Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
It is difficult to form an opinion on two matters one knows very little about and that is indeed part of my difficulty however the ideas outlined in this thread I have found more helpful in moving forward than any other material I have read. I thank you all.
This thread identified an undefined concern I have had for some time.
I find Steven's statement to be most helpful.
... There is no "conflict" between the two theories. QM is an evolution of classical physics. It has hasn't replaced classical physics but takes it to a more fundamental level.
I have felt that GR had closed the door on gravity (in so far as it is seemed to me to be presented that way) and whilst being presented with a feeling such to be reality I felt gravity must have a mechanical explanation.
I now dont feel guilty to suggest that possibly GR maps the activity of something smaller and that the fabric of space may be woven from particles or quanta that gives it a tangibility that seems to confilct with the fundamentals of GR. I never saw there need be a conflict.
alex  |
First of all my comment.
Quote:
|
...There is no "conflict" between the two theories. QM is an evolution of classical physics. It has hasn't replaced classical physics but takes it to a more fundamental level.
|
Remove the "has" term and it makes sense, "has hasn't" implies quantum duality in itself. It's what happens when your brain is in QM mode.
GR is a phenomenological theory so it doesn't explain the mechanism of gravity despite Brian Cox in a recent SBS documentary suggesting otherwise.
Regards
Steven