8) A traditional viewpoint of the Physics Department of MIT is that general relativity must be understood in terms of physics [8].
9) John L. Friedman, Divisional Associate Editor of Phys. Rev. Letts., officially claims "The existence of local Minkowski space has replaced the equivalence principle that initially motivated it." Note that he also clarifies that the theory of the Wheeler-Hawking [5,6] school is not really general relativity by using the word "replaced" (Feb. 17, 2000).
10) Max Planck once remarked, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Fortunately, it seems, mathematics is an exception to his rule.
11) Einstein [70] once remarked, "If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about the methods they use, I advise you stick to one principle, don't listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds."
REFERENCES
1. H. A. Lorentz, Proc. K. Ak. Amsterdam 8, 603 (1900); J. A. Wheeler, A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime (Freeman, San Francisco, 1990), p. 186.
2. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton Univ. Press, 1954).
3. The Born-Einstein Letters, commentary by Max Born (Walker, New York, 1968), p. 125.
4. A. Einstein & N. Rosen, J. Franklin Inst. 223, 43 (1937).
5. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).
6. S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The large Scale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge Uni. Press, 1973).
7. D. Kramer, H. Stephani, E. Herlt, & M. MacCallum, Exact Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations, ed. E. Schmutzer (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1980).
8. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (John Wiley, New York, 1972), p. 273.
9. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 10 (3), 424-436 (September, 1997).
10. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 12 (2), 226-241 (June, 1999).
11. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 12 (3), 508-526 (September, 1999).
12. W. Pauli, Theory of Relativity (Pergamon Press, London, 1958).
13. C. Y. Lo, Astrophys. J. 455: 421-428 (Dec. 20, 1995).
14. V. A. Fock, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 325 (1957).
15. H. Bondi, F. A. E. Pirani, and I. Robinson, Proc. R. Soc. London A 251, 519-533 (1959).
16. R. A. Hulse & J. H. Taylor, Astrophys. J. Lett. 65, L51 (1975).
17. R. M. Wald, General Relativity (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).
18. C. Y. Lo, in Proc. Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting On General Relativity, 1991, ed. H. Sato & T. Nakamura, 1496 (World Sci., Singapore, 1992).
19. T. Damour, "The Problem of Motion in Newtonian and Einsteinian Gravity" in 300 Years of Gravitation edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge Univ. Press., Cambridge, 1987).
20. T. Damour & B. Schmidt, J. Math. Phys. 31 (10), 2441-2453 (October, 1990).
21. P. T. Chruscie, M. A. H. McCallum, & D. B. Singleton, Phil. R. Soc. Lond. A 350, 113 (1995).
22. A. Einstein, L. Infeld, and B. Hoffmann, Annals of Math. 39 (1), 65-100 (Jan. 1938).
23. R. P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Gravitation (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1995).
24. H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg, and A. W. K. Metzner, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 269, 21 (1962).
25. T. Damour & J. H. Taylor, Astrophys. J. 366: 501-511 (1991).
26. T. Damour & J. H. Taylor, Phys. Rev. D, 45 (6), 1840-1868 (1992).
27. D. Christodoulou and S. Klainerman, The Global Nonlinear Stability of the Minkowski Space (Princeton University Press, 1993).
28. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 13 (1), 109-120 (March, 2000).
29. N. Rosen, Phys. Z. Sowjet, 12, 366 (1937); Bull. Research Council Israel 3, 328 (1953).
30. A. E. Scheidigger, Revs. Modern Phys. 25, 451 (1953).
31. J. E. Hogarth, "Particles, Fields, and Rigid Bodies in the Formulation of Relativity Theories", Ph. D. Thesis 1953, Dept. of Math., Royal Holloway College, University of London (1953), p. 6.
32. E. J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage, New York 1992), p. 331.
33. F. E. Low, Center for Theoretical Physics, MIT, Mass., private communications (1997).
34. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 7 (4), 453-458 (Dec, 1994).
35. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 11 (2), 264-272 (June, 1998).
36. N. Rosen, in Jubilee of Relativity Theory, edited by A. Mercier & M. Kervaire (Cirkh user Verlag, Basel, 1956).
37. J. Weber and J. A. Wheeler, Rev. Modern Phys. 29 (3) 509 (1957).
38. I. Robinson and A. Trautman, Physical Review Letters 4 (8), 431 (April 1960).
39. H. W. Brinkmann, Math. Annalen 94, 16 (1925).
40. A. Gullstrand, Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 16, No. 8 (1921).
41. A. Gullstrand, Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 17, No. 3 (1922).
42. W. B. Bonnor, J. B. Griffiths & M. A. H. MacCallum, Gen. Rel. & Gravitation, 26, 7, 1994.
43. C. Au, L. Z. Fang, & F. T. To, in Proc. 7th Marcel Grossmann Meeting On Gen. Relat., Stanford, 1994, ed. R. T. Jantzen & G. Mac Keiser, ser. ed. R. Ruffini, 289 (World Sci., Singapore, 1996).
44. R. Penrose, Rev. Mod. Phys. 37 (1), 215-220, Jan (1965).
45. A. Pais, 'Subtle is the Lord ...' (Oxford University Press, New York, 1996).
46. R. K. Sachs, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 270, 103 (1962).
47. R. Penrose, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 284, 159 (1965).
48. L. Blanchet and T. Damour, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 320, 379-430 (1986).
49. N. Hu, D.-H. Zhang, & H. G. Ding, Acta Phys. Sinica, 30 (8), 1003-1010 (1981).
50. J. N. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. 89, 263 (1953).
51. A. E. Scheidegger, Phys. Rev. 99, 1883 (1955).
52. L. Infeld., Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 398 (1957).
53. C. W. F. Everitt et al. in Proc. Seventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Gen. Relativ., Stanford, July 1994, ed. R. Jantzen & M. Keiser, Ser. ed. R. Ruffini, 1533 (World Sci., Singapore, 1996).
54. H. Kragh, Cosmology and Controversy (Princeton Univ. Press, 1999).
55. H. C. Ohanian & R. Ruffini, Gravitation & Spacetime (Norton, New York, 1994), pp xi, 54, and back cover.
56. G. J. Whitrow, Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 5 (Charles Scribner, New York, 1972).
57. J. Norton, "What was Einstein's Principle of Equivalence?" in Einstein's Studies Vol. 1: Einstein and the History of General of Relativity, eds. D Howard & J. Stachel (Birkh?user, 1989). This article clarifies some aspects of Einstein's notion of gravity, and his disagreement with Pauli [12] on the equivalence principle.
58. J. L. Synge, Relativity (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1956).
59. A. Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, H. Minkowski & H. Weyl, with notes by A. Sommerfeld, The Principle of Relativity, (Dover, New York, 1952).
60. H. Nicolai, Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik, private communications (Aug. 2000).
61. V. A. Fock, "The Theory of Space Time and Gravitation" (Pergamon Press, New York, 1964), pp 6, 111, 119, & 231.
62. K. Kucha, J. of Math. Phys., 11 (12), 3322-3334 (1970).
63. Debra Wills, Publishing Administrator, Classical & Quantum Gravity, (Editorial) Board Report on radiative solutions (Oct. 20, 1999).
64. Volker Perlick, Zentralbl. f. Math. 827, 323 (1996).
65. Volker Perlick (republished with an editorial comment), Gen, Relat. Grav., 32, 761-763 (2000).
66. S. Klainerman & F. Nicolò, Classical & Quantum Gravity, 16, 73-157 (1999).
67. A. Einstein, 'Geometry and Experience (1921)' in Ideas and Opinions (Dover, New York, 1982), p. 240.
68. C. Y. Lo, Astrophys. J. 477: 700-704 (1997).
69. A. Einstein, 'E = mc2 (1946)' in Ideas and Opinions (Crown, New York, 1954), pp 337-341.
70. A. Einstein, 'On the Method of Theoretical physics (1934)' in Ideas and Opinions (Dover, 1982), p. 270.
Résumé
Il est démontré que l'équation 1915 d'Einstein est incompatible avec la notion physique où une onde emporte la vitesse à l'énergie. Cette preuve est compatible avec l'approximation Maxwell-Newton, qui formule que l'équation du champ linéaire pour la gravité faible, est soutenue par les expériences binaires pulsars. Pour les problèmes dynamiques, l'équation du champ linéaire est indépendante on plus d'être incompatible avec l'équation d'Einstein. L'équation linéaire, comme première approximation, nécessite l'existence de l'onde gravitationnelle faible. Il faut qu'elle soit liée dans l'amplitude et soit en rapport avec les dynamiques de la source de la radiation. En raison de la négligence aux associations physiques importantes, et une compréhension insuffisante du principe d'équivalence, les solutions non physiques auraient causées des interprétations erronées des ondes gravitationnelles. Théoriquement, et tel que suggéré par Einstein et Rosen, il est conclu que la solution concernant une onde physique gravitationnelle pour l'équation 1915 n'existe pas. Cette conclusion est soutenue par les analyses des ondes plates contre les solutions ondes exactes. De plus, les conceptions de la radiation des pulsars binaires de Damour et de Taylor seraient valides seulement si elles sont une approximation de l'équation mise à jour de 1995. L'équation mise à jour montre que les théorèmes singuliers peuvent seulement l'analyse des théories de Wheeler-Hawking, mais pas la relativité générale. De plus, il est à remarquer que quelques attestations de Lorentz sont parmi celles qui ne sont pas d'accord avec des faits expérimentaux bien connus.
Subj: Re: CQG/104867/PAP and Comments on Christodoulou & Kla
Date: 10/6/01 2:13:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Chungylo
To: cqg@ioppublishing.co.uk, jehogarth@home.com, DZG@vega.bac.pku.edu.cn, philmorr@MIT.EDU, qmy@wuhan.cngb.com, seri@math.princeton.edu, demetri@math.princeton.edu, jawheeler@pupgg.princeton.edu, joe_wisnovsky@pupress.princeton.edu, beiglboeck@springer.de
File: C&K.ZIP (96253 bytes)
Debra Wills
Publishing Administrator
Classical and Quantum Gravity
E-mail: cqg@ioppublishing.co.uk
Dear Ms. Wills:
I have informed you two years ago that your board report will be responded in my published papers. Now, the two papers concerned your board report have been published. They are : C. Y. Lo, Physics Essays, 13 (1), 109-120 (March 2000); and C. Y. Lo, Physics Essays, 13 (4), 527-539 (Dec. 2000).
In the first paper, I show that the "solutions" constructed by Christodoulou and Klainerman are proven to be physically incorrect. Mathematically, their claims are invalid simply because the "proof" is incomplete. Your Journal is referred to in reference [44]. The second paper pointed out that the claims of Kuchar are also incorrect, and the "proof" is invalid because it is not applicable to a dynamical case. Also, the more recent paper of Klainerman and Nicolo published in your journal is also commented. My over all criticism to your journal on these issues are (in endnote [5]) that your journal considered these invalid claims as "proofs".
I assume that your board would be interested in reading my papers. For your convenience, the electronic files of these two papers are attached. Any comments the board of your journal may have will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
C. Y. Lo
需要完整，原创，优秀的毕业论文或职称论文请联系 ，可以帮到你！
|
