> The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity
Not that I expect you to respond to any of this but...
> Over the years the existence of a conflict between Quantum Theory and
> General Relativity has been repeatedly mentioned in publications. Quantum
> Theory deals very well with the very small. It has proven to be phenomenally
> accurate in every test.
So far so good.
> General Relativity deals fairly well with the very
> large, but cannot be tested to a meaningful accuracy, at least in the puny
> Solar gravitational field in which we can make precise observations. It is not
> possible to determine whether our observations overlook second order
> deviations.
General relativity corrects for the perturbations in Mercury's orbit
accurately. It also successfully deals with a number of other
interstellar phenomena (such as the effect of seeing two stars in
slightly different locations in the sky that are in fact one, etc) I
am not aware of any tests that General Relativity has not conclusively
passed.
> In order to be correct, however, the two theories must produce
> compatible results at the boundary between the very large and the very small.
A unified gravitational theory would successfully work in this region,
yes. Neither QM nor GR makes accurate predictions at this level, as
you will mention in a moment.
> THEY DON'T and the fact that they don't has led to incredible gyrations among
> theoretical physicists over the last several decades. Quantum theory can't be
> wrong, its observational testing has produced phenomenally accurate results in
> every aspect.
In the regions where quantum theory is generally applicable
(gravitational effects are negligible), quantum theory is solid.
> General Relativity cannot be wrong since it was mathematically
> derived by Dr. Einstein and accepted by learned conferences and committees.
That is a loaded statement if I've ever heard one. I think a more
accurate statement would be: In the regions where general relativity
is generally applicable (quantum effects are negligible), general
relativity is solid. Where or not Dr. Einstein derived or not is not
relavent (Einstein did not win a Nobel prize for either of the
relativity theories, interestingly enough)
> To settle the impasse, theoreticians have developed superstring theory
> which asserts that everything in the universe is composed of loops of string
> having lengths on the order of 10^-35 meters vibrating in 11 (or 26)
> dimensions.
That is one of many theories that are attempting to form a unified
theory. It is hardly the only one, or even the prevailing one.
> Standing back and looking at the situation, it would seem it would
> seem that it is time to stand back and say "Hey, wait a minute!".
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> significant attempt to describe that required 4 dimensional Euclidean space
> seems to have been made.
www.google.com --> "Spacetime"
> 2.- It alleges that what we experience as the 'force of gravity' results from
> the "curvature of space", that objects move in "straight lines" in that "curved
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> experience as gravity any more than the curvature of the Earth's surface can
> produce a force along a great circle path.
Try doing a course on tensor calculus. In brief, consider a big rubber
sheet stretched as far as possible. Now, place a heavy object on that
sheet and notice how it curves around the object--specifically, it
curves more greatly the closer to the object you are. If another
object is placed close to the heavy object, and friction is neglected,
it will accelerate in the direction of the large object. This premise
is similar to the effects of GR.
> 3:- When one attempts to apply General Relativity to the small scale, the
> allegedly "curved space" becomes more and more violently curved. This violent
> curvature would not occur if the gravitational field did not produce spatial
> curvature and superstring theories would become meaningless since the quantum
> and gravitational theories would then blend smoothly.
If QM and GR blended smoothly, but wrongly, then it would be useless.
In my opinion, string theories are worse than useless, but that's just
me.
> For some reason, the community of theoretical physicists seems incapable
> of challenging the validity of GR because of the requirement that their work be
> politically rather than objectively correct.
And because no gravitational theory has been presented that predicts
anywhere near as accurately as general relativity. Simply put, it is
the best gravitational theory we have, and has been experimentally
shown to be sound excepting in the particular region where quantum
effects cannot be neglected (but again, Quantum theory does not work
in regions where gravitational effects apply)
> As has been shown in these
> postings and in http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/gravity.htm , the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> alleged to have confirmed the validity of GR, and if it did not work in three
> dimensional Euclidean space.
Of course the material would be presented. This is the internet. Any
high school dropout who couldn't figure out his first relativity class
can make up a bunch of bullshit with no basis in reality and call it
true. In order for the information to be deemed accurate, it must be
able to AT LEAST:
1) predict as accurately or more accurately in every case as GR
2) accurately make predictions about situations where GR does not
predict accurately
3) become published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal
Otherwise, it is a useless theory.
[snip]
> EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
> HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
> BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
> REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
> THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
General relativity and quantum theory both meet these requirements.
[snip]
> The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
So you admit to being trolls. Well, at least you're honest ones.
> There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
> mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
> provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
> material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Well, honestly, on sci.physics alone, I've seen literally dozens of
rebuttals to the foolishness presented on this website. And yet, it is
still there.
A.
Rehteizq - 28 Nov 2004 16:19 GMT
1. General Relativity only superficially corrects for the perturbations of
Mercury's Orbit, the bending of starlight, and the time dilation. The Sun's
field, at its surface is at least 5 orders of magnitude too weak to reveal GR's
errors. The errors are revealed, for example, in the foolishess of the black
hole concept. Gravitational collapse is stopped by radiation pressure.
2.There would seem to be no problem with quantum theory at any level. Due to a
basic error in its derivation, howver, GR leads to the absurdity of quantum
foam at small scales and produces a conflict. That conflict goes away when the
nature of the gravitational fiedl is correctly derived.
3. The rubber sheet explanatioj does not work unless there is a very strong
attractive force perpendicular to the sheet. Any absurdity can be demonstrated
by inventing the appropriate model. As to the use of tensor calculus, I have
observed over years of working with PhD's in the areospace electronics
industry, that these individuals resort to tensor calculus to avoid the need to
understand what they are working on. I have spent many hours cleaning up the
results of the errors they have produced, fortunately, while the errors were
expensive, it was not my money.
4. I suspect that Qm and Gravity would blend quite smoothly if a valid
gravitational theory were used.
5. A gravitational theory which makes correct predictions is easily derived
from basic assumptions using two independent methods. The gravitational field
of the Sun is too weak by at least 5 orders of magnitude to choose between
them. It is false to assert that GR has been validated.
6. As to being published in a peer reviewed journal, it is unfortunate, but the
primary purpose of peer review is to act as defenders of the faith and prevent
the established truth from being challenged.
My experience with peer reviewers is that they by and large are not too bright!
7. General Relativity hardly meets the requirement of world class work.
8. You have not read any valid rebuttals to my posting s from individuals who
understand the subject. Most of the responses weere too foolish for a response.
I wish those who respond would learn the subject matter and learn to think
before they respond! I have yet to receive a reply, including yours, which meet
that requirement.
Einsteinhoac@aol.com