alistair
Jun30-04, 05:39 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Alistair wrote:\n>Over small time scales energy is not conserved in quantum mechanics\n>e.g the appearance and rapid disappearance of vacuum particles, and\nin\n>general relativity it seems energy isn\'t conserved over large time\n>scales e.g redshifted photons from galaxies.Considering theorists\n>are trying to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics this\n>mismatch between timescales in the context of the lack of energy\n>conservation seems odd!\n\n[Moderator\'s note: Energy is conserved in quantum mechanics.\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physi..._particles.html\n\nTB\n\nAlistair writes:\n\nIf energy is conserved in quantum mechanics but not in general\nrelativity\nthen how are these two theories going to be compatible\nfor quantum relativity.Special relativity involves energy conservation\nand it has been successfully applied to quantum mechanics.Perhaps I\nshould ask:how did general relativity,which has its roots in special\nrelativity, end up free from the usual ideas of energy conservation?\nMaybe general relativity needs to be built from a modified version of\nspecial relativity.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Alistair wrote:
>Over small time scales energy is not conserved in quantum mechanics
>e.g the appearance and rapid disappearance of vacuum particles, and
in
>general relativity it seems energy isn't conserved over large time
>scales e.g redshifted photons from galaxies.Considering theorists
>are trying to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics this
>mismatch between timescales in the context of the lack of energy
>conservation seems odd!
[Moderator's note: Energy is conserved in quantum mechanics.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physi..._particles.html
TB
Alistair writes:
If energy is conserved in quantum mechanics but not in general
relativity
then how are these two theories going to be compatible
for quantum relativity.Special relativity involves energy conservation
and it has been successfully applied to quantum mechanics.Perhaps I
should ask:how did general relativity,which has its roots in special
relativity, end up free from the usual ideas of energy conservation?
Maybe general relativity needs to be built from a modified version of
special relativity.
>Over small time scales energy is not conserved in quantum mechanics
>e.g the appearance and rapid disappearance of vacuum particles, and
in
>general relativity it seems energy isn't conserved over large time
>scales e.g redshifted photons from galaxies.Considering theorists
>are trying to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics this
>mismatch between timescales in the context of the lack of energy
>conservation seems odd!
[Moderator's note: Energy is conserved in quantum mechanics.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physi..._particles.html
TB
Alistair writes:
If energy is conserved in quantum mechanics but not in general
relativity
then how are these two theories going to be compatible
for quantum relativity.Special relativity involves energy conservation
and it has been successfully applied to quantum mechanics.Perhaps I
should ask:how did general relativity,which has its roots in special
relativity, end up free from the usual ideas of energy conservation?
Maybe general relativity needs to be built from a modified version of
special relativity.