"The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true." http://hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/

Still Einsteinians have been reconciling Newton's absolute time and Einstein's relative time for a very long time, in a search for a theory of everything (in Big Brother's world theoreticians reconcile 2+2=4 and 2+2=5):

Natalie Wolchover: "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." https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/

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?" https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum

After wasting a colossal amount of mental energy and money (Einstein cult has been immeasurably more wasteful than any other cult), Einsteinians now find it profitable to announce "The End of Everything":

"Is philosophy and science's obstinate search for a theory of everything a fundamentally biased expression of a particular culture? @michaelshermer, @bgreene, Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh and @EricRWeinstein will explore 'The End of Everything' - January 10th." https://twitter.com/IAI_TV/status/1476912277060296731

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1475778043717292032/E6q9RtCD?format=jpg&name=900x900

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Peter Woit: "Fundamental physical theory may now be over, replaced with a pseudo-science, but at least that means that things in this subject can't get any worse." https://math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12604

Woit is right - fundamental physics is dead. However he wrongly believes that string theory is the killer. Actually, string theory is a metastasis - the original malignancy was introduced in 1905. The texts below imply that, if the speed of light is variable (it is!), what is called "fundamental physics" is just an elaborate farce:

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Natalie Wolchover: "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."

this Natalie is wrong. There is no time nor space in quantum. Still huge
difference from Einstine, the tensor magician, but no time in quantum.
That was what he diden't undrestand.

because is inconceivable having a domain without time and space. Is that
even a domain, one may ask.

On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 5:40:24 AM UTC-8, Theo Dowd wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > Natalie Wolchover: "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."
> this Natalie is wrong. There is no time nor space in quantum.

Quantum mechanics takes up space...
Einstein won.