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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #401800 > unrolled thread

Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 09:14 -0800
    Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-14 18:52 +0000
      Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-14 18:58 +0000
    Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 14:19 -0800
    Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-15 07:27 +0100
      Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 17:16 -0800
        Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-18 07:21 +0100
          Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 05:00 -0800
            Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 05:39 -0800
            Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-19 02:06 +0100
              Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 18:15 -0800
    Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-16 13:43 -0800
    Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 22:37 -0800
    Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 10:24 -0800

#401800 — Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron?

Quantum gravity is an oxymoron - insane people try to combine Newton's absolute time and Einstein's relative time, the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/ 
 "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric." 

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?" 

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/08/05/science.aac6498 
 "In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly." 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610057.pdf 
 "One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames." 

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/ 
 "In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#401820

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Quantum gravity is an oxymoron - insane people try to combine Newton's
> absolute time and Einstein's relative time, the absurd consequence of
> Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
> 
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/
>  "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means
>  reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics,
>  time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving
>  entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert
>  Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a
>  dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z
>  into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric."

So, Dr. Mitch Raemesh was correct. There is a 2-time out there. They knew 
it all the time.

However no, the term is completely moronerous. In my Divergent Matter 
theory there is no need for Time altogether. Because that's primordial, 
all there is, without which, nothing is (can be) present. The Drift. 
Something like this

W O O O O O S H ... W O O O O O S H ... W O O O O O S H ... 

Something similar to breathing. The Universe starting at W, then ending at 
H. Driven according to my Divergent Matter theory. 

Excellent post, thank you. We need more like this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401821

Lauretta Nagle wrote:

> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
>> Quantum gravity is an oxymoron - insane people try to combine Newton's
>> absolute time and Einstein's relative time, the absurd consequence of
>> Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
>> 
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/
>>  "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means
>>  reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics,
>>  time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving
>>  entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert
>>  Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a
>>  dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z
>>  into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric."
> 
> So, Dr. Mitch Raemesh was correct. There is a 2-time out there. They
> knew it all the time.
> 
> However no, the term is completely moronerous. In my Divergent Matter
> theory there is no need for Time altogether. Because that's primordial,
> all there is, without which, nothing is (can be) present. The Drift.
> Something like this
> 
> W O O O O O S H ... W O O O O O S H ... W O O O O O S H ...
> 
> Something similar to breathing. The Universe starting at W, then ending
> at H. Driven according to my Divergent Matter theory.

It's obvious for anyone, that compared with the Divergent Matter, 
Relativity as a theory is insignificantly infinitesimal. However, make no 
mistakes. The W in the above description contains a lot of Timing and 
Intelligence stuff. Again, "Timing" is just a way of saying it. It is 
rather the DRIFT.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401842

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 10:14:38 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Quantum gravity is an oxymoron - insane people try to combine Newton's
> absolute time and Einstein's relative time, the absurd consequence of
> Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

Relative time is absolutely correct.  It's time Perilous Pentcho woke
up and smelled his stinky feet.

> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/ 
>  "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means
> reconciling totally different notions of time.

Incorrect.  QED is based on SR, hence, relative time.

> In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute;

Not in QED.  Why does Punch-drunk Pentcho keep posting this baloney?

[Rest of quotations deleted because they are just plain wrong.]

Get a life, Pentcho!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401875

Am 14.12.2016 18:14, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
> Quantum gravity is an oxymoron - insane people try to combine Newton's absolute time and Einstein's relative time, the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
>
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/
>   "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric."
>
> 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?"

What is wrong with QM is the so called standard model of QM, because it 
is about 'things' (particles).

If things exist in time, they have to vanish, if time vanishes.

This sounds slightly counter-intuitive, but does in fact make sense.

Since it's a little tricky, I wrote this 'book' (actually a google.doc 
presentation):

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402091

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 10:27:30 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 14.12.2016 18:14, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
> > Quantum gravity is an oxymoron - insane people try to combine Newton's absolute time and Einstein's relative time, the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
> >
> > https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/
> >   "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric."
> >
> > 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?"
> 
> What is wrong with QM is the so called standard model of QM, because it 
> is about 'things' (particles).
> 
> If things exist in time, they have to vanish, if time vanishes.
> 
> This sounds slightly counter-intuitive, but does in fact make sense.
> 
> Since it's a little tricky, I wrote this 'book' (actually a google.doc 
> presentation):
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> 
> 
> TH

"Everything's a particle", 
but, they're all in fields.

(And, all the particles are 
in all the fields.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402173

Am 17.12.2016 02:16, schrieb Ross A. Finlayson:
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 10:27:30 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 14.12.2016 18:14, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
>>> Quantum gravity is an oxymoron - insane people try to combine Newton's absolute time and Einstein's relative time, the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
>>>
>>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/
>>>    "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric."
>>>
>>> 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?"
>>
>> What is wrong with QM is the so called standard model of QM, because it
>> is about 'things' (particles).
>>
>> If things exist in time, they have to vanish, if time vanishes.
>>
>> This sounds slightly counter-intuitive, but does in fact make sense.
>>
>> Since it's a little tricky, I wrote this 'book' (actually a google.doc
>> presentation):
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> "Everything's a particle",
> but, they're all in fields.
>
> (And, all the particles are
> in all the fields.)
>

Particles are assumed to be fundamental entities. They have the 
properties of usual objects, but are much, much smaller and have strange 
('quantum') behaviour.

This concept requires a space for these things, where they can be and 
occupy some of this space.

But this violates a central idea of relativity: that space and time are 
connected to spacetime.

Now particles cannot be fundamental entities, if you want to keep 
relativity, but must be 'relative', too.

This is possible, but at the expense of the idea of particles itself.

IOW something is needed, that 'smells' like particles, but is 
'relativistic'.

I suggest a method called 'structured spacetime'.

A particles is then a 'timelike stable pattern' (of/in spacetime).

This behaves somehow like quantum mechanics, but without particles.

As proof of concept I tried to proof 'Growing Earth', since if the Earth 
would grow from within, the idea of real, lasting particles must be wrong.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402186

Thomas Heger wrote:

Particles are assumed to be fundamental entities. They have the 
properties of usual objects, but are much, much smaller and have strange 
('quantum') behaviour. 

This concept requires a space for these things, where they can be and 
occupy some of this space. 

But this violates a central idea of relativity: that space and time are 
connected to spacetime. 

Now particles cannot be fundamental entities, if you want to keep 
relativity, but must be 'relative', too. 

This is possible, but at the expense of the idea of particles itself. 

IOW something is needed, that 'smells' like particles, but is 
'relativistic'. 

I suggest a method called 'structured spacetime'. 

A particles is then a 'timelike stable pattern' (of/in spacetime). 

This behaves somehow like quantum mechanics, but without particles. 

As proof of concept I tried to proof 'Growing Earth', since if the Earth 
would grow from within, the idea of real, lasting particles must be wrong. 


TH 

Hello Mr Heger

I believe your "structured space model " is almost completely Accurate, but "incomplete "

You essentially already have Space Separated from time in your Model. 

All you have to do is "Put a Multiplier of 49.97 on the Time axis and INVERT TIME back over the top of Space "

https://goo.gl/photos/QkSwCsANYnS2E2GD9

https://goo.gl/photos/ZnnHeTfjFdTgugZcA

Everything about your model looks accurate... Just Invert The Time Axis then apply a Scalar of 49.97 to the time axis 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402189

((34259 - 22.7012964) / 571) / 20 = 2.99792458

((34259 - 22.7012964) / 34259) * 3 = 2.99801208765

571 & 34259 prime

(34259-1) 2, 7 2447

(34259+1) 2^2, 3, 5, 571

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402233

Am 18.12.2016 14:00, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:

>
> Hello Mr Heger
>
> I believe your "structured space model " is almost completely Accurate, but "incomplete "
>
> You essentially already have Space Separated from time in your Model.
>
> All you have to do is "Put a Multiplier of 49.97 on the Time axis and INVERT TIME back over the top of Space "
>
> https://goo.gl/photos/QkSwCsANYnS2E2GD9
>
> https://goo.gl/photos/ZnnHeTfjFdTgugZcA
>
> Everything about your model looks accurate... Just Invert The Time Axis then apply a Scalar of 49.97 to the time axis

'Invert the axis of time' means something like 'pointing in the other 
direction'?

Well, I do in fact agree. But convention for spacetime diagrams is the 
orientation of the axis of time pointing up.

But 'in real' I would like to draw the timeline pointing down. You could 
somehow imagine, that time would actually drop down and vanishes inside 
the Earth.

I do not apply numerical values, since so far I did no calculations at all.

This is because I tried to follow a certain strategy. This says, you 
discuss questions of the type 'what' prior to questions of the type 'how 
much'.

So I try to derive the appropriate mathematical relations from the 
abstract concepts and then put in numerical values into relations, that 
I regard as valid.

Your approach is somehow the opposite way, since you start with values 
and try to show, there is significance, if these numbers are computed in 
certain ways.

This is also a possibility, supposed that nature does behave in fact 
mathematical. This apparently is the case, so it is possible to juggle 
with numbers, until something fits.

Then the used equation must match some sort of natural phenomenon.

For me it is difficult to understand your concepts, since I don't use 
numbers at all. I don't even use equations, but a method to transfer 
mathematical problems into equivalent geometrical forms, which I can draw.

But thanks anyhow and I try to make use of your hints.



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402234

'Invert the axis of time' means something like 'pointing in the other 
direction'? 

Well, I do in fact agree. But convention for spacetime diagrams is the 
orientation of the axis of time pointing up. 

But 'in real' I would like to draw the timeline pointing down. You could 
somehow imagine, that time would actually drop down and vanishes inside 
the Earth. 

I do not apply numerical values, since so far I did no calculations at all. 

In the Mandelbrot Set, there is no room for a 1/G 50 times larger than c

So I split it in two opposite directions and turn it into a surface area. 

One unit of c area for energy...
7^2 units of c area for 1/G
In a heterodyne 

https://goo.gl/photos/L4tJPCc85BU5QD849

https://goo.gl/photos/iMZ84eA7cP1axUr96

https://goo.gl/photos/j8R9Q6vYiKFcH1f26

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402069

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/ 
 Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/06/28/why-a-physicist-hopes-that-the-lhc-discovers-no-more-new-particles/ 
 Sabine Hossenfelder: "Without some new physics, everyone is concerned we'll have nothing to work with that we haven't had already for 50 years. Without any new inputs that can tell us which direction to look towards in the ultimate goal of unification and/or quantum gravity, we'd finally have to admit the truth: we're completely lost." 

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23857 
 Steve Giddings: "What really keeps me awake at night [...] is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles." 

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..." 

Utterly confused? Completely lost? And spacetime has to be abandoned? But it is just an absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/ 
 "Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

The speed of light is VARIABLE, Einsteinians!

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402174

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 9:14:38 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Quantum gravity is an oxymoron -

And how would you know?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402476

Everything regarding theoretical physics is an Oxymoron, if you haven't notice already.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web