From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-01 20:38:15 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OT: Relativity ,super-luminal communications and time travel (Was OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada)) Date: 1 Dec 2003 20:38:14 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <49cbf610.0311191248.7eb48a43@posting.google.com> <49cbf610.0311200221.1df60a@posting.google.com> <49cbf610.0311291522.43865a57@posting.google.com> <49cbf610.0311300940.1d54147d@posting.google.com> <49cbf610.0312010502.2bd63c23@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.33.245.129 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1070339895 29025 127.0.0.1 (2 Dec 2003 04:38:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 04:38:15 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3065 Date: 2003-12-01T20:38:14-08:00 List-Id: 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