Quantum Gravity and the Principle of Maximum Absurdity

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/re...essons-quantum

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/20161...-time-problem/

Claus Kiefer: "In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true." http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/

Then why have theoreticians been reconciling "drastically different" concepts, which "cannot both be fundamentally true", for more than half a century? In Einstein's schizophrenic world, the principle of maximum absurdity is operative. Einstein's relative time, per se, is idiotic but not enough to completely paralyze the gullible world:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

Accordingly, the principle of maximum absurdity needs to be applied. The reconciliation of Einstein's relative time and Newton's absolute time, like the reconciliation of 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 in Big Brother's world, acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon - on seeing it, the gullible world gets petrified and never recover.

Pentcho Valev

Do Einsteinians know that Einstein's idiotic relative time is spoiling everything in physics? Of course they do:

Joao Magueijo: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250 http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

Philip Ball: "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." https://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-C.../dp/B00AEGQPFE

Pentcho Valev

"Pompous, meaningless humbug":

Marek Abramowicz, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Göteborg University, Sweden: "No quantum-gravity theory has been found so far, despite laborious efforts. Several provisional quantum-gravity models of particular phenomena involving black holes have been proposed; but, because none has been tested experimentally, no one knows whether these models are correct (indeed, some lead to acute paradoxes). Many physicists are convinced that these problems indicate a missing ingredient in our understanding of the fundamental principles of nature. In desperation, often mixed with arrogance, some are suggesting completely crazy quantum-gravity concepts, including bizarre alternatives for standard Einsteinian black holes – with no experimental foundation. As a result, for many physicists today, the genuinely fundamental problem of reconciling the two theories has degenerated into pompous, meaningless humbug." https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...mowicz-2016-05

Still, the "pompous, meaningless humbug" is extremely profitable:

Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest' resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be amended." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

Pentcho Valev