GM = tc3
But then Assistant Professor Lubos Motl of Harvard University (a string theorist who religiously believes in 10/11 dimensional spacetime, but has no objective evidence for it whatsoever) made some rude sexist remarks about her being female on his Reference Frame blog, and claimed this equation to have no physical connection. He dismissed it as merely dimensional analysis. Being thus duped, I stupidly believed him at first, but now it is clear that he was not even wrong:
Simply equate the rest mass energy of m with its gravitational energy mMG/R with respect to large mass of universe M located at an average distance of R = ct from m.
Hence E = mc2 = mMG/(ct)
Cancelling and collecting terms,
GM = tc3
So Louise’s formula is derivable, while extra dimensional Lubos is as usual proved to be not even wrong (just like his beloved string theory). But women physicists are more careful and so more likely to be correct. They don’t go dismissing things they can’t understand by making a sexist remark, so they are more likely to get the physics correct.
In more detail:
To prove Louise’s MG = tc3 (for a particular set of assumptions which avoid a dimensionless multiplication factor of e3 which could be included according to my detailed calculations from a gravity mechanism):
(1) Einstein’s equivalence principle of general relativity:
gravitational mass = inertial mass.
(2) Einstein’s inertial mass is equivalent to inertial mass potential energy:
E = mc2
This equivalent energy is “potential energy” in that it can be released when you annihilate the mass using anti-matter.
(3) Gravitational mass has a potential energy which could be released if somehow the universe could collapse (implode):
Gravitational potential energy of mass m, in the universe (the universe consists of mass M at an effective average radius of R):
E = mMG/R
(4) We now use principle (1) above to set equations in arguments (2) and (3) above, equal:
E = mc2 = mMG/R
(5) We use R = ct on this:
c3 = MG/t
MG = tc3
Which is Louise’s equation. QED.
Christine Dantas has a PhD in astrophysics and studies Smolin’s very mathematical loop quantum gravity as an alternative to string theory. However, after listing the evidence for loop quantum gravity, Lubos Motl then subjected her to dismissive rudeness (calling her guilty of ‘sloppy thinking‘ was horribly inaccurate and also hypocritical of Lubos, seeing his sloppy uncheckable claims for extra dimensions and string, and his errors such as the example above) combined with his usual loud sexist comments. Lubos Motl seems determined to stop women rising to prominent positions in physics. Why does he not want this? Is it because the hot air of string hype may be reduced, I wonder?
Even his senior at Harvard, string theorist Professor Lisa Randall, states in the preface of her nicely caveated and polished book Warped Passages that she does not entirely agree with Lubos’ view of females, and she does admit the possibility that string may be not even wrong if it can’t be checked.
If Lubos is the role model of macho physics in action, then the future of physics certainly lies with female physicists who don’t allow such hormone driven prejudices to destroy their objective judgement on scientific matters. It is largely because of pseudo-macho hype from male string theorists, such as Lubos et al., (I won’t mention Witten’s name here because he is nowhere near as rude as Lubos) mathematical physics gets ever less popular. (More on the decline: here.)
I’m reading Woit’s course materials on Representation Theory as time permits (this is deep mathematics and takes time to absorb and to become familiar with). Wikipedia gives a summary of representation theory and particle physics:
‘There is a natural connection, first discovered by Eugene Wigner, between the properties of particles, the representation theory of Lie groups and Lie algebras, and the symmetries of the universe. This postulate states that each particle “is” an irreducible representation of the symmetry group of the universe.’
Woit’s historical approach in his course notes is very clear and interesting, but is not particularly easy to read at length on a computer screen, and ideally should be printed out and studied carefully. I hope it is published as a book with his arXiv paper on applications to predicting the Standard Model. I’m going to write a summary of this subject when I’ve finished, and will get to the physical facts behind the jargon and mathematical models. Woit offers the promise that this approach predicts the Standard Model with electroweak chiral symmetry features, although he is cautious about it, which is the exact opposite of the string theorists in the way that he does this, see page 51 of the paper (he is downplaying his success in case it is incomplete or in error, instead of hyping it).
By contrast, Kaku recently hyped string theory by claiming that it predicts the Standard Model, general relativity’s gravity, and lots more; but of course this is completely untrue, because in string theory, to get it to work, you first have to fiddle the dimensions to 10 just in order to produce particle physics and to 11 to produce gravity (although the 10-11 dimensions paradox was allegedly overcome by Witten’s M-theory in 1995, which is a kind of mathematical Holy Trinity).
In no case has the string theory – even once fiddled to a number of dimensions that makes it work “ad hoc” - then managed to make even a single checkable physical prediction!
This is why string theory is a complete disgrace as physics, although Woit (perhaps because he now works in a mathematical department) is always keen to kindly say that at least string theory has led to an increased mathematical understanding of extra dimensional manifolds like solutions to the Calabi-Yau manifold which gives about 10500 metastable ground states of the vacuum (and thus 10500 ‘dark energy’/cosmological constant levels, forming Susskind’s anthropic ‘cosmic multiverse landscape’ of universes!) in an oscillating string due to the many possible parameters of the 6 dimensional manifold’s size and shape dimensions (how elegant and how beautiful … I don’t think).