**Stephen P. King** (*stephenk1@home.com*)

*Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:47:37 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 621] Winding Space. Space-time sheets"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 619] Re: [time 617] An infinity of worlds?"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 623] Re: [time 620] [Fwd: Quantum General Relativity (was: Does a fundamental time exist in GR and QM?)]"

Hi All,

Here is a post from Mark William Hopkins to sci.physics.research...

I am appaled that Mark Hopkins is saying this! But I must be open to

the possibility of error in my thinking. The only problem I have is that

I fail to see how the information is organized within the "4-dimensional

universe" in the first place! The undecidability and NP-Completeness

problems are ignored!

:-(

Later,

Stephen

**attached mail follows:**

We live in a 4-dimensional universe and as Minkowski was the first to

point out, there is no space or time, only spacetime. And spacetime

does not happen. It's all already there.

There are events, but nothing happens. There is birth and death, but

nobody is born or dies.

There is motion, but nothing moves. Time is a dimension, not a process,

though one may insistently try to grip on to this last vestige of

Newtonian cosmology (e.g. by trying to impose a layered structure on

spacetime and treat the 4-dimensional continuum as a 'changing' 3-D

continuum).

For an excellent treatment of Quantum General Relativity written by a

seasoned professional (who I could swear is none other than Cartan

in disguise come back from the grave), with extremely lucid critiques

on the state of the art in QFT & GR (including fatal criticisms against

the covariant quantization and canonical quantization approaches), I

would recommend the "Principles of Quantum General Relativity" by

Eduard Prugovecki.

This is a book that no serious practicioner in QFT or GR should be without

and is the outgrowth of numerous articles in the Journal of Mathematical

Physics of his.

It is only the 2nd time I've ever seen a thorough and rigorous treatment

of QFT (and/or GR) with appropriate attention paid to the *actual* meaning

of the various items being formulated (as opposed to the folklore meanings

commonly attributed by text authors). Particularly of interest is his

explication of Einstein's equivalence principle, the microcausality

postulate, the Heisenberg uncertainty relation; and the numerous

mathematical no-go results which put nails into numerous coffins of

popular (and still pursued) programmes.

The other time? An excellent treatment of QFT by the author of one

of the monographs in Physics called "Finite QED" or something of the

like (1989) -- who not only shows that the whole renormalization programme

is unnecessary, that not only can QFT be formulated consistently from

the outset in a completely divergence-free manner, and not only comes

up with a simple proof (simple = under 10 pages) of the normalizability

of QED (that's *normalizability* not *renormalizability*!), but isolates

the culprit.

The culprit? The improper splitting of distributions borne of the

outdated Newtonian conception of time (i.e. particularly the overkill

brought about by the use of the theta functions which contain implicit

within it the outdated notion of simultaneity).

Which brings us back full circle: not only is this idea of time as a

process (presumably in which space evolves) inappropriate, being nothing

more than a vestige of the older Newtonian cosmology that inexplicably

refuses to die away; but it turns out to be the very culprit which

kept people from being able to do QFT the right way in the first place

until 1989! (Nowithstanding the hack we call 'renormalization').

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 621] Winding Space. Space-time sheets"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 619] Re: [time 617] An infinity of worlds?"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 623] Re: [time 620] [Fwd: Quantum General Relativity (was: Does a fundamental time exist in GR and QM?)]"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:31 JST
*