On Sep 5, 3:28 pm, "RLG" wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Sep 4, 1:30 am, Uncle Al wrote:
Rex wrote:

Special Relativity and General Relativity are pretty boring.

[snip crap]

Idiot. SR is GR with G=0.

1. quantising General Relativity

GR founding postulates c=c G=G h=0. Can't be quantized by definition.

Idiot

2. quantising a different classical theory, while still having
general relativity emerge as a low-energy (large-distance) limit.

ALL classical gravitation theories postulate h=0. "Classical" =
"non-quantized"

Idiot.

3. having general relativity emerge as a low-energy limit
of a quantum theory that is not a quantization of a classical
theory

You don't know the difference between weak field and strong field vs.
classical and quantum limits.

Idiot.

4. having both general relativity and quantum theory emerge
from a theory very different from both

[snip crap]

A high school pendulum with sin(theta)=theta and the full expression
with a power series of angle cannot wildly diverge from a common
origin, ditto Newton and Einstein. The common background is still
there wahtever the decimal trim.

Idiot.

This assumes QM and GR coming from a
another theory where you can overdide probabilities,
etc.

Idiot.

You are the mother of all idiots. The above 4 possibilities
come from your colleague: See this intreresting 58 page paper:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903072

It appears in the $53 book "Physics Meet Philosophy at
the Planck Scale". What is good is that 80% of the
papers mentioned in this book can be found at arxiv.

Do not put too much stock in the above mentioned paper. It is very
improbable and implausible that special relativity is wrong and some
philosophers like to write papers to try to undermine relativity. Also, the
papers at arxiv that challenge relativity have a lot of problems. Both
string theory and M-theory are the best candidates for grand unification of
the quanta and spacetime. The paper you cite has a number of errors in it;
for example it falsely claims that the diameter of quarks are about 10^-18
meters. In the standard model, quarks have no size at all, that is they are
points. The standard model of particle physics is what is called a point
quantum field theory. In string theory, quarks can have a size of about
10^-35 meters, the Planck size. In fact that is one of the primary
distinguishing characteristics between point quantum field theory and string
theory: In both string and M-theory, the quanta have a little bit of spatial
extent.

R- Hide quoted text -

What part (or pages) in the above paper is it mentioned that special
relativity is wrong? The paper is simply giving a bird eye view of
the
approaches to quantum gravity.

Rex


- Show quoted text -