Re: qm/gr article
> --- In bell_bohm@y..., Travis Norsen <norsen@d...> wrote:Are you saying that Alcubierre shows that qm non-locality ia consistent
> 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 [...]
w/ a preferred frame--or that Alcubierre shows the lack of necessity of a
preferred frame for qm non-locality?
I think the latter is true. Even aside from Alcubierre, I don't think qm
non-locality necessitates a preferred frame per se.
> As far as I remember it always appears due to subtraction of oneThe Casimir force = -dE/dx, where x is the separation between the
> infinity from another.
metal plates and E is the ground state energy of the vacuum between
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.I also hope that a fully correct theory will be developed in my
>It seems to me that the situation is close to that in claculus at 17-
>18 centuries when such things as
> and semiempirical results with infinitesimals and infinities were
> widely discussed with heat.
lifetime. I imagine all sorts of great physics will come from it.