Ah! That makes much more sense. Don't feel too bad about writing something without knowing what it is. I have done it many times. And trying to proof read your own writing is difficult.

I'm afraid that the quotes you give are rather beyond me. I have never taken any physics or math courses beyond the undergraduate courses I had in college over 30 years ago. What I do know is based more on descriptive texts than mathematical texts. Sometimes I can kind of follow along with more mathematical discussions if the descriptive text is good enough.

Now to the discussion. I agree that in GR there is no universal reference frame against which to measure anything. But in the observer's reference frame you can measure what is happening in all other reference frames around you. So as things move around space and time are both evolving, with respect to the observer. So in GR there is nothing that is static. That is why GR has been successful in predicting the evolution of the universe.

Part of the problem with the mismatch between QM and GR is that GR is actually concerned almost entirely with one force, gravity. QM of course has almost no interface with gravity, since it is so weak that at the energies at which particles interact it has no influence on the interactions.

I certainly agree that your example of accelerated bound states would produce some major problems. That is one of the areas where there can be big problems in a comparison between GR and QM. But as we look at the universe it is obvious that GR gives wonderful results, and as we look at particles QM gives wonderful results. Just trying to figure out how to make them mesh gives a lot of people head aches. So for the time being I accept that both of them are completely true, but don't try to figure out what the comparison is. I will wait for somebody a lot more highly trained to come up with some sort of answer.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.