🚀 go-pugleaf

paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>Well it was careless of me to call that `my formalism', I hardly regard
it as a major lapse. 

On sci.physics the slightest error counts as a major lapse if someone
with a reputation for precision commits it, while utter drivel emitted
in sufficient quantities is ignored.  :-)
 
>It is easy to write down the equations that describe examples of the
>class of models I am proposing. I have been doing computer simulations of
>these for years. The difficult part is going from this to macroscopic
>experimental predictions. I doubt that any one person working by themselves
>could accomplish this. I recognized this from the beginning.

Okay, that's good.

>> Even better would be convincing or paying someone to
>> do the crucial experimental test of Bell's inequality.

>What do you think I have been trying to do for the last several years with
>these postings? 

Talking to the wrong people.  I don't think anyone here does Aspect-type
experiments.

>My emphasis has always been on the importance of doing the
>experiment because it is likely to be profoundly important. I have already
>offered a place in history and a probable Nobel prize to the experimenter
>who does it correctly. What more could you ask? :-)

A salary in the meantime?  :-)

>As for paying for the experiment, do you think everyone who works in Silicon
>valley on computers is rich from stock options?

No, but you just need to find one and convince them to bankroll such an
experiment.  Don't worry, I wasn't under the delusion that YOU had the money.

>> (I should add
>> that I have simply been taking your word all along on the claim that
>>existing tests fail to ensure spacelike separation.  Shows how nice I
>> really am.   :-))

>I have given references so you do not need to take my word.

Thanks, I may look 'em up sometime.  

>>>Tests
>>>of locality can be done using existing technology. Perhaps you should
>>>consider changing your area of research. :-)

>>Alas, I'm a mathematician, not an experimentalist.  I had enough
>>trouble trying to light a Coleman stove last weekend.  

>I was not suggesting you become an experimenter. I have the impression
>that the changes to general relativity that you are proposing would
>only have experimentally observable affects near the Planck length. I do
>not believe that such affects are experimentally accessible by existing
>or foreseeable technologies. Thus I do not see how you can know if your
>theory is correct. Perhaps I am wrong about this.

Since I am a mathematician I get my kicks from working to render
compatible the formalisms of general relativity and quantum mechanics
and ponder the many nice mathematical spinoffs.  I would be utterly
delirious with pleasure if I came up with a nice quantum theory that had
classical general relativity as its hbar -> 0 limit.  This would be the
sort of theorem that would make me feel I had accomplished my goals.
The loop variables formalism already hints at such a result but there
are a lot of things to work out.

Since I feel pretty confident that quantum theory and general relativity
have a lot of truth to them, I suspect that a mathematically elegant
unification of them will be physically important, even if it's not the
Theory of Everything, that is, the Truth with a capital T.  It is too
early to say what predictions a good theory of quantum gravity would
make far above the Planck length but there are some interesting notions
such as getting fermions and charged particles from fluctuations in
topology, which might allow a serious simplification in the standard
model and even some predictions.  

>In any event, when the test of Bell's inequality is done correctly,
>many theoreticians will be redirecting their area of research. You
>may be among them.

No point in talking tough.  We made our bet and time will tell who's right.