Dear Jesse,

I thought that you knew that there are serious problems with all known forms of QFT!

See, for example:

http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/qft/

Stephen

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Bitstrings, Ontological Status and Time



Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Hal,

[HF]
Granted, relativity theory is not a complete and accurate specification
of the world in which we live (that requires QM to be incorporated),
but it is still a self-consistent model which illustrates how time can
be dealt with mathematically in a uniform way with space.  Time and
space are not fundamentally different in relativity; they shade into
one another and can even change places entirely, if you cross the event
horizon of a black hole.

[SPK]

I am trying to include the implications of QM in my thinking and hence my point about time and my polemics against the idea of "block" space-time. I do not care how eminent the person is that advocates the idea of Block space-time, they are simply and provably wrong.

What would your proof be? All quantum field theories are Lorentz-invariant (so the same laws apply in different reference frames with different definitions of simultaneity), although this refers only to the equations governing the dynamics of the fields in between measurements. The measurement process itself is still somewhat mysterious, so perhaps some interpretations of QM would say that it violates Lorentz-invariance, like Bohm's interpretation (although Bohm's interpretation has never been successfully extended from nonrelativistic quantum mechanics to relativistic quantum field theory) or certain variations of the Copenhagen interpretation. But I don't think any version of the MWI would say that measurement introduces a preferred reference frame.


Jesse





Reply via email to