X-Message-Number: 22120 From: Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:03:31 EDT Subject: Re: #22116 Infinities and religion --part1_155.2098fc8e.2c357593_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "michaelprice" <> > > BTW it occurs to me, upon reflection, that Yvan Bozzonetti's > categorisation of quantum field theory -- when its results to not > agree with his own theories -- as a religion is quite ironic, since it > is the opponents of cryonics who, being unable to produce > a scientific refutation, resort to labelling cryonics as a religion. > In Einstein's times for example, QFT was the summit of theoretical physics, it is no more the case today. What I have said is that a science book must be used to think, not to create a faith. My favorite book on QFT is QED, by Tsung Dao Lee, may be you don't know about him, but M. Kaku does surely :-). If you push QFT too much they get flawed, that is why other, larger theories such supersymetry, p-branes (Clifford space),... have been built. Now, if you are interested in practical application, you can say: I reject anything beyond QFT because this would be beyond my practical domain. NASA programmers does the same when they compute a spacecraft trajectory: They discard everything beyond Newtonian dynamics. They know it is ultimately false, but it suffice for their objective. Quantum Field Theories are typical "objects" of the second quantification. I think there are four forms of the first one. You don't find any mention of them in QFT books (you have to look at Cornell's ArXiv server for them). Until you have not digested that, you can't go beyond on stable ground, you may always be undercut by something you have just by-passed. Jumping to far away domains is what I have called witchcraft, there is a part of it in QFT. Yvan Bozzonetti. --part1_155.2098fc8e.2c357593_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22120