View Single Post
Fra
#79
Aug22-10, 01:45 PM
Fra's Avatar
P: 2,799
To try to make cleaner how we disagree.

"Since different observers see different state spaces, that inconsistency is what forms the negotiated consensus and defines the local equivalence classes."

LQG tries to make a "regular QM theory" to the STATES of the equivalence classes.

I think that we need to find the EVOLUTION of the SYSTEM of interacting observers.

So I guess what I say is that we need to make QM truly relational, like Einstein made SR into GR. Not, try to apply QM as we know it to the classical equivalence classeso GR. I think it's a mistake.

So I think we are seeking "Einsteins equation" for the relational QM. To apply non-relational QM formalism to Einsteins equation is not right.

So I'm suggesting that hte equivalence classes and their symmetries must be evovling, and that this pictures includes ALL interactions. Thus Strong, weak and EM as well. It's not something we can put "ontop" of the pure-gravity quantized. It makes no sense to me.

/Fredrik