Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
- From: Charles Francis <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 07:29:43 +0000 (UTC)
In message <den79c$27nr$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rof@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes
>"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.
>
Yes. I think I can confirm that. Mind you I don't think I would have
found the teleparallel aspect if I hadn't been thinking from a
relational perspective.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincare acknowledged as the true discoverer of special relativity?
- Next by Date: Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
- Previous by thread: Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
- Next by thread: Pedagogy of QM Double Slit Experiment
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
