Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetlack
Sargon,
Not sure about some of your theory but i agree with the general idea that we are missing someting pretty big.
I reckon GR/SR is not as fundamental as qm and the problem we .have is that we are trying to connect the two in their current format as if they are equally fundamental.
|
In a way QM and GR are opposite. There is classical physics, too. Together they form a triangle called a triality. Imagine this to have an intersection 'point'. That would be fundamental. Trialities are like opposites, but with three directions. Classical physics would be the one, GR the two and QM the three.
The reason to think so is: classical physics is about movement (what is a linear relation), GR is about second rank tensor fields and QM about particles, what are in general volumetric (or three dimensional).