Changes

::::::::As for your suggested article for me to work on, I don't really understand what you mean by it being on a "much higher educational level."  However, as I have no expertise in Biblical Greek, I don't think I'd be able to make any meaningful contributions to the translation.  I'll let the experts in that subject deal with that article. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

::::::::As for your suggested article for me to work on, I don't really understand what you mean by it being on a "much higher educational level."  However, as I have no expertise in Biblical Greek, I don't think I'd be able to make any meaningful contributions to the translation.  I'll let the experts in that subject deal with that article. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before.  We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page.  This will take a fair amount of discussion.  I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale.  One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.

Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before.  We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page.  This will take a fair amount of discussion.  I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale.  One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.