Re: The Quantum Gravity Problem

"Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message news:0m2qkc.f92.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net...
> Dan wrote:
>
> > Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message
> > news:<n72pkc.f8h.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net>...
> >> Here is a little its-been-a-good-week Friday musing.
> >>
> >> I wonder if database theory is suffering from a version of what is
going
> >> on
> >> in Physics. In Physics for the past few decades they have had to
> >> struggle with the fact that the two fundamental theories of the
twentieth
> >> century do
> >> not play nice together. Relativity describes gravity well, but it is
not
> >> a
> >> quantum theory. Quantum theory is considered the most successful
theory
> >> in history, but does not describe gravity. Since most physicists
believe
> >> that the underlying truths are quantum in nature, everyone is searching
> >> for a quantum theory of gravity, instead of searching for the
> >> relativistic theory of E & M and nuclear forces.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > I remember these discussions from earlier in this newsgroup <ugh!>.
> > It also seems that others have been discussing this very topic.
> >
> > Here is a dialog on the subject:
> > http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/1383843.htm
> >
>
> Well, I think dialog is a strong word when discussing the work of Mr.
> Pascal. There are some pearls there, but the static sometimes gives me a
> headache.

I just figure it must be difficult for him to learn anything given that his site and work is about debunking everyone else -- such a burden to be the one who knows everything when intellectual peasants share the planet with him ;-)
--dawn

> --
> Kenneth Downs
> Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
> email me
Received on Sun Oct 17 2004 - 17:32:18 CDT