Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [bell_bohm] Re: qm/gr article

Expand Messages
  • Travis Norsen
    ... It all depends on what you mean by qm and gr . (But, thankfully, it doesn t all depend on what is is.) I think non-locality in QM contradicts the
    Message 1 of 47 , Oct 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Eric Dennis wrote:

      >I am a realist, which means that I believe stuff exists and that our
      >theories describe that stuff.
      >
      >Obviously realism, as a philosophical doctrine, doesn't imply any
      >particular positions on specific physics matters, like that qm and gr are
      >inconsistent. Travis is aware of Alcubierre's work, and I'm pretty certain
      >he does not think that qm and gr are logically inconsistent, although he
      >may regard their compatibility as highly improbable on physical grounds.
      >
      >Anyway, I am a realist, and I do think qm and gr are consistent, given
      >Alcubierre's work.


      It all depends on what you mean by "qm" and "gr". (But, thankfully,
      it doesn't all depend on what "is" is.) I think non-locality in QM
      contradicts the standard interpretation of GR, specifically the notion
      that there is no preferred frame.

      The Alcubierre idea shows that even this might not necessarily be the
      case, though to me the "fix" is weirder than the problem it's supposed
      to fix. But that's more of an emotional assessment than a scientific
      one, so I certainly regard the issue as open and deserving of more
      attention.

      The most one can say at present is that qm and gr are consistent to
      whatever extent each of them is true. If either or both are saddled
      with some false interpretation, then one may find what looks like
      inconsistencies. But once the correct (realist) interpretations are
      discovered, everything will be consistent because there is only one
      reality.


      ttn
    • millipede8@yahoo.com
      ... The Casimir force = -dE/dx, where x is the separation between the metal plates and E is the ground state energy of the vacuum between the plates. By the
      Message 47 of 47 , Nov 8, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        > As far as I remember it always appears due to subtraction of one
        > infinity from another.

        The Casimir force = -dE/dx, where x is the separation between the
        metal plates and E is the ground state energy of the vacuum between
        the plates.

        By the way, Kasimir is an incorrect spelling. He signed his papers H.
        B. G. Casimir which stands for Hendrik Brugt Gerhard Casimir. He
        worked for Phillips corporation in Netherlands.

        > I hope that in correct theory no such tricks will be used.
        >It seems to me that the situation is close to that in claculus at 17-
        >18 centuries when such things as
        > 1-1+1-1+1...=0=1+(-1+1)+(-1+1)...=1=-1+(-1+1)+...=-1
        > and semiempirical results with infinitesimals and infinities were
        > widely discussed with heat.

        I also hope that a fully correct theory will be developed in my
        lifetime. I imagine all sorts of great physics will come from it.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.