Coexistence of QT and Relativity

[Maaneli]

Hey guys, instead of arguing, can you help me out and tell me something like "no Clifford valued operator can be hermitian, thus observable", so you'll pull me out of confusion

edit
true it has not been published, but true as well it has been posted on the arXiv by a decent physicist

Sorry man, I don't know anything about this yet. It looks interesting, but it'll take me some time to say anything useful.

 

[humanino]

Sorry man, I don't know anything about this yet. It looks interesting, but it'll take me some time to say anything useful.

Never mind, as Zz indicated this should strictly not have been posted here. I will have to wait and see if he finally manages to publish. But if he does not, then I will not have any "official" rebuttal. I'm not sure whether the problem is with his definition of observable or locality, or both...

 

[Demystifier]

Hey guys, instead of arguing, can you help me out and tell me something like "no Clifford valued operator can be hermitian, thus observable", so you'll pull me out of confusion

Actually, I do have a very similar point. By definition, a Clifford valued quantity is not a real valued quantity, so it cannot be observable.

 

[dkgolfer16]

Sorry to bring back an old, beat up topic but I was re-reading Hawking's A Brief History of Time and came upon the following quote (Chapter 1, page 12 in my edition):

"Unfortunately, however, these two theories (Relativity and QM) are known to be inconsistent with each other -they cannot both be correct."

Now with Hawking on my side, can I correctly assume that one will be disregarded / revised in the future?

 

[Haelfix]

Hawkings is talking about General relativity, not Special relativity.

90% of modern physics utilizes framework(s) (Dirac eqn, KG eqn, Field theory, statistical mechanics) which seemlessly mixes special relatiivty and quantum mechanics together, so yes the two coexist and have far and away been the most experimentally successful theories in human history.

In many ways we are more sure that they are correct in their appropriate regime, than we are about even Newtons law.

As for the problems between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, well that's sort of one of the last great frontier of physics but be warned the subject matter is highly technical, complicated and rife with confusion (even amongst Nobel prize winners) and i'd advise first learning the basics before venturing into that great unknown (where many poor laymen get hopelessly lost and flounder)

 

[dkgolfer16]

Ah yes those darn laymen...always getting involved where they should not. I especially dislike the ones with merely an undergraduate degree, C average, and a job in a patent office who try to redefine the laws of nature...this should be a crime. That guy should have listen to his professor who told him "You're enthusiastic, but hopeless at physics". Maybe then he would have amounted to something.