[Fis] Reply to Ted Goranson: Quantum Gravity

     Dear Ted,

Thanks a lot for your point:

> I\'m not surprised that most physicists want to ontologically flatten
>
> everything into a QM-described truth. What does surprise me is that
> no one has mentioned the inconvenient fact that gravity, that most
> prevalent force in physics, is notably unfriendly to QM.

Yes, quantum gravity is really totally unfriendly to QM. Last month at
the workshop <<Beyond Quantum>> in Leiden I presented the following
viewpoint:

Why do we think that such a thing as quantum gravity should exist at
all? The only reason is again the Copenhagen dogma about the
completeness of QM. If one assume that QM is not complete at all, so it
is not fundamental theory (and if one be even more provocative and
assume that QFT is neither fundamental and complete theory), then there
is no reasons to think that such a thing as quantum gravity exists.
May be the real fundamental theory is purely classical and QM is just an
approximation of such a theory.

So the postulate on the completeness of QM is not so innocent, it is not
just a philosophic subject...

With Best Regards,
Andrei Khrennikov
Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Jun 13 18:18:13 2006