|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |