Talk:Einstein–Cartan theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[User: R. J. Petti, rjpetti@alum.mit.edu]
Contents |
[edit] I don't think this page needs work.
(Except for removing the table of alternative gravity theories at the end.)
I wrote virtually all of the article on Einstein-Cartan theory. Thanks to the people who improved the formula formatting. I think it is fine as of Nov. 4, 2006.
I had to correct or delete several content edits by other people. Requested actions:
(1) Remove the comment that this page needs work, or tell me what the needed changes are.
(2) Remove the table of alternative gravity theories at the end of the article on Einstein-Cartan theory. The table says nothing about EC theory, and it misrepresents EC theory as one of a large group of speculations about gravitation. The main point of the article is that EC theory is the only extension of non-quantum general relativity to have been been proven necessary since about 1920. Who should remove this table? If no one answers in a reasonable time, I will remove the table from the article on EC theory.
(3) If you want to change this page, please contact me first. [User: R. J. Petti, rjpetti@alum.mit.edu]
[edit] Record of previous claims that this article needs work
[edit] Needs clarification
Needs clarification, elaboration (maybe split since already long), links to related articles.
Reply: Many links are inserted. If you want more, please add them or tell me what you want. [User: R. J. Petti, rjpetti@alum.mit.edu]
[edit] Needs less technical introduction
Reply: It would be nice, but I think it is optional. This article is of interest only to people who know general relativity fairly well. Please suggest changes. [User: R. J. Petti, rjpetti@alum.mit.edu]
[edit] Citation format
Citations should conform with WikiProject GTR.---CH (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Reply: I don't know your conventions and I could not easily follow your link to find out, so I stopped pursuing this. [User: R. J. Petti, jpetti@alum.mit.edu]
[edit] Flaws in non-quantum general relavitity?
And I just noticed "one known flaw"--- I wish! See objections to general relativity and especially its talk page (the article itself is currently terribly imbalanced and rather incoherent).---CH (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Reply: Please tell me what are the other known flaws in non-quantum general relativity. I know only of the inability of GR to handle spin-orbit coupling, which is fixed by EC theory. [User: R. J. Petti, rjpetti@alum.mit.edu]
[edit] C Code
- I have found that the equation can be represented by a C code with
- INCLUDE (objects), Main (Kernel, singularity) and a brace ( for C code molecules).
- (unsigned comment by 71.131.226.30)
Reply: These comments seem misplaced. There is no mentione of C code in the article on Einstein-Cartan theory.
[edit] O(p,q) or SO(p,q) or neither?
An anon changed SO(p,q) to O(p,q) on the grounds that the latter is the orthogonal group, while the former is usually called special orthogonal group. In fact, even without reading the article one has to suspect that the connected component of the orthogonal group might be the group intended. Someone with more time and energy please figure it out and fix the problem! ---CH 16:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Reply: O(p,q) is fine. The point is minor. [User: R. J. Petti rjpetti@alum.mit.edu]
[edit] Work of Myron Evans
VOLKER204@CS.COM A dispassionate analysis of Myron Evans' work on this is needed. As Einstein showed gravitation is curved spacetime, Evans indictes electomagnetism is spinning spacetime. Geometrically, it makes good sense. Which equations will prove to be absolutely true remains to be seen.
Reply: What is the work of Myron Evans? This article in EC theory has nothing to do with electromagnetism, except that electromagnetism fits into EC theory as well as it fits into general relativity. [User: R. J. Petti rjpetti@alum.mit.edu]
