From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!garrot.DMI.USherb.CA!uxa.ecn.bgu.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!linac!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh Tue Jun  9 10:06:45 EDT 1992
Article 6065 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!garrot.DMI.USherb.CA!uxa.ecn.bgu.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!linac!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh
>From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics (no AI here, sorry)
Message-ID: <1992Jun3.192513.27263@uwm.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 92 19:25:13 GMT
References: <1992Jun1.201556.24184@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Jun01.234940.40210@spss.com>
Sender: news@uwm.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 18

In article <1992Jun01.234940.40210@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>Don't get your hopes up.  After 70 years there are no known holes in QM--
>it's always agreed with experiment.  Nor is there any guarantee
>that if it *is* replaced, you'll like the replacement any better.  :)

There's big, obvious, gaping holes in QM!

The biggest of them all is that it can't explain gravity.
The second is that it can't explain the dimensional or topological
structure of spacetime.
The third is that it can't explain why this dimensionality is 3+1.
The fourth is that it can't explain the origin or significance of the Planck
units.
The fifth is that it can't explain why or how the continuum breaks down at
Planck scales.
The sixth is that it can't explain the origin of the Universe or its fate!

Need I go on?  The list is endless.


