Re: Books
- From: Cliff <Clhuprich@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:39:00 -0500
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:23:26 -0800, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Cliff wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 05:37:33 -0800, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Cliff wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:07:35 -0800, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Cliff:
Well, there ARE seemingly irreconcilable discrepancies between GeneralName them.
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Are you being intentionally obtuse or is this an example of that "Bait
& Tackle" business of yours you mentioned? LOL
===========================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
Inconsistencies arise when one tries to join the quantum laws with
general relativity, a more elaborate description of spacetime which
incorporates gravitation. Resolving these inconsistencies has been a
major goal of twentieth- and twenty-first-century physics. Many
prominent physicists, including Stephen Hawking, have labored in the
attempt to discover a "Grand Unification Theory" that combines not only
different models of subatomic physics, but also derives the universe's
four forces?the strong force, electromagnetism, weak force, and
gravity? from a single force or phenomenon.
Much of the difficulty in merging these theories at all energy scales
comes from the different assumptions that these theories make on how
the universe works. Quantum field theory depends on particle fields
embedded in the flat space-time of special relativity. General
relativity models gravity as a curvature within space-time that changes
as a gravitational mass moves. Historically, the most obvious way of
combining the two (such as treating gravity as simply another particle
field) ran quickly into what is known as the renormalization problem.
In the old-fashioned understanding of renormalization, gravity
particles would attract each other and adding together all of the
interactions results in many infinite values which cannot easily be
canceled out mathematically to yield sensible, finite results. This is
in contrast with quantum electrodynamics where, while the series still
do not converge, the interactions sometimes evaluate to infinite
results, but those are few enough in number to be removable via
renormalization.
Points of tension:
There are two other points of tension between quantum mechanics and
general relativity.
First, classical general relativity breaks down at singularities, and
quantum mechanics becomes inconsistent with general relativity in the
neighborhood of singularities (however, no one is certain that
classical general relativity applies near singularities in the first
place).
Second, it is not clear how to determine the gravitational field of a
particle, since under the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum
mechanics its location and velocity cannot be known with certainty. The
resolution of these points may come from a better understanding of
general relativity[4].
===========================================================
Where are the "irreconcilable discrepancies"?
Cliff:
You're starting to worry me, you seem to be having trouble lately
parsing complete sentences and paragraphs.
It was your phrase, not mine.
Let me list some of the
discrepancies above in a condensed format.
1. Quantum theory depends on flat space-time -
Does it?
General Relativity uses
curved space-time.
Always?
2. QM & GR become inconsistent near singularities.
How so?
Does either work inside?
And you tested this how?
3. The gravitational field of a quantum particle is hard to determine
under Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
How so? Mass is, after all, mass.
So what?
Have you informed such as Stephen Hawking?
You're kidding, right? Hawking is one of the ones uncovering
discrepancies between QM & GR.
If there were "irreconcilable discrepancies" why would he or
anybody else bother?
====================================================================
http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/meta/meta.htm
Hawking showed that quantum effects might cause black holes to radiate
away energy-and therefore mass-until they eventually evaporate. He
summed up his finding with the phrase "Black holes ain't so black."
Because a black hole represents, at least in principle, a record of the
processes that created it, its evaporation results in a permanent loss
of information. The past, in a sense, is eradicated. Hawking
proclaimed, and many theorists agreed, that he had uncovered a paradox
that could be resolved only by modifying either quantum mechanics or
general relativity.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
====================================================================
http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v62/n5/images/4493262f1b.gif
Ahh yes. More silliness to fill in the gaps I see. LOL
There was a very clear purpose.
--
Cliff
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: CNC Machinist (5 Axis) Needed (Detroit)
- Next by Date: Re: Books
- Previous by thread: Re: Books
- Next by thread: Re: Books
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
