| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Arnold" |
| Date: |
09 Feb 2005 01:53:50 AM |
| Object: |
World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
A student asked one of the world's greatest scientists
the question of how General Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics may be unified. He answered in the following
terms which is shocking. I'd explain after sharing
his statement why it's shocking.
Student: How do you think will QM and GR be unified?
One of World's Greatest Scientist answered:
"Nobody has any idea, nor do I. Both M-theory and LQG
are abject failures if you like your physical theory to
be predictive. GR (metric gravitation, Einstein) isn't
even on solid ground because there is equally perfect
affine gravitation (Weitzenboeck) with one fewer founding postulate.
We are in the process of examining the last remaining class
of Equivalence Principle violation,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
The full parity experiment kicks off in a PR China lab
around April. If there is a net signal in excess of one
part in ten trillion difference/aveage, GR is falsfied
along with its founding postulate. An Equivalence
Principle parity anomaly also falsifies Lortnez
invarance - and that takes down 3/5 of M-theory,
conservation of angular momentum, plus quantum mechanics.
It could be great fun, all of it pivoting on an obscure
footnote that does not spontaneously occur segregated in
nature. "
- Uncle Al
****
If the experiment in China in april found the excess
signal. GR, QM is falsified or in shaky position??
This is shocking that our science may not be based
on solid foundation. Does anyone know what is
Weitzenboeck that may replace GR if the experiment
failed? How does Weitzenboeck differ to GR? Worse,
if the Higgs field are not found, what is physics?
Arnold
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 08:36:07 AM |
|
|
Arnold wrote:
A student asked one of the world's greatest scientists
the question of how General Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics may be unified. He answered in the following
terms which is shocking. I'd explain after sharing
his statement why it's shocking.
Student: How do you think will QM and GR be unified?
One of World's Greatest Scientist answered:
"Nobody has any idea, nor do I. Both M-theory and LQG
are abject failures if you like your physical theory to
be predictive.
He said it!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 11:24:46 AM |
|
|
Arnold wrote:
A student asked one of the world's greatest scientists
the question of how General Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics may be unified. He answered in the following
terms which is shocking. I'd explain after sharing
his statement why it's shocking.
Student: How do you think will QM and GR be unified?
One of World's Greatest Scientist answered:
Idiot.
"Nobody has any idea, nor do I. Both M-theory and LQG
are abject failures if you like your physical theory to
be predictive. GR (metric gravitation, Einstein) isn't
even on solid ground because there is equally perfect
affine gravitation (Weitzenboeck) with one fewer founding postulate.
We are in the process of examining the last remaining class
of Equivalence Principle violation,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
The full parity experiment kicks off in a PR China lab
around April. If there is a net signal in excess of one
part in ten trillion difference/aveage, GR is falsfied
along with its founding postulate. An Equivalence
Principle parity anomaly also falsifies Lortnez
invarance - and that takes down 3/5 of M-theory,
conservation of angular momentum, plus quantum mechanics.
It could be great fun, all of it pivoting on an obscure
footnote that does not spontaneously occur segregated in
nature. "
- Uncle Al
****
If the experiment in China in april found the excess
signal. GR, QM is falsified or in shaky position??
Metric gravitation is falsified given a reproducible Equivalence
Princple parity violation. Affine gravitation is validated.
Eisntein's GR is demoted to a facile heurisitic. Weitzenboeck's
affine gravitation becomes operant theory for further studies. No
prior work is impacted because no prior work considered extremal
divergent quantitative geometic parity of test masses.
Both GR and QM postulate Lorentz invariance. An EP parity violation
falsifies Lorentz invariance by counterdemonstrating the isotropy of
space. GR is already falsified anyway, QM makes no bones about "the
math is only metaphor." 3/5 of M-theory - the parity-symmetric parts
- can be abandoned. Experimentalists have a field day building Eotvos
balances for further investigation. Theoreticians get funding for
more chalk. Everybody wins.
Oh yeah... angular momentum is no longer conserved through Noether's
theorem. Nancy Kwan becomes a porn actress.
This is shocking that our science may not be based
on solid foundation.
No big deal. It's been done before and with exactly the same
strategy,
http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html
Science got over it.
Does anyone know what is
Weitzenboeck that may replace GR if the experiment
failed? How does Weitzenboeck differ to GR? Worse,
if the Higgs field are not found, what is physics?
Affine gravitation wholly contains metric gravitation - every
prediction down to the last decimal place. Then, affine gravitation
is richer for having one fewer founding postulate. GR is much easier
to calculate.
BTW, parity divergence specifically and chirality in general are
emergent phenomenona requiring finite volumes. A "point" spans the
Planck length, sqrt[(h-bar)G/c^3] or 1.616x10^(-26) nm and thus
implies a spherical volume approximating 2.21x10^(-78) nm^3. An EP
parity violation in quartz is around 0.1 nm^3 threshold volume. The
Newtonian concept of "center of mass" as a zero dimensional point
disappears by at least 78 orders of magnitude.
Connes interpreted the Standard Model in non-commutative geometry as
gauge symmetry underlain by an algebra.
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
reference [50] and references therein.
Differential geometry disregards whether the underlying space is
discrete or a continuum, including principle bundles, gauge groups and
Yang-Mills fields... particularly the Z_2 group of the parity operator
P. The linked gauge boson for left-right symmetry is then the Higgs
boson. The Yang-Mills gauge Lagrangian is the Higgs sector of the
Standard Model Lagrangian. Mass couples to parity.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 01:50:42 PM |
|
|
Hi Uncle Al I see GR based on common sense. I don't see QM based on
common sense. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 02:54:11 PM |
|
|
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:465-420A6992-91@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
Hi Uncle Al I see GR based on common sense. I don't see QM based on
common sense. Bert
Einstein said
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
That's why you, Schwartz and Einstein don't have any.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 04:48:37 PM |
|
|
Guys. They say QM and GR is not compatible. So they can just
throw GR away? Is Uncle Al saying that if GR is invalidated.
GR has to go and replaced with the Weitzenboeck thing? Does
this mean QM And Weitzenboeck is finally compatible??
Arnold
Androcles wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:465-420A6992-91@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
Hi Uncle Al I see GR based on common sense. I don't see QM based
on
common sense. Bert
Einstein said
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen."
That's why you, Schwartz and Einstein don't have any.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 10:40:41 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Uncle Al I see GR based on common sense. I don't see QM based on
common sense. Bert
No Herb--Gravity is not a foreign and physical force transmitted through
space and time. It is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. That,
in a nutshell, is Einstein's theory. Not common sense at all!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 03:15:21 AM |
|
|
Arnold wrote:
A student asked one of the world's greatest scientists
the question of how General Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics may be unified. He answered in the following
terms which is shocking. I'd explain after sharing
his statement why it's shocking.
Student: How do you think will QM and GR be unified?
One of World's Greatest Scientist answered:
"Nobody has any idea, nor do I. Both M-theory and LQG
are abject failures if you like your physical theory to
be predictive. GR (metric gravitation, Einstein) isn't
even on solid ground because there is equally perfect
affine gravitation (Weitzenboeck) with one fewer founding postulate.
We are in the process of examining the last remaining class
of Equivalence Principle violation,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
The full parity experiment kicks off in a PR China lab
around April. If there is a net signal in excess of one
part in ten trillion difference/aveage, GR is falsfied
along with its founding postulate. An Equivalence
Principle parity anomaly also falsifies Lortnez
invarance - and that takes down 3/5 of M-theory,
conservation of angular momentum, plus quantum mechanics.
It could be great fun, all of it pivoting on an obscure
footnote that does not spontaneously occur segregated in
nature. "
- Uncle Al
****
If the experiment in China in april found the excess
signal. GR, QM is falsified or in shaky position??
This is shocking that our science may not be based
on solid foundation. Does anyone know what is
Weitzenboeck that may replace GR if the experiment
failed? How does Weitzenboeck differ to GR? Worse,
if the Higgs field are not found, what is physics?
If the Higgs field is not found, physics is still
the same, it's just field theory is proven to be
what it was thought to be from the beginning.
A lame approximation to a weak approximation.
Affine gravity differs from GR only in that it's
just a mathematician's lamer method of resuccitating
Newtonian mechanics from the dead once again.
But with a UN anthem this time, rather than a German anthem.
Arnold
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 04:41:57 AM |
|
|
If I understand Al correctly,
he is suggesting gravitation may be dependent on substance. There are
two types of the Principle of Equivalence (PoE), strong and weak.
See Weinberg's "Grav & Cosmo" ch. 3 and pg.69,
for a clear professional distinction.
Al is testing the strong PoE, suggesting then the weak PoE is truer.
What Al is doing is to place a g-field on a Euclidian
Geometry that is able to interact with the substance
being accelerated.
Einstein advocates the strong PoE, specifically Newton's 1st law (of
inertia) and states that law is modified in the presence of matter, so
that freely falling bodies are not acted upon by any measureable force,
but instead follow geodesics.
I'm critical of the weak PoE, because a substance dependant
gravitational reaction appears to violate the conservation of
mass-energy. For example, two different substances accelarated by a
g-field will create energy (apart from the tidal part), if there
relative acceleration varies.
In 1916 Einstein published a paper relating the Hamiltonian (a
conservation of energy) to the strong PoE, and therein finds General
Covariance and the strong PoE to be consistent in all FoR's.
I've asked Al for a similiar examination of the Hamiltonian, using GC,
and specifically, what modification does he propose to the equation of
motion, specifically the geodesic.
It's tough, but I'm listening...
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 05:14:59 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1107945717.029646.311790@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
What Al is doing is to place a g-field on a Euclidian
Geometry that is able to interact with the substance
being accelerated.
(snip)
It's tough, but I'm listening...
Ken S. Tucker
Doesn't superstring theory already model something similar to this? (if
"model" is the right terminology to use.)
Brad
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 11:47:09 AM |
|
|
glbrad01 wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1107945717.029646.311790@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
What Al is doing is to place a g-field on a Euclidian
Geometry that is able to interact with the substance
being accelerated.
(snip)
It's tough, but I'm listening...
Ken S. Tucker
Doesn't superstring theory already model something similar to this? (if
"model" is the right terminology to use.)
M-theory is not predictive. If there is no experiment to test theory,
then the theory is not science.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 01:41:26 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
M-theory is not predictive. If there is no experiment to test theory,
then the theory is not science.
Is M-theory inherently unpredictive or is it unpredictive because we do
not have sufficient technology to do an experiment?
A little history here: If there earth revolves around the sun we should
be able to detect stellar parallax. For the longest time parallax could
not be observed because the telescopes were not equal to the task. The
Greek Aristarchus proposed the Copernican Theory two millenia prior to
Copernicus. He was shot down because no one could observe parallax with
the naked eye or light phases on any of the planets . The stars were
much further away than anyone suspected and the phase of Venus could not
be seen without a telescope.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 02:40:00 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
M-theory is not predictive. If there is no experiment to test theory,
then the theory is not science.
Is M-theory inherently unpredictive or is it unpredictive because we do
not have sufficient technology to do an experiment?
A little history here: If there earth revolves around the sun we should
be able to detect stellar parallax. For the longest time parallax could
not be observed because the telescopes were not equal to the task. The
Greek Aristarchus proposed the Copernican Theory two millenia prior to
Copernicus. He was shot down because no one could observe parallax with
the naked eye or light phases on any of the planets . The stars were
much further away than anyone suspected and the phase of Venus could not
be seen without a telescope.
Bob Kolker
It is estimated that there are at least 10^300 satisfactory vacuum
solutions in M-theory. Something must be done to prune the monster.
M-theory as such is 100% non-predictive in any achievable laboratory,
astronomic, or cosmological observation. A theory of gravitation that
cannot reproduce GR or something better is no theory at all. It is an
exericise in mathematics. This is not a bad thing, but it isn't
physics, either.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 02:00:13 PM |
|
|
robert j. kolker wrote:
<snip>
Is M-theory inherently unpredictive or is it unpredictive because we
do
not have sufficient technology to do an experiment?
Inadequate measurement technology is not an indicator or whether or not
a theory is predictive. GR predicted many things (such as
frame-dragging) that were totally beyond the reach of the measurement
technology available at the time the predictions were made.
A theory is usually 'unpredictive' either because the mathematics of
the theory have not yet been worked out to make a prediction or because
the predictions that it can make are not inconsistent with predictions
made by established theory.
In the case of M-theory, it is inherently unpredictive because it
concerns itself with phenomena that are *by definition* not within the
observable universe.
Personally, I would not even dignify the "M-theory" speculations with
the appellative of 'theory.' They are more in the realm of 'fantasy'.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 11:45:58 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
If I understand Al correctly,
he is suggesting gravitation may be dependent on substance.
Exactly ***NOT***! Composition is EP-inert in both theory and 400+
years of observation. The proper test of spacetime geometry is test
mass geometry. The full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz contrasts
two sets of COMPOSITIONALLY IDENTICAL test masses, both of them being
macroscopically identical single crystal solid cylinders (PR China) or
solid spheres (US). Ultrapure single crystal SiO_2. Same mass, same
density, same dimensions, same everything. One set is carved from
single crystal P3(1)21 quartz (geometrically right-handed); the other
set is carved from from single crystal P3(2)21 quartz (geometrically
left-handed).
There are
two types of the Principle of Equivalence (PoE), strong and weak.
See Weinberg's "Grav & Cosmo" ch. 3 and pg.69,
for a clear professional distinction.
Al is testing the strong PoE, suggesting then the weak PoE is truer.
Exactly ****NOT***! First, the parity Eotvos experiment specifically
goes after the Weak EP. Second, all three EPs - Weak, Strong, and
Very Strong - are dependent upon the Weak EP,
Phys. Rev. D 7(12) 3563 (1973)
arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0209110
arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9806062
arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805088
arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212034
Phys. Rev. D 43(12) 3789 (1991)
What Al is doing is to place a g-field on a Euclidian
Geometry that is able to interact with the substance
being accelerated.
Not substance, geometry. Not Euclidean, either.
Einstein advocates the strong PoE, specifically Newton's 1st law (of
inertia) and states that law is modified in the presence of matter, so
that freely falling bodies are not acted upon by any measureable force,
but instead follow geodesics.
I'm critical of the weak PoE, because a substance dependant
gravitational reaction appears to violate the conservation of
mass-energy. For example, two different substances accelarated by a
g-field will create energy (apart from the tidal part), if there
relative acceleration varies.
Test mass composition cannot violate the EP. There is no mechanism
for it and no empirical evidence. Test mass geometry causes no
paradoxes. A chiral spacetime would interact diastereotopically with
opposite parity test masses of identical composition. Their differing
paths (autoparallels - not geodesics - in affine gravitation) would
*both* be minimal action paths.
Test mass difference in energy upon racemization or chirality
destruction (e.g., enthalpy of combustion) must be consistent with
thermodynamic measurements to date. The parity violation therefore
cannot be greater than 100 parts-per-trillion difference/average and
will probably be smaller than 10 parts-per-trillion
difference/average. Uncle Al is betting on 3 parts-per-trillio
difference/average with at least 90% of the anomaly residing in
P3(1)21 quartz.
In 1916 Einstein published a paper relating the Hamiltonian (a
conservation of energy) to the strong PoE, and therein finds General
Covariance and the strong PoE to be consistent in all FoR's.
I've asked Al for a similiar examination of the Hamiltonian, using GC,
and specifically, what modification does he propose to the equation of
motion, specifically the geodesic.
It's tough, but I'm listening...
GR cannot do the analysis any more than Euclidean geometry can
navigate on a surface with non-zero curvature. Uncle Al invites Ken
to formulate a Hamiltonian in affine gravitation. "8^>)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 03:55:44 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
GR cannot do the analysis any more than Euclidean geometry can
navigate on a surface with non-zero curvature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_embedding_theorem
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
11 Feb 2005 03:05:34 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212034
Incidentally does anyone else have a
problem with the width of that paper?
(I've a 13" monitor).
What Al is doing is to place a g-field on a Euclidian
Geometry that is able to interact with the substance
being accelerated.
Not substance, geometry. Not Euclidean, either.
Ok
Test mass composition cannot violate the EP. There is no mechanism
for it and no empirical evidence. Test mass geometry causes no
paradoxes. A chiral spacetime would interact diastereotopically with
opposite parity test masses of identical composition. Their
differing
paths (autoparallels - not geodesics - in affine gravitation) would
*both* be minimal action paths.
Ok, in 4D would they be the same paths?
If the sun and mercury were of either
1)like parity or
2)opposite parity
in what way would the orbit of mercury
differ between (1) and (2)?
what modification does Al propose to the equation of
motion,
GR cannot do the analysis any more than Euclidean geometry can
navigate on a surface with non-zero curvature. Uncle Al invites Ken
to formulate a Hamiltonian in affine gravitation. "8^>)
After lunch :(
Ken
--
Uncle Al
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
10 Feb 2005 01:46:27 AM |
|
|
Gravity is bassed on the atom gaining mass across it.
all the atoms mass falls twards its center.
The atoms parts all change mass at C in motion.
So there is more mass on one side of the atoms center than the other .
F is the gain in mass pushing the wieght of the atom.
Evry gain in mass is proportional to the wieght.
F--Ma works with evry falling mass if F is the gain in mass .
F is identical to the gain in mass in any G field.
Thats SR and GR combined.
The math JOINS the two at that point.
The atom pushes its self down the energy slope haveing more mass on one
side than the other.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
09 Feb 2005 11:25:02 PM |
|
|
Arnold wrote:
A student asked one of the world's greatest scientists
the question of how General Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics may be unified. He answered in the following
terms which is shocking. I'd explain after sharing
his statement why it's shocking.
Student: How do you think will QM and GR be unified?
One of World's Greatest Scientist answered:
"Nobody has any idea, nor do I. Both M-theory and LQG
are abject failures if you like your physical theory to
be predictive. GR (metric gravitation, Einstein) isn't
even on solid ground because there is equally perfect
affine gravitation (Weitzenboeck) with one fewer founding postulate.
We are in the process of examining the last remaining class
of Equivalence Principle violation,
It's the Equivalence Principle that needs change.
Just look at weight.
The rate must be removed.
It is not the rate of change of velocity - which can go infinite.
It is only change in velocity - which defines a limit.
Removing rate generalizes the Equivalence Principle.
There is no time variable in weight caused by an object which is
not moving in a gravity field.
The limit in acceleration for this modified EP is that fundamental
quantity we know of as the speed of light, c.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
10 Feb 2005 10:18:55 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Arnold wrote:
A student asked one of the world's greatest scientists
the question of how General Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics may be unified. He answered in the following
terms which is shocking. I'd explain after sharing
his statement why it's shocking.
Student: How do you think will QM and GR be unified?
One of World's Greatest Scientist answered:
"Nobody has any idea, nor do I. Both M-theory and LQG
are abject failures if you like your physical theory to
be predictive. GR (metric gravitation, Einstein) isn't
even on solid ground because there is equally perfect
affine gravitation (Weitzenboeck) with one fewer founding postulate.
We are in the process of examining the last remaining class
of Equivalence Principle violation,
It's the Equivalence Principle that needs change.
Just look at weight.
The rate must be removed.
It is not the rate of change of velocity - which can go infinite.
[snip]
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations |
10 Feb 2005 08:15:27 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:420B896F.66836CEA@hate.spam.net...
Nick wrote:
Arnold wrote:
A student asked one of the world's greatest scientists
the question of how General Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics may be unified. He answered in the following
terms which is shocking. I'd explain after sharing
his statement why it's shocking.
Student: How do you think will QM and GR be unified?
One of World's Greatest Scientist answered:
"Nobody has any idea, nor do I. Both M-theory and LQG
are abject failures if you like your physical theory to
be predictive. GR (metric gravitation, Einstein) isn't
even on solid ground because there is equally perfect
affine gravitation (Weitzenboeck) with one fewer founding
postulate.
We are in the process of examining the last remaining class
of Equivalence Principle violation,
It's the Equivalence Principle that needs change.
Just look at weight.
The rate must be removed.
It is not the rate of change of velocity - which can go infinite.
[snip]
Idiot.
Grieving Idiot.
Andocles.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
