> > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > It didn't seem to me that Event horizons were so much abandoned as > redefined and re-explained. The important question for me is still how > time is regarded in QM and GR. > If the author of the paper is making an incorrect statement, why would > it be reported in Nature without qualification? > > If time is regarded differently in QM and GR, then what is the current > thinking on this discrepancy? I have a hard time imagining that time > operates differently on macro, meso, or quantum scales. (Yes, that is > strictly a lack of knowledge on my part and I know it, but I am > intensely curious as to whether this is a question that is being > explored actively or if it is a problem that some hope will disappear > as other lines of research progress.) It seems to me that something > this basic cannot simply be glossed over without introducing questions > about the validity of a good deal of work done on GR and QM to date. > I also have a hard time believing it is being glossed over. I would > expect this to be something physicists agonize over. >
That was the bit that wierded me out too. And I dare say my physics is way behind yours. But yes, it struck me as being a rather interesting question too. If only we had the time. Andrew _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
