Yes, I was thinking of QED and more generally quantum field theory, but
at that point I was unsure whether Jerry meant pre-QM classical
electrical field theory, or some EF theory that tries to account for
quantum effects while remaining classical, or even EF theory as
incorporated by QED.
I'll take the opportunity here to correct an earlier post of mine. I
should have said that the 2014 paper "Test of Lorentz invariance with
atmospheric neutrinos" https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.4267 set the exclusion
of Lorentz-invariance violations down to the order of 8∕100,000,000
(i.e., *8∕10⁸*) of the Planck length, not 8∕10,000,000 (i.e.,
*8∕10**⁷*), because the order of *8∕10⁸* is the one that's seven orders
of magnitude below the previous limit of 8∕10. Eight or some such small
number of one-hundred-millionths of the Planck length is very small, I
wonder whether further research has borne it out.
Best, Ben
On 12/11/2016 11:17 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
On 12/11/2016 7:44 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
if electrical field theory contradicts quantum mechanics and the
uncertainty principle, then it is valid (at most) only in a classical
limit.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is the well developed theory that
unifies quantum mechanics and electrodynamics.
The challenge is to unify gravity with QM + ED. There are hypotheses,
but gravity is so weak that its influence is very hard to detect with
earth-based instruments.
Theoretical physicists certainly recognize the need for experimental
tests. Unfortunately, they're running into the limits of current
technology at the very large and very small.
John
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
