Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387424

Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification

Show all headers | View raw

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/07/07/grand-unification-may-be-a-dead-end-for-physics/
>  Ethan Siegel: "Grand Unification May Be A Dead-End For Physics"
> 
> Einsteinians' problem is different: If the quest for unification continues, Einstein's spacetime, the idiotic consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, will be getting more and more exposed and vulnerable:
> 
> https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html
> 
> 
> https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
>  Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
>  Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."
> 
> https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
>  What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
>  "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's rel
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/
>  "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving t
> 
> http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060114
>  George Ellis (29:49): "We actually don't have local Lorentz invariance; we have broken local Lorentz invariance."
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
>  New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
>  "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
> 
> https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
>  Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
> 
> Pentcho Valev



you cannot have a grand unifications of turtles.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-07 09:33 -0700
  Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 12:06 -0700
    Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 22:46 -0700
    Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Alejandro Bellucci <alejb@yahoo.info> - 2016-07-08 18:51 +0000
      Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 12:28 -0700
        Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-08 20:11 +0000
          Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 15:20 -0500
            Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-08 20:45 +0000
          Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 13:21 -0700
            Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-08 20:28 +0000
      Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 17:31 -0700
  Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-07 23:40 -0700
  Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-08 02:05 -0700
    Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-09 05:41 -0700
      Re: Einsteinians May Abandon Grand Unification Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 04:16 -0700

csiph-web