General relativity with infinite speed of light?

[atyy]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0531

?

 

[arkajad]

I would say Trautman's was an attempt that had an effect of encouraging other people to research more. I wouln't say that the weaknesses of this particular attemp prove that Galilean General Relativity is incompatible with Maxwell's equations, even if Duval and Horvathy (in the paper quoted in the previous post ) include such a sentence ("Notice the absence of the displacement current in Ampere’s law: its presence would, clearly, break the Galilean symmetry (Maxwell’s equations are relativistic").. One could try to argue this way that real numbers are incompatible with imaginary numbers because 1 squared is 1 and i squared is -1. That being true, we still have complex numbers and they are being nice and useful. For Galilean-type general relativity there is a recent paperhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5366" . No avenue of research has been definitively closed, all paths are open, experiment will decide which of the future theories will succeed.

 

[bcrowell]

Hi, Arkajad -

I think you're mixing apples and oranges here. The Trautman-Earman-Rynasiewicz is purely historical and philosphical, and is about theories that were falsified by observations a century ago. The Hikin paper has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Hikin does give references to two peer-reviewed papers by Jacobson and Mattingly: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007031 , http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1547 . These papers are interesting, but they do *not* reconcile GR with Galilean relativity. They describe a theory in which Lorentz invariance is valid at low energies, but is broken at high energies. The theory has not been falsified by experiment, but observations place constraints on the parameters c₁ and c₃ that describe its disagreement with GR.

Please take a look at PF's rules on overly speculative posts: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380 "It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion."

-Ben

 

[arkajad]

Please take a look at PF's rules on overly speculative posts: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380 "It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion."

-Ben

Well, you can always kick me off, any time. It's up to you. I think that in physics occasionally mixing apples with oranges is healthy.