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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #402173

Re: Is Quantum Gravity an Oxymoron?

Show all headers | View raw

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

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

Thread

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

csiph-web