Arrgghhh!!! I almost puked when i read that last one,
David! (
just kidding)
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" cox.net> wrote...
in message news:pN5ok.16648$yn5.12523@newsfe08.iad...>> "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.
Why do you suppose there is still no viable quantum
theory of gravity? And how do you envision gravitons
as they somehow "cause" gravity?
BTW, links are good -- i don't mind links. Yet i'd also
like to see your personal take on quantum gravity.
>>>> 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.
Does it !
> Let's suppose we were discussing the Louvre, and someone dismissed it as
> "the place with a bunch of old pictures in it".
Now, you're describing an "emotional" analogy, one
that does not (or should not) fit. I've been to the
Mus
