Overview of Horava Gravity for Laymen

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter windy miller
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Hořava gravity, initially proposed by Petr Hořava, has faced significant scrutiny and criticism regarding its validity and applicability. The theory's original formulation predicted inconsistent results for spherical versus non-spherical celestial bodies, leading to modifications by other researchers. Despite a steady output of scholarly articles, the theory is perceived to have serious unresolved issues, with the most recent peer-reviewed discussions highlighting its 'pathology.' The ongoing debate suggests that while the theory has generated interest, its practical viability remains questionable.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hořava-Lifshitz gravity
  • Familiarity with peer-reviewed scientific literature
  • Knowledge of celestial mechanics and gravitational theories
  • Experience with academic research methodologies
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the latest peer-reviewed articles on Hořava gravity
  • Explore the modifications made to Hořava's original formulation
  • Investigate the implications of 'pathology' in gravitational theories
  • Learn about the differences between arXiv submissions and peer-reviewed publications
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in gravitational theory, and anyone interested in the evolution and critique of modern theoretical physics will benefit from this discussion.

windy miller
Messages
306
Reaction score
28
Can anyone give a good overview of Horava gravity for a layman. I have only read one thing on it in the Scientific American going back to 2009. Where does it stand today ? How is it understood? Wha are its strengths and weaknesses?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
See the references at the bottom of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hořava–Lifshitz_gravity

And the last line says
Hořava's initial formulation was found to have side-effects such as predicting very different results for a spherical Sun compared to a slightly non-spherical Sun, so others have modified the theory. Inconsistencies remain.

The most recent peer-reviewed article in the list discusses 'pathology' - that was 7 years ago. My unprofessional, unqualified-to-comment answer: it has serious problems, and looks like it may stay in that category. I see in this Biological literature searches sometimes, a cool idea destroyed by unfriendly facts. This looks a priori to be somewhat like that. Hopefully a definitive statement is forthcoming from someone who knows.

But with 'revolutionary theories' in past popular literature you can often discern possible dropouts by looking at references and citations to the starting sources and see if something is withering on the vine. The articles trail dries up right where someone demonstrates major problems. Scientists do not want to spend time on a possibly dead-ended pursuit. I personally do not.

You can what I did, and you can do this easily, as well. The point of this post: defining a sometimes viable method to see the status of some past theories and research.
 
I did a search on google scholar articles on it and divided it up into two periods, the first 4 years it got 2210 articles. the next four years 2240. So I'm not sure what your justification is for saying the article trail dries up.
 
Okay, then I'm wrong. That's okay, the method still has applications, you just used it to refute what I said. We both learned something.

One extremely important point - arXiv articles are NOT peer-reviewed unless the reference shows it was published in a reputable journal. Big difference.
 
Even if it has been peer reviewed it doesn't mean there aren't mistake still lurking there.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
11K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
15K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
11K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
32K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K