Yilmaz theory of gravitation: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:08, 25 March 2018 editJCW-CleanerBot (talk \| contribs)Bots130,145 editsm →top: task, replaced: Classical Quantum Gravity → Classical and Quantum Gravity using AWB ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 09:02, 28 December 2024 edit undoIanKSng (talk \| contribs)4 editsNo edit summary
(13 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{Editorial\|date=June 2010}}		{{Editorial\|date=June 2010}}
	{{Weasel\|date=July 2010}}		{{Weasel\|date=July 2010}}
		⚫	}}The '''Yilmaz theory of gravitation''' is an attempt by '''Huseyin Yilmaz''' (1924–2013; Turkish: ''Hüseyin Yılmaz'') and his coworkers to formulate a classical field theory of gravitation which is similar to ] in weak-field conditions, but in which ]s cannot appear.
⚫	}}

⚫	The '''Yilmaz theory of gravitation''' is an attempt by '''Huseyin Yilmaz''' (~~1924-2013)~~ (Turkish: ''Hüseyin Yılmaz'') and his coworkers to formulate a classical field theory of gravitation which is similar to ] in weak-field conditions, but in which ]s cannot appear.

	Yilmaz's work has been criticized on the grounds that		Yilmaz's work has been criticized on the grounds that:

	* his proposed ] is ill-defined,		* his proposed ] is ill-defined
	* event horizons can occur in weak field situations according to the general theory of relativity, in the case of a supermassive ].		* event horizons can occur in weak field situations according to the general theory of relativity, in the case of a supermassive ]
	* the theory is consistent only with either a completely empty universe or a negative energy vacuum<ref>		* the theory is consistent only with either a completely empty universe or a negative energy vacuum<ref>
	{{Cite journal		{{Cite journal
Line 19:		Line 17:
	\|volume=23 \|issue=3 \|pages=577–589		\|volume=23 \|issue=3 \|pages=577–589
	\|doi=10.1088/0264-9381/23/3/001		\|doi=10.1088/0264-9381/23/3/001
	\|bibcode = 2006CQGra..23..577I \|arxiv = 0705.0080 }}</ref>		\|bibcode = 2006CQGra..23..577I \|arxiv = 0705.0080 \|s2cid=119581790
			}}</ref>

	It is well known that attempts to quantize general relativity along the same lines which lead from Maxwell's classical field theory of electromagnetism to quantum electrodynamics fail, and that it has proven very difficult to construct a theory of ] which goes over to general relativity in an appropriate limit. However Yilmaz has claimed that his theory is 'compatible with ]'. He suggests that it might be an alternative to ].		It is well known that attempts to quantize general relativity along the same lines which lead from Maxwell's classical field theory of electromagnetism to quantum electrodynamics fail, and that it has proven very difficult to construct a theory of ] which goes over to general relativity in an appropriate limit. However Yilmaz has claimed that his theory is "compatible with ]". He suggests that it might be an alternative to ].

	In his theory, Yilmaz wishes to retain the left hand side of the ] (namely the ], which is well-defined for any ], independent of general relativity) but to modify the right hand side, the ], by adding a kind of gravitational contribution. According to Yilmaz's critics, this additional term is not well-defined, and cannot be made well defined.{{Citation needed\|date=July 2010}}		In his theory, Yilmaz wishes to retain the left hand side of the ] (namely the ], which is well-defined for any ], independent of general relativity) but to modify the right hand side, the ], by adding a kind of gravitational contribution, namely the ]. According to Yilmaz's critics, this additional term is not well-defined, and cannot be made well defined due to issues with covariance.{{Citation needed\|date=July 2010}}

	No astronomers have tested his ideas, although some have tested competitors of general relativity; see ].		No astronomers have tested his ideas, although some have tested competitors of general relativity; see ].

⚫	==External links==
⚫	*One page in the website (archived link) lists some apparent misstatements by Yilmaz concerning the general theory of relativity, similar to those discussed by Fackerell.

	==References==		==References==
Line 40:		Line 36:
	\| doi=10.1007/BF02899296		\| doi=10.1007/BF02899296
	\|bibcode = 1992NCimB.107..941Y		\|bibcode = 1992NCimB.107..941Y
	\| issue=8 }}		\| issue=8 \|s2cid=120702676
		⚫	}}
	*{{Cite journal		*{{Cite journal
	\| last=Misner \|first=C. W.		\| last=Misner \|first=C. W.
	\| title=Yilmaz Cancels Newton		\| title=Yilmaz Cancels Newton
	\| journal=]		\| journal=]
	\| year=1999 \| volume=114 \| pages=1079–1085		\| year=1999 \| volume=114 \|issue=9
			\| pages=1079–1085
	\| doi=		\| doi=
	\| arxiv=gr-qc/9504050		\| arxiv=gr-qc/9504050
	\|bibcode = 1999NCimB.114.1079M }} In this paper, ] argues that Yilmaz's field equation is ill-defined.		\|bibcode = 1999NCimB.114.1079M }} In this paper, ] argues that Yilmaz's field equation is ill-defined.
	*{{Cite arXiv		*{{Cite arXiv
	\|~~last~~=Alley \|~~first~~=C.O.		\|last1=Alley \|first1=C.O.
	\|last2=Aschan \|first2=P. K.		\|last2=Aschan \|first2=P. K.
	\|last3=Yilmaz \|first3=H.		\|last3=Yilmaz \|first3=H.
Line 56:		Line 54:
	\|title=Refutation of C. W. Misner's claims in his article "Yilmaz Cancels Newton"		\|title=Refutation of C. W. Misner's claims in his article "Yilmaz Cancels Newton"
	\|eprint=gr-qc/9506082		\|eprint=gr-qc/9506082
	\|class=gr-qc
	}}		}}
	*{{Cite web		*{{Cite web
Line 65:		Line 62:
	\|title = Remarks on the Yilmaz and Alley papers		\|title = Remarks on the Yilmaz and Alley papers
	\|publisher = School of Mathematics and Statistics F07, ]		\|publisher = School of Mathematics and Statistics F07, ]
	\|~~deadurl~~ = ~~yes~~		\|url-status = dead
	\|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20040920175932/http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html		\|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20040920175932/http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html
	\|archivedate = 2004-09-20		\|archivedate = 2004-09-20
	\|df =
	}} In this preprint, Edward Fackerell criticizes several claims by Yilmaz concerning gtr		}} In this preprint, Edward Fackerell criticizes several claims by Yilmaz concerning gtr
	*{{Cite arXiv		*{{Cite arXiv
	\|~~last~~=Alley \|~~first~~=C. O.		\|last1=Alley \|first1=C. O.
	\|last2=Yilmaz \|first2=H.		\|last2=Yilmaz \|first2=H.
	\|year=2000		\|year=2000
	\|title=Response to Fackerell's Article		\|title=Response to Fackerell's Article
	\|eprint=gr-qc/0008040		\|eprint=gr-qc/0008040
	\|class=gr-qc
	}}		}}
	*{{Cite book		*{{Cite book
	\| ~~last~~=Misner \|~~first~~=C.		\| last1=Misner \|first1=C.
	\| last2=Thorne \|first2=K. S.		\| last2=Thorne \|first2=K. S.
	\| last3=Wheeler \|first3=J. A.		\| last3=Wheeler \|first3=J. A.
Line 87:		Line 82:
	\| isbn=0-7167-0344-0		\| isbn=0-7167-0344-0
	}} See ''section 20.4'' for nonlocal nature of gravitational field energy, and all of chapter 20 for relation between integration, Bianchi identities, and 'conservation laws' in curved spacetimes.		}} See ''section 20.4'' for nonlocal nature of gravitational field energy, and all of chapter 20 for relation between integration, Bianchi identities, and 'conservation laws' in curved spacetimes.

		⚫	==External links==
		⚫	*One page in the website (archived link) lists some apparent misstatements by Yilmaz concerning the general theory of relativity, similar to those discussed by Fackerell.

	{{theories of gravitation}}		{{theories of gravitation}}

	{{DEFAULTSORT:Yilmaz Theory Of Gravitation}}		{{DEFAULTSORT:Yilmaz Theory Of Gravitation}}
	]		]

Latest revision as of 09:02, 28 December 2024

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (September 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Misplaced Pages editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (June 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (July 2010)

(Learn how and when to remove this message)

The Yilmaz theory of gravitation is an attempt by Huseyin Yilmaz (1924–2013; Turkish: Hüseyin Yılmaz) and his coworkers to formulate a classical field theory of gravitation which is similar to general relativity in weak-field conditions, but in which event horizons cannot appear.

Yilmaz's work has been criticized on the grounds that:

his proposed field equation is ill-defined
event horizons can occur in weak field situations according to the general theory of relativity, in the case of a supermassive black hole
the theory is consistent only with either a completely empty universe or a negative energy vacuum

It is well known that attempts to quantize general relativity along the same lines which lead from Maxwell's classical field theory of electromagnetism to quantum electrodynamics fail, and that it has proven very difficult to construct a theory of quantum gravity which goes over to general relativity in an appropriate limit. However Yilmaz has claimed that his theory is "compatible with quantum mechanics". He suggests that it might be an alternative to superstring theory.

In his theory, Yilmaz wishes to retain the left hand side of the Einstein field equation (namely the Einstein tensor, which is well-defined for any Lorentzian manifold, independent of general relativity) but to modify the right hand side, the stress–energy tensor, by adding a kind of gravitational contribution, namely the scalar field. According to Yilmaz's critics, this additional term is not well-defined, and cannot be made well defined due to issues with covariance.

No astronomers have tested his ideas, although some have tested competitors of general relativity; see Category:Tests of general relativity.

References

Ibison, M. (2006). "Cosmological test of the Yilmaz theory of gravity". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 23 (3): 577–589. arXiv:0705.0080. Bibcode:2006CQGra..23..577I. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/3/001. S2CID 119581790.

Yilmaz, H. (1992). "Toward a field theory of gravitation". Nuovo Cimento B. 107 (8): 941–960. Bibcode:1992NCimB.107..941Y. doi:10.1007/BF02899296. S2CID 120702676.
Misner, C. W. (1999). "Yilmaz Cancels Newton". Nuovo Cimento B. 114 (9): 1079–1085. arXiv:gr-qc/9504050. Bibcode:1999NCimB.114.1079M. In this paper, Charles Misner argues that Yilmaz's field equation is ill-defined.
Alley, C.O.; Aschan, P. K.; Yilmaz, H. (1995). "Refutation of C. W. Misner's claims in his article "Yilmaz Cancels Newton"". arXiv:gr-qc/9506082.
Fackerell, E. D. (2006). "Remarks on the Yilmaz and Alley papers". School of Mathematics and Statistics F07, University of Sydney. Archived from the original on 2004-09-20. In this preprint, Edward Fackerell criticizes several claims by Yilmaz concerning gtr
Alley, C. O.; Yilmaz, H. (2000). "Response to Fackerell's Article". arXiv:gr-qc/0008040.
Misner, C.; Thorne, K. S.; Wheeler, J. A. (1973). Gravitation. W. H. Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-0344-0. See section 20.4 for nonlocal nature of gravitational field energy, and all of chapter 20 for relation between integration, Bianchi identities, and 'conservation laws' in curved spacetimes.

External links

One page in the websiteRelativity on the World Wide Web (archived link) lists some apparent misstatements by Yilmaz concerning the general theory of relativity, similar to those discussed by Fackerell.

Theories of gravitation

Standard

Newtonian gravity (NG)	Newton's law of universal gravitation Gauss's law for gravity Poisson's equation for gravity History of gravitational theory
General relativity (GR)	Introduction History Mathematics Exact solutions Resources Tests Post-Newtonian formalism Linearized gravity ADM formalism Gibbons–Hawking–York boundary term

Alternatives to
general relativity

Paradigms	Classical theories of gravitation Quantum gravity Theory of everything
Classical	Poincaré gauge theory Einstein–Cartan Teleparallelism Bimetric theories Gauge theory gravity Composite gravity f(R) gravity Infinite derivative gravity Massive gravity Modified Newtonian dynamics, MOND AQUAL Tensor–vector–scalar Nonsymmetric gravitation Scalar–tensor theories Brans–Dicke Scalar–tensor–vector Conformal gravity Scalar theories Nordström Whitehead Geometrodynamics Induced gravity Degenerate Higher-Order Scalar-Tensor theories
Quantum-mechanical	Euclidean quantum gravity Canonical quantum gravity Wheeler–DeWitt equation Loop quantum gravity Spin foam Causal dynamical triangulation Asymptotic safety in quantum gravity Causal sets DGP model Rainbow gravity theory
Unified-field-theoric	Kaluza–Klein theory Supergravity
Unified-field-theoric and quantum-mechanical	Noncommutative geometry Semiclassical gravity Superfluid vacuum theory Logarithmic BEC vacuum String theory M-theory F-theory Heterotic string theory Type I string theory Type 0 string theory Bosonic string theory Type II string theory Little string theory Twistor theory Twistor string theory
Generalisations / extensions of GR	Liouville gravity Lovelock theory (2+1)-dimensional topological gravity Gauss–Bonnet gravity Jackiw–Teitelboim gravity

Pre-Newtonian
theories and
toy models