> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)"
cox.net> wrote...
> in message news:x5Fnk.17184$1N1.258@newsfe07.iad......
>>> That much seems clear, David. I'm not completely
>>> sure how any given theory can "assume" whether
>>> another theory is interesting or not, however it does
>>> appear to be crystal clear that both theories are
>>> "mutually exclusive approximations, with limited
>>> domains of applicability".
>>>
>>> Question is... WHY?
>>
>> *I* think this is because we don't have the tools
>> to do it any other way. If we are designing an
>> antenna, we use Maxwell rather than quantum mechanics.
>
> Good point, David. However, while...
>
>>> Both theories handle reality very well.
>>
>> *Portions* of reality. One says nothing
>> verifiable about the small, and the other
>> says nothing about space / time / extent.
>
> ...there is one aspect of reality that is
> assumed by science to be one common
> thread between the large and small, the
> macro and the micro, the relativity and
> quantum theories...
>
> G R A V I T Y
>>> You and i would not be able to have this conversation
>>> if it were not for both theories and the ensuing
>>> technology and industry that came from them. So
>>> why in your estimation do they not "jive" with one
>>> another?
>>
>> What does a pile driver and a syringe have in
>> common? This is merely a matter of scale...
>
> Ouch! on both counts.
>
> Both of these tools are incapable of performing the
> work of the other. A typical syringe cannot do the
> work of a pile driver, nor can the pile driver insert
> (hopefully) healthful fluids into a living body. The
> tools (whether we as yet have them or not) of the
> two incompatible theories, quantum and relativity,
> are expected to provide a complete picture of the
> physical reality of gravity.
>
> If they cannot, then it is up to science to figure out
> where their weaknesses lie and strengthen them.
We know they are both "broken". They simply make no predictions
that are meaningful / testable in the other's domain. But then
Newton's mechanics and Newton's gravitation were at best
"adjacent" if not "orthogonal" prior to unification in GR.
>>> If we were able to answer that, then it might put
>>> us closer to a viable unified field theory.
>>>
>>> It is a weakness that can and ought to be
>>> strengthened.
>>>
>>> And please don't give the usual modern copout
>>> and say that the Uncertainty Principle allows for
>>> such enigma.
>>
>> I can be more enigmatic than that!
>>
>> I liken the difference between the two theories
>> as "population dynamics" (general relativity) and
>> "abberant psychology" (quantum mechanics).
>> The subjects are the same, but the assumptions
>> made are made because in toto, the problem
>> cannot be modelled. Yet.
>
> Love your final key word!
>
> It's a humbling challenge for physicists, which
> is yet another reason there is no room for
> arrogance in the reality searchings of science.
>
> (Rest certain that i refer to others, David, not you.
> You thus far have been the epitome of reason and
> the power of thought in this discussion!)
But we are humans, Paine, and sometimes our roads cost us much.
When others appear to trod on essentially man-centuries of work,
without understanding / comprehension / interest, "arrogance"
seems like a reasonable response to me.
Let's suppose we were discussing the Louvre, and someone
dismissed it as "the place with a bunch of old pictures in it".
Keep in mind that Science is a house built with members that are
in exact opposition, and members are operate intentionally at 90
degrees to previous members. A house with all the members facing
one way is really a "pike square".
At what distance does "antagonism" on which Science is founded,
look like "arrogance"?
Don't have to forgive them, don't have to acknowledge them, don't
have to agree with them, don't have to "repair their damage".
What is arrogance towards those that are arrogant? A waste of
effort. If the interest has bitten someone, no "curmudgeon" will
stop them from learning. Spot the bud and water it, don't spite
the Sun for withering it a bit.
Man, can I stick any more platitudes in... ;>( bleh.
David A. Smith
