Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
- From: rof@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:17:51 +0000 (UTC)
"Ivica Kolar" <telpro@xxxxxxx> writes:
>Pardon me for interfering with your discussion,
Done.
><rof@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>..
>> And, since relational quantum mechanics is an interpretation, it gives
>> the same predictions as regular quantum mechanics, or rather, makes
>> no predictions apart from those already made by regular quantum mechanics.
>Can you check this, please:
>"Cosmological Redshift in a Relational Quantum Theory
>..The model differs from general relativity by replacing the affine
>connection with a teleparallel displacement of momentum in the quantum
>domain..."
>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508077
I've been looking at that now and then for almost two months, and
I'm afraid I haven't given it as much attention as I should have,
mainly because I've been spending a lot of time thinking about
rats' brains.
In any case, it appears to me, although I may be wrong (I'm
corresponding with Charles to try to understand more clearly),
that the relational aspect of the paper is separable from
the teleparallel aspect, and that the second is not a deduction
from the first.
R.
.
- References:
- Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
- From: I.Vecchi
- Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
- From: rof
- Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
- From: Ivica Kolar
- Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
- Prev by Date: Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- Next by Date: Re: Maxwell's theory is not Poincare invariant.
- Previous by thread: Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
- Next by thread: Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
