0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
To coin an analogy from football, some of those bosons look more like plays than players.
Quote from: Phractality on 09/07/2011 21:59:43To coin an analogy from football, some of those bosons look more like plays than players. Great line! - I am gonna steal that. Phract - you could try the videos of Leonard Susskinds - the theoretical minimum. They are all available on line and range from introduction to einsteins relativity to qcd and particle models. Good stuff - not too easy, but not too hard
Newton proved his shell theorem on the assumption that the spheres are finite and that infinite space beyond the outermost sphere is empty. He always referred to the gravity due to the mass inside the finite spheres, while tacitly assuming the absence of any mass outside of those spheres. Beginning at about 42Ĺ minutes, Susskind explains Newton's shell theorem. Then, at about 54 minutes into the lecture, he tacity assumes that Newton's shell theorem is valid for infinitely large homogeneic spheres, surrounded by more infinitely large homogeneic spheres, with no outermost sphere and no empty space beyond. The remainder of the lecture is falacious. Susskind is not alone in making this glaring error; I think Einstein made it, too, and perhaps others before him. It is a key assumption underlying the big bang bunk.
In the context of general relativity, one uses Birkhoff's theorem rather that Newton's.The Friedmann or Friedmann-Lemaitre equations provide a solution to the Einstein Field Equation, so we know that the infinite solution or the finite but unbounded solution of homogeneous distribution of mass-energy works in general relativity. Birkhoff's theorem establishes that a spherically symmetric change in the distribution of matter doesn't matter to what goes on outside that sphere, so over-dense regions of the universe are free to collapse without impacting the overall geometry of the spacetime.