[time 63] RE: [time 59]: From Doug Sweetser

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Sat, 27 Mar 1999 22:53:06 +0900

Dear Members of time list,

I quote a response from Doug Sweetser to [time 59] below. Majordomo (a mailing
list software) bounces the mails from nonmembers to guard the members against
spam mails. This sometimes works unfairly as in the present case, which has to
be treated by human hands.

Any comments on or responses to his observation are welcome.

Hitoshi Kitada

> From time-owner Sat Mar 27 02:54:15 1999
> Return-Path: <sweetser@world.std.com>
> Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [])
> by kitada.com (8.9.1/3.7W) with ESMTP id CAA16014;
> Sat, 27 Mar 1999 02:54:13 +0900
> Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (STD1.2/BZS-8-1.0)
> id MAA20511; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:48:07 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from localhost by world.std.com (TheWorld/Spike-2.0)
> id AA27144; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:48:07 -0500
> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:48:07 -0500 (EST)
> From: Doug Sweetser <sweetser@world.std.com>
> To: Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@kitada.com>
> Cc: "Stephen P. King" <stephenk1@home.com>, Time List <time@kitada.com>
> Subject: RE: [time 58] Re: your "Is there a better way than
renormalization?" po
> st
> In-Reply-To: <001201be7769$a9c9d200$9450a3d2@hitoshi.kitada.com>
> Message-Id: <Pine.SGI.3.95.990326110300.7988A-100000@world.std.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Hello Hitoshi:
> You have provided an extensive summary of the history with the consensus
> explanations of "what all this means". I still wonder about this
> conclusions:
> > > These are the situation currently understood as an incompatibility
> > > problem between quantum theory and special theory of relativity.
> The way I use "incompatiblility" it implies conflict. Quantum theory
> completely respects the axioms of special relativity, therefore it is not
> incompatible. Calculations in quantum theory work, but in a "clucky" way
> ("clucky" being a made-up word indicating it works, but not elegantly).
> The observation that it is difficult to find a word to describe the
> conflict probably is a reflection of the subltety of the issue.
> There is also a good number of folks that think that the mathematical
> difficulties indicate problems with exactly how time is handled. Should
> we include you in that group? Since this is an issue where nuance is
> important, I will not include myself. Instead, I think that defining time
> does not make sense, but spacetime does. To quote from a piece of art I
> made, "Il n'y a pas d'espace sans temps, pas de temps sans espace" in
> English means "There is no space without time, no time without space".
> Good luck with your work,
> doug

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:29:46 JST