2017-08-12 07:35:00 UTC
Countless Einsteinians have been extracting, for decades, money and career from a red herring called "Incompatibility of general relativity and quantum mechanics", and now Leonard Susskind is going to wreck the whole thing. Unforgivable.
The fundamental contradiction in Einstein's schizophrenic world is between Einstein's idiotic relative time (spacetime) and Newton's absolute time (equivalent to the contradiction between 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 in Big Brother's world) - all problems come from this fundamental contradiction:
"The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric."
"In quantum theory, a "master clock" ticks away somewhere in the universe, measuring out all processes. But in Einstein's relativity, time is distorted by motion and gravity, so clocks don't necessarily agree on how it is passing - meaning any master clock must, somewhat implausibly, be outside the universe."
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global – all clocks "tick" uniformly."
"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. [...] The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."
The above revelations are rare exceptions buried in the Augean stables of pseudo-problems that Einsteinians heroically solve in making their living. Looks like dolce vita but suddenly Susskind comes and informs the world that there is no incompatibility at all:
Leonard Susskind: "GR=QM? Well why not? Some of us already accept ER=EPR , so why not follow it to its logical conclusion? It is said that general relativity and quantum mechanics are separate subjects that don't fit together comfortably. There is a tension, even a contradiction between them - or so one often hears. I take exception to this view. I think that exactly the opposite is true. It may be too strong to say that gravity and quantum mechanics are exactly the same thing, but those of us who are paying attention, may already sense that the two are inseparable, and that neither makes sense without the other." https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03040.pdf
The tragedy is enormous. Lubos Motl lost his teacher:
Lubos Motl: "I have always appreciated that in comparison to other top physicists, Leonard Susskind was among those who deserved to be called heuristic thinkers, creative mavericks, talkers rather than calculators, and to a large extent, I have found this spirit inspiring. Susskind was always a role model for me. The number and diversity of ideas he helped to emerge from the darkness was amazing. [...] He says that not only general relativity and quantum mechanics don't have any tension. (They do. In the spacetime, they may be considered separately and theories that respect both class of principles are really hugely constrained – to the extent that they must be string theory.) They are not only compatible, Susskind's gospel continues. They are inseparable, they are the same thing." http://motls.blogspot.bg/2017/08/grqm-paper-shows-susskind-isnt-real-co.html
Which is the most fundamental (idiotic) idea that Susskind "helped to emerge from the darkness"? Needless to say, this is Einstein's idea that the constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the principle of relativity:
Leonard Susskind (10:26) : "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with a certain velocity."
Lubos Motl: "The second postulate of special relativity morally follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did. In classical Newtonian mechanics, it was not a law of physics." http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/lorentz-violation-and-deformed-special.html