Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I think QM is more "holy" than GR because it's very 
>> difficult to observe the actual behavior of GR in the extreme. We have only 
>> theories of what goes on inside a black hole's even horizon, whereas QM has 
>> been expermentally validated to a much greater extent with actual 
>> observations, perhaps?
> 
>   But not in those extreme conditions...

Agreed, certainly.  I just think that's why GR is considered less 
well-established. We haven't actually built any gravitic engineering 
projects. If we actually had black hole power plants like we have QM 
transitors, I think we'd probably have much less tendency to favor QM over GR.

(I once had a sci-fi scenario where the power plants were quantum black 
holes into which you could feed any sort of matter you wanted and get out 
hot hawking radiation to power your tech. I wonder if that might actually 
work. :-)

And we have the ability to build the extreme quantum conditions, like cosmic 
rays or the LHC.  We don't really have the ability to build extreme gravity 
conditions yet.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message