🚀 go-pugleaf

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message 
news:4B9BABEC.17AEDEF9@hate.spam.net...
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> [snip 138 lines of crap]
>
> If GR is "compatible" with QFT, the claimant is an idiot.
>
> Newton
> c=infinity G=G h=0
> Special Relativity
> c=c        G=0 h=0
> General Relativity
> c=c        G=G h=0
> Quantum mechanics
> c=infinity G=0 h=h
> Quantum field theory
> c=c        G=0 h=h
>
> General Relativity's physical systems are always spatially separable
> into independent components. Systems of three or more particles
> require cluster separability (macroscopic locality).  When the system
> is separated into subsystems, the overall mathematical description
> must reduce to descriptions of the subsystems.  This is vital in
> scattering problems with two or more fragments.
>
> Quantum mechanics allows entangled states (superpositions of product
> states) that require a fundamental irresolvable connection within
> readily demonstrated physical systems (two-slit diffraction, the
> Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox).  Macroscopic locality is violated:
> Measuring the state of one slit in a double slit experiment alters the
> observed diffraction pattern to single slit patterns (quantum eraser
> experiments).
>
> Relativistic and quantum views are incommensurable.
>
> General Relativity models continuous spacetime, going beyond conformal
> symmetry (scale independence) to symmetry under all smooth coordinate
> transformations - general covariance (the stress-energy tensor
> embodying local energy and momentum) - resisting quantization.
> General Relativity is invariant under transformations of the
> diffeomorphism group.  General Relativity predicts evolution of an
> initial system state with arbitrary certainty.
>
> Quantum mechanics' observables display discrete states. Heisenberg's
> Uncertainty Principle limits knowledge about conjugate variables in a
> system state, disallowing exact prediction of its evolution.
>
> Relativistic and quantum views are incommensurable.
>
> idiot
>
> -- 
> Uncle Al

===================

  Jives with Chaos Theory, the Science of Complexity, and also, long before 
them, Edward Gibbon (18th century) and Will Durant (20th century), among so 
many others, on the nature of History itself: Always presenting the same 
smoother aspect but never the same finer detail. Utopia-like entropic 
aspect. Frontier-like energetic detail. Large aspect being far simpler, far 
less differentiated (far less varied), far more certain and predictable (in 
trends), though rarely so obviously so in foresight (conversely, always so 
obviously so in hindsight). Far more reachable and graspable....far less 
discrete. Fine detail being far more complex, far more differentiated (far 
more varied), far more uncertain and unpredictable (in trends). Far more 
unreachable and ungraspable....far more discrete. Each being always within 
the other as an integral inseparable part and side of the other. The two 
always being the fullest -most absolute- equals.

  Dismiss one, at any time, as being of lesser presence and consequence, you 
are in deep trouble with the other. You then have little dimension.

GLB

===================