Quantum Gravity 214.0: Lubos Motl on QG Myth "Gravity May Be Classical"
- From: OsherD <mdoctorow@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:03:55 -0800 (PST)
From Osher Doctorow
Lubos Motl's new site, http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-elementary-myths-about-quantum.htm,
lists "The Reference Frame" on top and then "Some elementary myths
about quantum gravity," Tuesday May 15, 2007. Lubos, who left
Harvard for his native Czech Republic (or so his site indicates and so
does the rest of the relevant internet), may have finally gotten a
translator or perhaps the time to write a really coherent and useful
list and description of "myths" in Quantum Gravity, although I
disagree on arguments with several of them.
Here I'll discuss his "Myth" that "Gravity may be classical," that is
to say he regards that as a myth.
His basic argument is that QM involves probabilities and probability
amplitudes, so it can't be Classical. Even the metric tensor is an
operator with a probability interpretation because the positions of
objects are Quantum observables with different probability amplitudes
for different values, which according to Motl influences the right
hand side of Einstein's equations.
This is an argument about labels, not Fundamentals. Lubl seems to
have no trouble in regarding variations or modifications of QM as
"Quantum Theory," so why should we not regard modifications of
Classical Mechanics and Classical Physics as "Classical Theory," even
if they involve Probability?
Lubl also misunderstands Probability here. The Stochastic
(Probabilistic) School of QM regards all of QM as Probabilistic, but
so do their analogs outside Quantum Theory regard all of Physics as
Probabilistic including the case of Probability 1 ("certainty,"
although technically this means "certainty up to sets of probability
0," which sets are very important and include the subject of the
Holographic Principle, lower dimensional sets). True, there aren't
that many things attributed to the "Probability 1" case, but to a
close enough approximation most of them can be regarded as less than 1
probabilistically. If I tell you that an equation holds for events/
processes/sets of probability .999999999999 or less, then you'll have
a hard time challenging me for most things.
It is useful, at least, for Motl to have isolated this as an alleged
"Myth", because it turns out from my viewpoint that the Myth is on the
"other side", and this clarifies much of Physics.
Osher Doctorow
.
- Prev by Date: "Do Virtual Photons Exist?"
- Next by Date: Mitt Romney is a lieing PIG on illegal immigration
- Previous by thread: "Do Virtual Photons Exist?"
- Next by thread: Mitt Romney is a lieing PIG on illegal immigration
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
