quantum field theories are problematic

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 17:24:40 -0400

Dear Jesse,

    I thought that you knew that there are serious problems with all known
forms of QFT!

See, for example:

http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/qft/

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Mazer" <lasermazer.domain.name.hidden>
To: <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>; <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Bitstrings, Ontological Status and Time


> Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>>Dear Hal,
>>
>>>[HF]
>>>Granted, relativity theory is not a complete and accurate specification
>>>of the world in which we live (that requires QM to be incorporated),
>>>but it is still a self-consistent model which illustrates how time can
>>>be dealt with mathematically in a uniform way with space. Time and
>>>space are not fundamentally different in relativity; they shade into
>>>one another and can even change places entirely, if you cross the event
>>>horizon of a black hole.
>>
>>[SPK]
>>
>> I am trying to include the implications of QM in my thinking and hence
>> my point about time and my polemics against the idea of "block"
>> space-time. I do not care how eminent the person is that advocates the
>> idea of Block space-time, they are simply and provably wrong.
>
> What would your proof be? All quantum field theories are Lorentz-invariant
> (so the same laws apply in different reference frames with different
> definitions of simultaneity), although this refers only to the equations
> governing the dynamics of the fields in between measurements. The
> measurement process itself is still somewhat mysterious, so perhaps some
> interpretations of QM would say that it violates Lorentz-invariance, like
> Bohm's interpretation (although Bohm's interpretation has never been
> successfully extended from nonrelativistic quantum mechanics to
> relativistic quantum field theory) or certain variations of the Copenhagen
> interpretation. But I don't think any version of the MWI would say that
> measurement introduces a preferred reference frame.
>
> Jesse
>
>
Received on Sat May 07 2005 - 17:29:53 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST