View Single Post
KingOrdo
KingOrdo is offline
#5
Feb16-08, 06:42 PM
P: 119
Quote Quote by kdv View Post
But have you read the article? It's complete nonsense. It's clearly written by someone who has no background in particle physics or field theory. And who pretends knwoing what he is talking about.

Just a few points... he says that the concept of graviton was invented to "plug a hole in the standard model". That's nonsense since the standard model does not address gravitation. Then he seems to say that gravitons are a prediction of string theory alone. The idea of gravitons as the quanta of a quantized theory of GR is much older than string theory, obviosuly.

Then he says that the idea does not make sense because a black hole would be emitting an infinite number of gravitons or some other mumbo-jumbo like this. He does not understand that a charge particle in ordinary QED produces a background electromagnetic field and that if his reasoning was correct, such a charge particle would be emitting infinite amounts of photons and the concept fo photons would not make sense.

It's complete nonsense and comes clearly from someone who has no background in particle physics. And who talks as if he understood the subject. So I agree 100% with Janus
Yes. You have just given a sound argument why the author's views should be rejected. You have used valid rules of logical inference to derive results from true premises. Compare that with Janus's reply, which was to assert that the author is wrong because, if his views were right, they would have been advanced previously. That kind of "argument" is both absurd on its face (the infinite regress is glaring) and well-known fallacious reasoning.