Thoughts About Relativity

[SGOS]

Is it possible that GR and QM, or rather the physics that to apply to either, are inconsistent with each other and operate independently?

[Jason78]

Is it possible that GR and QM, or rather the physics that to apply to either, are inconsistent with each other and operate independently?

Unlikely.   Since quantum effects overlap with general relativity.   Like at the event horizons of black holes.

[trdsf]

Is it possible that GR and QM, or rather the physics that to apply to either, are inconsistent with each other and operate independently?

Probably not.  GR and QM are only incomplete, not wrong.  Any future theory needs to include both of them, more than it will replace them, in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a low-energy simplification of GR.

Also, we observe the universe to be a unified whole; if there were two different regimes of physics in operation, we would expect to see a discontinuity between regions operating under the different rules.

[SGOS]

It was just a thought.

[Baruch]

It was just a thought.

The ego of intellectuals extend beyond even the multiverse ;-)

[Unbeliever]

You have an entire multiverse right there in your head, don't you? ;)

[trdsf]

It was just a thought.

It's an intelligent question, actually—since GR and QM work so fantastically well within their domains, it's fair to wonder whether GR does its own thing, and QM does its own thing, and never the twain shall meet.

It's just that the places they do meet are so extreme, we don't encounter them, except maybe for the briefest fractions of a second in CERN, and that's a 'within the last ten years' thing.

[Baruch]

You have an entire multiverse right there in your head, don't you? ;)

Only if you are a multiverse theoretician.  String theorists have quantum strings in their heads ;-)  Horny men have something else in their "heads" ...

[Unbeliever]

You are the very model of a multiverse phenomenon. :)

[Cavebear]

And we never will with that attitude! :p

I got to back up Ursus Major here, just a little -- it's entirely possible, and entirely consistent with the history of scientific advance, that there might not be a final Theory of Everything, just ever better approximations.  General Relativity told us ahead of time where it would fail, so we knew it couldn't be complete from the beginning.  The Standard Model, underpinned by Quantum Mechanics, took a little longer to reveal its gaps.

Also, the Uncertainty Principle is unlikely to be eliminated by a better theory, so there's an inbuilt and inescapable fuzziness to the limits of our knowledge.  At the particle level, reality is statistical.  We can only minimize the limits that puts on our detailed knowledge of the universe, but we can't eliminate it.

Personally, I think there probably is an ultimate Theory of Everything... but it might be 22^nd or even 23^rd century science, not 21^st.  Every time we look at the universe in more detail, it surprises us—hell, we hadn't even gotten a handle on dark matter before it threw dark energy at us.

With the Uncertainty Principle, there can't ever be a "final knowing".  Well, OK, maybe we could reach a point where we know what we can't know, but that's not the same thing as "knowing everything".

[Sal1981]

With the Uncertainty Principle, there can't ever be a "final knowing".  Well, OK, maybe we could reach a point where we know what we can't know, but that's not the same thing as "knowing everything".

QM is statistical in nature, but You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login theory is not. It's a compelling alternative to classical QM, but in the early days it lost to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login of QM.

I don't know which is more "correct", but I think pilot wave theory (De Broglie-Bohm theory) should at least be revisited.

[Baruch]

QM is statistical in nature, but You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login theory is not. It's a compelling alternative to classical QM, but in the early days it lost to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login of QM.

I don't know which is more "correct", but I think pilot wave theory (De Broglie-Bohm theory) should at least be revisited.

There are fads in physical science, like height of skirts ... provided the answers work out the same.  So far, all acceptable interpretations of QM, produce the same results.  The idea of statistics as a panacea, was very big from WW II onward.  Classical math methods less so.  Now with Big Data, statistics is a fad again.

[Cavebear]

There are fads in physical science, like height of skirts ... provided the answers work out the same.  So far, all acceptable interpretations of QM, produce the same results.  The idea of statistics as a panacea, was very big from WW II onward.  Classical math methods less so.  Now with Big Data, statistics is a fad again.

Do YOU understand "pilot wave theory"?

[Baruch]

Do YOU understand "pilot wave theory"?

We saw a recent lab demonstration of this ... a model of course ... on a nearby thread.  If I can see it, then yes, I understand it ... the model, not the actual maths.  I could understand the maths, since I do understand the maths for the Dirac equation for example, but why would I go to that much trouble?  I am a geek, not a maniac ;-)

[Cavebear]

We saw a recent lab demonstration of this ... a model of course ... on a nearby thread.  If I can see it, then yes, I understand it ... the model, not the actual maths.  I could understand the maths, since I do understand the maths for the Dirac equation for example, but why would I go to that much trouble?  I am a geek, not a maniac ;-)

You got me there.  I stopped at simultaneous equation and set theory (both of which I loved).