dimensions can approximate 
varying curved spacetimes.

In particular, several of my students and I have begun to work on a 
promising lattice approach known as causal dynamical triangulations, in 
which a causal structure -- a "direction of time" -- is put in from the 
start. We have found the first independent confirmation of the 
pioneering results of Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz, and Loll, who showed that the 
method gives a sensible semiclassical limit that really looks like a 
four-dimensional spacetime. With the code now running stably, we are 
starting to look at new questions, such as the renormalization group 
flow of the cosmological constant and the predicted patterns of quantum 
fluctuations in the early Universe.

One intriguing prediction of the causal dynamical triangulations method 
is that while spacetime appears four-dimensional at large scales, it 
undergoes a "dimensional reduction" to two dimensions at very small 
scales. If this is a general feature of quantum gravity, and not just a 
peculiarity of this particular approximation, it could be telling us 
something very important. A lecture of mine on this topic may be found here.
Other Research
I also work on a variety of other issues involving quantum gravity and 
"low dimensional physics," and on other areas in which geometry and 
topology are important to physics. Some of the questions I have studied 
include:

     Can quantum fluctuations in spacetime solve the "cosmological 
constant problem"? See here and here for two papers, and here for a 
write-up in the American Institute of Physics newsletter, Physics News 
Update.
     Can quantum fluctuations cause the topology of space to change in 
time? Here is a paper written with a graduate student, Russell Cosgrove, 
that gives some answers in (2+1)-dimensional spacetime.
     What does the "wave function of the Universe" really mean? In this 
paper I address some issues involved in interpreting the "no boundary" 
proposal of Hartle and Hawking. Here I work with a bunch of 
mathematicians to try to understand whether quantum fluctuations in the 
topology of the early Universe can affect that wave function. (The 
answer seems to be "yes" -- they might even help explain how inflation 
got started.)
     Can string theory be related to three-dimensional topological field 
theories? This paper with Ian Kogan discusses some of the problems in 
making such a connection.

A few less technical areas I've worked in are the following:

     Debunking "creationist" cosmology: in this paper, Ryan Scranton and 
I demolish an article by Robert Gentry, a well-known "young Earth 
creationist," that is, a person who believes on religious grounds that 
the Universe is only about 10,000 years old, and who attempts to 
shoehorn science into that picture. (For more on the struggle to keep 
"creation science" out of the science classroom and to defend the 
teaching of evolution, see the National Center for Science Education Web 
pages. I am proud to be one of the early Steves in Project Steve.)
     Weighing kinetic energy: in this paper I discuss the experimental 
and theoretical foundation for the statement that "a hot brick weighs 
more than a cold one."
     Investigating the "speed of gravity": in Newton's theory, gravity 
propagates instantaneously. This is testable: if one puts a finite 
propagation speed into Newtonian gravity, the forces between two 
orbiting bodies no longer point toward their center of mass, and this 
"aberration" would lead to observable orbital instabilities. In general 
relativity, on the other hand, gravity (like everything else) cannot 
propagate faster than light. In this paper I show how this light-speed 
propagation can be reconciled with the observed lack of aberration, and 
correct some errors in the literature. Here I weigh in on the question 
of whether a recent observation of deflection of quasar light by Jupiter 
gives us observational information about the speed of gravity.
     Looking at "varying constants": there is an old idea, dating back 
to Dirac, that fundamental "constants" such as the fine structure 
constant may actually vary in time. Here and here are two papers in 
which I look at the question of whether black holes can tell us anything 
about the allowed variations. (Probably not much, unfortunately...)
     Answering Frequently Asked Questions: I have written portions of 
the Usenet Physics FAQs and Astronomy FAQs.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 21:47 -0700
  Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 23:18 -0700
    Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 23:42 -0700
      Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 16:58 +0000
      Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:26 -0500
  Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-26 12:30 -0500
    Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 10:38 -0700
      Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-26 13:09 -0500
        Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 11:22 -0700
          Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 12:26 -0700
            Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-26 14:47 -0500
              Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 12:54 -0700
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-26 16:12 -0500
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 14:28 -0700
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-26 16:31 -0500
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 14:45 -0700
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-26 19:09 -0500
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 17:26 -0700
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-26 22:14 -0500
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 20:21 -0700
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-26 22:35 -0500
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 20:57 -0700
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:45 -0500
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 09:24 -0700
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 13:00 -0500
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 11:21 -0700
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:22 -0500
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:26 -0500
  Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 12:40 -0700
    Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:09 -0500
      Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 13:26 -0700
        Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:17 -0500
          Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 09:22 -0700
            Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-27 12:08 -0500
              Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 10:13 -0700
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-27 12:19 -0500
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 10:44 -0700
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:27 -0500
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 12:39 -0700
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-29 10:13 -0500
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 13:22 -0500
                Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:07 -0500
            Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:58 -0500
  Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:18 -0500
  Re: Steve Carlip is a crackpot and a con artist and he knows it mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 11:25 -0700

csiph-web