Comments on: Final Theory: Einstein’s Last Stand

By: A Gaudwin

A Gaudwin — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:45:56 +0000

“70 nm of pure aluminum then 37 nm of 60:40 MgF2:LiF. Matched CTEs; RI = 1.628 a at 121 nm (lambda/2 optical thickness).”
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Einstein

By: Uncle Al

Uncle Al — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:38:21 +0000

Want to overturn General Relativity? Assault its founding postulates, like unique lightspeed and isotropic vacuum in the massed sector (Einstein's elevator). Lightspeed is easy - the Scharnhorst effect. Do Casimir etalons violate the Equivalence Principle? Horizonally spin a flat silicon torus over alternating vacuum sputter deposition zones. 70 nm of pure aluminum then 37 nm of 60:40 MgF2:LiF. Matched CTEs; RI = 1.628 a at 121 nm (lambda/2 optical thickness). Round and round to build a bifilar spiral 37 wt-% Casimir etalons. Cut a piece and free the support. Eötvös experiment! Do metaphoric left and right shoes violate the Equivalence Principle? A parity Eötvös experiment (pdf) is easy to perform. Divergence will birth more capable theory to amplify the effect. Perhaps the reason gravitation will not quantize is that physics arises from postulates empirically no better than Euclid's parallel postulate. Somebody should look.

By: A Gaudwin

A Gaudwin — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:45:41 +0000

“Bearing in mind that coming up with a real unified theory of everything would be a bit of a tall order” . . . “a difficult trick given that it needed to be more-or-less compatible with the current standard model of particle physics,”
A “unified theory” will not be compatible with the “standard model,” no more than the theory of universal gravitation needed to be compatible with the belief that the earth is at the centre of the universe.
A unified theory won’t need “exchange particles” and “forces” [double sic] to explain quantum gravitation, no more than gravitation needed “epicycles” and “crystalline” spheres” to explain the behaviour of the planets. See:
http://gaudwin.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!75D2857795790980!236.entry

By: Åka

Åka — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:29:33 +0000

I agree that it’s well written and a good story, but I nevertheless had some problems with this book. I guess I’m a little picky, but I prefer it when the psychological reactions of the fictional people are realistic. The thriller convention is that people walk away unchanged after experiences that should be really traumatizing, and this really destroys my “suspension of disbelief”. Also, i found myself shaking my head at the flock of obedient grad students, and the evil master mind…

I guess my standards are just too high after reading lots and lots of really good books… This one was not bad, but I just could not feel drawn into it.