Re: OT: Relativity ,super-luminal communications and time travel (Was OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada))

[aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch)]

dmytrylavrov@fsmail.net (Dmytry Lavrov) wrote:
> there's no theory for general relativity and quantum.

I strongly suspect that many people make living from that theory,
though.
So, I reckon that this theory exists, in some quite physical sense.

>  Of course while simple mix

Why simple? It is quite complicated. 

> of general relativity and quantum phisicaly have no meaning,

It isn't a problem. Just because whatever meaning it may have, we
still
have absolutely no chance to touch that meaning in reasonable future -
before we produce entirely different theories on those matters, and
not once.

> so it's possible to do some "right" math with wrong sources.

Those who "do math" never worry too much about the correspondence
between
mathematics and meaning. They are too busy doing math - you know, they
must do it right and meet a deadline for a conference, and this is not
an easy or simple job - they are working hard enough, and competition
level
is high.

> It have all signs of bad sci-fi,even if it's really a good work.

How can it be otherwise? Recall that the most important common notion
of
relativity (both special and general) theory and quantum mechanics is
the
notion of observer - and then guess who is observer here.

  Well. let me tell one very old personal story, for relaxation. When
I was
a child (about 10 years old) I attended a public popular lecture on
quantum
mechanics, given by one of the most prominent Soviet physisists of
that time,
I.M.Lifshitz. At the end of the lecture he invited the public to ask
questions,
and I asked him: how can we speak about the law of conservation of
energy in
the presence of inequality (delta E) * (delta t) >= h ? That is, as we
can't
measure this things - time moments and energy levels - simultaneously
and
precisely, how can we claim that the energy is the same in different
moments?
He almost laughed and "explained" that just because of that
fundamental fact
we can say that the law of conservation of energy is true in quantum
mechanics.
It sounds like that inequality saves that law. Naturally, I was deeply
unsatisfied with this explanation. Several months later I was a guest
in his
home, and he tried to explain me the same thing personally, and
wasted,
perhaps, half an hour for that, but in vain - I remained stubborn.
This story
has no happy end - I must confess that I still don't understand that
way of
thinking (or expression), and many beautiful and really consistent
mathematical
theories of which I became aware later (and which give various
interpretations
for that inequality) can't help here.



Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia