News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Thoughts About Relativity

Started by SGOS, January 27, 2018, 02:54:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

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

Quote from: SGOS on January 29, 2018, 11:29:07 AM
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.
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

trdsf

Quote from: SGOS on January 29, 2018, 11:29:07 AM
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.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

SGOS


Baruch

Quote from: SGOS on January 29, 2018, 03:25:17 PM
It was just a thought.

The ego of intellectuals extend beyond even the multiverse ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

You have an entire multiverse right there in your head, don't you? ;)
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

trdsf

Quote from: SGOS on January 29, 2018, 03:25:17 PM
It was just a thought.
It's an intelligent question, actuallyâ€"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.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Baruch

Quote from: Unbeliever on January 29, 2018, 04:07:39 PM
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" ...
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

You are the very model of a multiverse phenomenon. :)
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Cavebear

Quote from: trdsf on January 29, 2018, 10:18:38 AM
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 22nd or even 23rd century science, not 21st.  Every time we look at the universe in more detail, it surprises usâ€"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".
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Sal1981

Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 05:32:03 AM
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 pilot wave theory is not. It's a compelling alternative to classical QM, but in the early days it lost to the Copenhagen interpretation 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

Quote from: Sal1981 on February 02, 2018, 05:42:34 AM
QM is statistical in nature, but pilot wave theory is not. It's a compelling alternative to classical QM, but in the early days it lost to the Copenhagen interpretation 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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2018, 12:57:03 PM
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"?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 12:59:06 PM
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 ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2018, 01:06:57 PM
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).
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!