Re: [Phys-l] Is evolution something to believe in?

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

Hi all-
	1. "Incompatible" in the context of a conclusory statement 
standing alone, is both pompous and meaningless.  In the context of the 
referenced discussion, it takes on some meaning.
	In the context of physics, it is basically irrelevant, because to 
so-called incompatibility does not, as far as I've been able to discover, 
impede our understanding of any observable physical phenomena.
	Whether the difficulties are "serious" or not seems to be 
dependent upon the kind of "spin" one tries to put upon the difficulties.
	2.  In this connection, one should not forget the fact that there 
are still debates about our understanding of ordinary non-relativistic 
quantum mechanics, having to do with such matters as "collalpse of the 
wave function".  These debates do not seem to impede our ability to do 
physics.
			Regards,
				Jack


On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, chuck britton wrote:

> The reference below certainly spells out some serious difficulties
> that presently prevent the 'unification' of GR & QM.
>
> Perhaps 'incompatible' is too strong a word - but hardly a
> 'meaningless pomposity' if I read the referenced comments correctly.
>
>
> On Apr 5, 2008, at 1:11 AM, Jack Uretsky wrote:
>
> > Hi all-
> >  	Like all generalities (including this one) the bald statement "GR
> > and QM are incompatible" is a meaningless pomposity.  One intelligent
> > response might be: How are QM and GR incompatible - which brings the
> > statement down to specifics that can be discussed.  A nice example is
> > found at
> >  	http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=138373.
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

--
"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley