Ark wrote there today:
Saturday, January 14, 2006, 10:15:47 AM, you wrote:
A. Einstein and some other known scientists considered division of Physics on quantum and classical as the temporary phenomenon, connected with limitation of our modern knowledge.This may be the case. But it may be not the case as well. We divide natural numbers into even and odd numbers, for example. This division is, as it seems, NOT connected with limitation of our modern knowledge. Of course, at some point we may come to the conclusion that the very concept of a "natural number" is misleading, and that there are NO natural numbers as such (for instance numbers may be always associated to something, there are no "pure" numbers), but the fact that some are better be considered as "odd" and some as "even" in "usual circumstances" may have some objectivity. Similarly the division into "classical" and "quantum" domains may have some objectivity. Moreover, it may well happen that with the growth of our knowledge we can understand this division better and better, and that it will be getting sharper and sharper (as it is rather fuzzy right now.)
Physics (in opinion the great scientist) should be uniform and the unification classical and quantum physics should take place on base of the further development of the principle of relativity.Again, is is difficult to imagine a "unification" between even and odd numbers. Understanding that there are other numbers (for instance rational numbers) that are neither even nor odd helps us a little bit. So, perhaps, the future of science is in understanding that there is a whole spectrum of phenomena that are neither classical nor quantum,that are still not classified and not "tamed."
For this purpose the program of the Unify Field Theory was formulated by Einstein. This program assumes:What Einstein was trying to do is to find a unified language that would enable us to find a continuous transition between gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena. It seems that Einstein was not yet quite ready to face the consequences of such a departure from the standard Weltshau. He got scared and he tried to find an "easy way". But perhaps there is no easy way?
1. Distribution of the general principle of relativity on the classical electrodynamics, i.e. geometrization electromagnetic field (the minimum program).
2. Distribution of the general principle of relativity on the quantum theory, i.e. geometrization of the right part of the Einstein equations - energy momentum tensor, formed by quantum fields (the maximum program ).Einstein was not a very good mathematician. To some extent that was good, because mathematicians often seek "simplicity" and Nature seems to have her own concept of simplicity that is always ahead of our human ideas about simplicity. Therefore experiment and common sense are needed to tame mathematicians. But to have insufficient, inadequate, mathematical background creates problems of its own. Einstein did not know much about spinors, for instance. Would he had the knowledge and expertise of Cartan - he could probably go some other way.
Though many leading scientists ideologically agree with Einstein, they, nevertheless, continue to accept for initial point of development of physics the quantum theory, modernized by formal expansion of its representations (the theory of strings, superstrings, membranes, brans, matrixes, etc.).I do not think that strings and superstrings have anything to do with "quantum theory". They rather obscure quantum theory than expand it.
I think this point of view deadlock. Absence of significant results testifies it during many years.
Shipov GennadyClearly there is a deadlock. But this deadlock may have reasons that go beyond science. Perhaps we are living in an era of decadency and disintegration of our society, our culture, our science. Perhaps we do not really care for the truth. Perhaps politicians and bankers are doing their job by not allowing science to develop freely, and today they have global means of control like never before in the officially registered history of humanity.
Where to go then? Is there a chance? I do not know.
Torsion fields are widely attacked in Russia. Why? Perhaps because there something valuable about this concept. Lavrentev in Novosibirsk is being also attacked as "pseudo-scientist". Perhaps he and his group is onto something. Frolov may also be having some reasonable ideas. Today we are discussing Heim's theory. In March 2000 I was asking our "friends from the future", Cassiopaean's about Heim. Here is the extract:
Q: (A) I have two questions. The first question is about a German fellow named Heim who wrote a couple of books about gravity, antigravity, and all kinds of strange theories that somehow fit what I think is the right direction. These theories were advertised on the internet by our friend, Brandt, and I looked into it and they seem to be interesting. But, they are in German and are costly. They may be useful, but on the other hand it may be a risk.There is no way to say if they may be valuable or not. So, is it worthwhile to invest in these books?I can't say I know more today. But Heim is talking about additional dimensions, about complex space-time etc. The same things Einstein was thinking about, the same things that physicists trying to understand remote viewing are looking at, the same things I was writing about in my papers and monographs, the same things that Tony Smith is looking at. There is a hope. Nova Zarya - New Dawn?
A: Well, the books contain valuable information, but it is not all valid. One must weave. Static electricity engages a part of continuum.
Q: This relates to these books?
A: Yes. Three pronged instrument. Wave transducer.
Q: I guess that means it's worthwhile to study these books.
A: "Heim." Pseudonym?? Clue?
Translating from Russian the forbidden song "New Dawn" by Oleg Gazmanov:
Refrain: Hey, here comes a new dawn,We don't want to live in vain Yet how can we win, if we are so easy to buy How can we win, If we are so easy to sell
It seems that space-time may have fractal properties. It seems that the phenomena we consider as being "random" are not random at all, that they can tell us many things, provided we know the code. David Finkelstein was writing about space-time code many years ago. Perhaps the concept of a "code" is an important one. And, perhaps, "time" is not as simple as Einstein thought, not as simple as Heim thought, not as simple as Kozyrev thought and not as simple as Tifft though.