Changes

:::First of all, I want to thank you for actually explaining your claims.  Now we can actually have the real discussion KrisJ suggested above.  You are perfectly correct in stating the gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with QM; that is precisely the point I was trying to make.  But by your logic we could rightly conclude that the flaw is with QM rather than GR--without QM gravitons would not be expected either.  On what basis do you claim that the non-observance of gravitons is a counterexample to GR rather than a counterexample to QM?  (Also, I should note that just because gravitons have not yet been observed, that doesn't mean they won't be.  For example, the non-observation of the Z boson did not constitute a counterexample to the electroweak theory between 1979 and 1983.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::First of all, I want to thank you for actually explaining your claims.  Now we can actually have the real discussion KrisJ suggested above.  You are perfectly correct in stating the gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with QM; that is precisely the point I was trying to make.  But by your logic we could rightly conclude that the flaw is with QM rather than GR--without QM gravitons would not be expected either.  On what basis do you claim that the non-observance of gravitons is a counterexample to GR rather than a counterexample to QM?  (Also, I should note that just because gravitons have not yet been observed, that doesn't mean they won't be.  For example, the non-observation of the Z boson did not constitute a counterexample to the electroweak theory between 1979 and 1983.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::The "flatness problem" refers primarily to curvature expected from inflation, not GR itself.  It is misleading to call the counterexample the "flatness problem," and then pretend it has a solution.  The counterexample described is not resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::The "flatness problem" refers primarily to curvature expected from inflation, not GR itself.  It is misleading to call the counterexample the "flatness problem," and then pretend it has a solution.  The counterexample described is not resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::The flatness problem refers to the fact that, in an ''inflation-free'' universe, the FRW metric with matter and radiation equation-of-state parameters predicts that any initial nonzero curvature will increase vastly in magnitude, leaving a highly curved universe at present.  Inflation is proposed as a ''solution'' to the flatness problem; it is not the cause of it.  The process of inflation drastically flattens any initial curvature in the universe so dramatically that even after the curvature increase undergone under normal evolution, the universe still appears nearly perfectly flat. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::The flatness problem refers to the fact that, in an ''inflation-free'' universe, the FRW metric with matter and radiation equation-of-state parameters predicts that any initial nonzero curvature will increase vastly in magnitude, leaving a highly curved universe at present.  Inflation is proposed as a ''solution'' to the flatness problem; it is not the cause of it.  The process of inflation drastically flattens any initial curvature in the universe so dramatically that even after the curvature increase undergone under normal evolution, the universe still appears nearly perfectly flat. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Wait, I just realized that I think we may be talking past one another here.  I interpreted the counterexample listed on the page to be the flatness problem, but based on your response I guess that it is not.  (Obviously the flatness problem is not a counterexample to GR itself, just to the use of the FRW metric for modeling the universe.)  This counterexample seems to be more fundamental, namely the claim that space is nowhere curved, as GR says it must be by matter and energy.  Is that correct? [[User:Yill|Yill]] 23:25, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

:::Wait, I just realized that I think we may be talking past one another here.  I interpreted the counterexample listed on the page to be the flatness problem, but based on your response I guess that it is not.  (Obviously the flatness problem is not a counterexample to GR itself, just to the use of the FRW metric for modeling the universe.)  This counterexample seems to be more fundamental, namely the claim that space is nowhere curved, as GR says it must be by matter and energy.  Is that correct? [[User:Yill|Yill]] 23:25, 5 April 2010 (EDT)