I should have added this in the previous post. it is an article about
time from a different perspective.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.1604v1.pdf
 
Ronald

On Dec 10, 1:01 pm, ronaldheld <ronaldh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have problems accepting some of these approaches. It seems that he
> mostly uses QM without really considering GR. Without a proper theory
> of Quantum Gravity, it is difficult to know what approach yields
> correct results.
>
> Ronald
>
> On Dec 9, 1:40 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 09 Dec 2009, at 11:25, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> > > Anyone want to give this a try and comment?
> > >  http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf
>
> > He cites only Isham (very good book, by the way), for the non collapse  
> > view. it may be interesting to describe the crystallization in that  
> > setting. The wave collapse is never properly defined.
>
> > Bruno
>
> >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


Reply via email to