Talk:Rainbow gravity theory

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

April fool joke?[edit]

...Isn't it pretty clear this entire page is just part of an April Fool's joke? The joke can be seen here. If "rainbow gravity" is a real thing that's been around for years, then why (1) was this page started just days before April 1 2015, and (2) how come there are no peer-reviewed papers cited. Have a look at Modified Newtonian dynamics or Loop quantum gravity if you want to know what an *actual* page on a gravitational theory looks like. 173.219.75.66 (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed verification of the theory was an April Fool's joke, but the idea that different frequencies of light are affected differently by gravity has been around for a while, and any theory using Doubly special relativity naturally incorporates this idea. Whoever decided that it showed the universe had no beginning was getting their theories tangled up, though, since the one idea of DSR is that the minimum length and time scales are invariant. Hence, the universe had a definite first planck time when it was one planck length in size, and that was the beginning of the universe, and did not last infinitely long, but rather only lasted one planck time. The entire reason why general relativity fails and makes singularities in places like the beginning of the universe and black holes is because it assumes the minimum length and time scales are variable, which is completely incompatible with quantum mechanics. In DSR, there is no inflation, speeds faster than light never occur, and singularities never occur. Photons experience minimum time (as their speed is one planck length per planck time) rather than zero time, and the situation at the beginning of the universe is similar. Also, I should add that even General Relativity shows that photons bend in a gravitational field proportionally to their energy, as the gravitational acceleration between two energies is E1 E2 / (c^4 distance^2). Since photons have so little energy compared to matter, this effect is often small, but it makes a rather large difference when it comes to very high energy photons. Perhaps a more modern way to think of it is that photons of different energies interact to different extents with the Higgs field, though it is still a small effect, and the coupling constant of interaction for visible light is around 10^-27, for example. Zuloo37 (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of published sources on this, well prior to April 1, 2015. In addition to the four cites in the article (two from 2013, one from January 2015; only one, published 3/28, anywhere near 4/1/2015), see also these papers:

or just try this Google Scholar search. TJRC (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, clearly y'all are better informed than I am. Thanks for the citations. The page does need some work though. This rainbow gravity thing would presumably mean gravitational lenses have chromatic aberration, which is pretty funny - it's so hard to make lenses with that aberration corrected. But also that might be a place where the phenomenon could be detected? 173.219.75.66 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a hoax[edit]

I don't edit these kind of articles but I did find some references in scholarly journals and here they are:

Google Scholar search of scientific articles on Rainbow gravity

Bfpage |leave a message 15:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

"For what I am concerned, no papers should get published on the topic until these issues have been resolved." So why does he believe Einstein's theories; who published with numerous unresolved issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.46.31 (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She. She has expressed opinions of Einstein's theories indicating she is willing to dismiss Einstein as well, if something else is proven to contradict all or part of his theories. She has mentioned Modified Newtonian Dynamics and even Aether Theories as alternatives/corrections to Einstein Theories and Dark Matter. To be clear, she doesn't accept or even like those theories, she calls them "speculative" (which is a dismissal for her), but she discusses them as if they can be proven or disprove with evidence.--208.106.46.31 (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]