Question No theory of quantum gravity

[synth]

Hi. I'm a biologist, but I have been reading books about physics and cosmology since I was young. So I'd like for someone who understands physics much better than me to answer my question.

I've always considered the scientific method the best way we have to understand reality. Still I believe that reality is far too complex to pretend that everything in the Universe can be understood by the human mind, except through complex models (effective and useful, but still approximations).

Right now we have the standard model that has managed to describe the entirety of matter and forces down to their elementary constituents, and we have general relativity that has managed to explain gravity through changes in the geometry of spacetime and so to describe cosmological events.

If we treat gravity as other forces and assume it can be quantized, either we quantize the very fabric of spacetime or we assume it is mediated by particles. Both the approaches have been tried without being able to gather experimental evidence in decades.

So if general relativity gives uncorrect results only in extreme situations such as beyond the event horizons of black holes or the beginning of the universe (or of its current cycle), and it's even possible that gravity can't be quantized, why it has to be unified with quantum mechanics? Isn't it possible that gravity can't be quantized, that the Universe isn't elegant or perfectly symmetrical, and that we can't have a "theory of everything"?

 

[Geomartian]

There is a quantum theory of gravitation.

The first copy was exchanged for better prison living conditions.

The second copy got nothing.

It was a limited time offer.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

IMO Gravity is simply a compression of quantum fluctuation.
As quantum fluctuation is compressed so is time/activity.
A black hole just a compression of movement and time self regulated as time compresses as gravity increases.
Clock runs very slow in a black hole.

Gravity travels at instant speed because it doesn't interact with quantum fluctuation.
Somewhat like a neutrino being able to travel through a planet with no interaction.

One travels at the wave of quantum fluctuation (neutrino) missing almost everything since it travels on the crest of the tiniest thing possible.
One travels in the void between quantum fluctuation (gravity) going at instant speed through void space between fluctuation.

JMO but as good as any idea about gravity and the true nature of the universe.

 

[Srikantan]

Hi. I'm a biologist, but I have been reading books about physics and cosmology since I was young. So I'd like for someone who understands physics much better than me to answer my question.

I've always considered the scientific method the best way we have to understand reality. Still I believe that reality is far too complex to pretend that everything in the Universe can be understood by the human mind, except through complex models (effective and useful, but still approximations).

Right now we have the standard model that has managed to describe the entirety of matter and forces down to their elementary constituents, and we have general relativity that has managed to explain gravity through changes in the geometry of spacetime and so to describe cosmological events.

If we treat gravity as other forces and assume it can be quantized, either we quantize the very fabric of spacetime or we assume it is mediated by particles. Both the approaches have been tried without being able to gather experimental evidence in decades.

So if general relativity gives uncorrect results only in extreme situations such as beyond the event horizons of black holes or the beginning of the universe (or of its current cycle), and it's even possible that gravity can't be quantized, why it has to be unified with quantum mechanics? Isn't it possible that gravity can't be quantized, that the Universe isn't elegant or perfectly symmetrical, and that we can't have a "theory of everything"?

Your topic is interesting.but very long.can yoi make short and sweet questioms..?

 

[PBWilson]

Gravity is probably not quantized. There is no physical evidence for it. It's just theorists playing what-if games.

 

[RobinEddy]

Not really suggested in science, but as Space and Time is interlinked under Relativity. You can argue that Mass and Gravity are interlinked at the same level, in the same way hierarchy, magnitude.
You just have to look at Einsteins' Energy being relative to Light Energy, creation of stars etc, and another formula that would be just for Dark Energy (destruction - black holes, supernova) that says Mass and Gravity are interlinked, i.e. mg2 (replacing Time/Space constant). e.g. use E=mg2 c . ¬E is dark energy (but academically correct to work), c is lightspeed but could be a value of just 1. Scaling this down it may be possible to do what you're saying.
We're bogged down by doing these experiments under the gravity of earth. A space lab would solve this, if you could remove gravity completely from it.

 

[Wolf28]

Hi. I'm a biologist, but I have been reading books about physics and cosmology since I was young. So I'd like for someone who understands physics much better than me to answer my question.

I've always considered the scientific method the best way we have to understand reality. Still I believe that reality is far too complex to pretend that everything in the Universe can be understood by the human mind, except through complex models (effective and useful, but still approximations).

Right now we have the standard model that has managed to describe the entirety of matter and forces down to their elementary constituents, and we have general relativity that has managed to explain gravity through changes in the geometry of spacetime and so to describe cosmological events.

If we treat gravity as other forces and assume it can be quantized, either we quantize the very fabric of spacetime or we assume it is mediated by particles. Both the approaches have been tried without being able to gather experimental evidence in decades.

So if general relativity gives uncorrect results only in extreme situations such as beyond the event horizons of black holes or the beginning of the universe (or of its current cycle), and it's even possible that gravity can't be quantized, why it has to be unified with quantum mechanics? Isn't it possible that gravity can't be quantized, that the Universe isn't elegant or perfectly symmetrical, and that we can't have a "theory of everything"?

I'm glad you're a biologist as you may grasp my hypothetical better. So - Let me create a little thought experiment: I live on a waterworld. No land, just one very very deep ocean. I'm a member of what I believe to be an intelligent sentient race of beings, but my physical attributes restrict me to the ocean depths where no sunlight could ever hope to reach. We have no eyes but have similar organs that can detect motion and temperature. My species has not yet discovered a way to reach the surface. In fact, we do not even know there is a surface nor do we know the concept of one. We have some tools; mathematics, some instruments to measure pressure, density, etc., (not sure how we got them). We know that pressure decreases as we move in one of our three dimensions of space but not others. Strangely, pressure increases in the opposite direction. But we do not have the technology yet to explore the depths of these different pressure areas of our sphere of existence. What theory would we develop to describe our "universe"? Probably one within the constraints of our own reality? One that would sound as if we're just at the edge of knowing how everything works, but at the same time, would fail to explain everything. <End thought experiment>

For all we know, we are living in the depths of another type of ocean and, like the creatures described above, can only query our "local area" and may never know what lies beyond. Like what our universe is expanding into? We can calculate, we can suppose, we can even detect and explore, but only what is available to us by our concepts and senses and what we may be able to extrapolate within our own context. In other words, we may be missing the forest for the trees. We could be the Whos living in Whoville on a snowflake and never even know it. Or we could be Humans living on Earth. Either way, IMO, we do not have the context within which to fully understand our the universe - Only our own unique reality. And that may be good enough for us to become a very advanced space-faring species. But we may never know that true make-up of the matrix.

 

[PBWilson]

In 2015, Ali and Das showed that IF gravity is quantized, THEN a term must be added to the Friedmann equations that "looks like" dark energy. It also looks like my equation for dark energy, based on reaction terms.

Ali and Das have not received the Nobel prize for explaining dark energy, however, which shows the physics community does not take quantum gravity seriously, It is looked at as a mathematical play-land for braniacs. Ali and Das' result is taken as a quirk, rather than an explanation of dark energy.

 

[Geomartian]

Have you heard of the nuclear strong force?

Then you already know about quantum gravitation.

Gradients in time are the origin for the force of gravity. Gravity is the result of differences in time not a cause for anything. At the level of the atom the time differences/gradients in the space surrounding a nucleus produce incredible forces.

The Standard Model replaced real physics based on fields with particles. “Interaction” particles do not exist. At the atomic level there are only fields (including time fields) and a handful of stable particles. I call this model… reality.

At the level of the atom you have quantum or pixelated time. Combining time fields with electrostatic and magnetic fields and you will have everything that you need to produce a working quantum theory.

The Standard Model does not have any connection to reality. The Neutrino is purely fictional.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Have you heard of the nuclear strong force?

Then you already know about quantum gravitation.

Gradients in time are the origin for the force of gravity. Gravity is the result of differences in time not a cause for anything. At the level of the atom the time differences/gradients in the space surrounding a nucleus produce incredible forces.

The Standard Model replaced real physics based on fields with particles. “Interaction” particles do not exist. At the atomic level there are only fields (including time fields) and a handful of stable particles. I call this model… reality.

At the level of the atom you have quantum or pixelated time. Combining time fields with electrostatic and magnetic fields and you will have everything that you need to produce a working quantum theory.

The Standard Model does not have any connection to reality. The Neutrino is purely fictional.

IMO gravity is simply a compression of fluctuation, able to leave a wake at C because fluctuation has distance but instant travel because it is only a compression of everything.
Spooky action at a distance with that idea is plausible since gravity doesn't move but the reaction of gravity is a compression of everything everywhere.
Not spooky at all.

 

[vent]

Look at it this way. Quantum mechanics describes the behaviour of very small entities, in weak gravitational fields, general relativity describes the behaviour of large entities in large gravitational fields, classical mechanics describes the behaviour of intermediate scale entities in intermediate scale gravitational fields, but there is no theory that adequately describes the behaviour of very small entitites in strong gravitational fields, such as, for example, the behaviour of subatomic particles near a black hole horizon leading to things like the Hawking effect (which was developed using premature ideas of quantum gravity). A successful Quantum theory of Gravity would be able to account for all these phenomena.

 

[vent]

Look at it this way. Quantum mechanics describes the behaviour of very small entities, in weak gravitational fields, general relativity describes the behaviour of large entities in large gravitational fields, classical mechanics describes the behaviour of intermediate scale entities in intermediate scale gravitational fields, but there is no theory that adequately describes the behaviour of very small entitites in strong gravitational fields, such as, for example, the behaviour of subatomic particles near a black hole horizon leading to things like the Hawking effect (which was developed using premature ideas of quantum gravity). A successful Quantum theory of Gravity would be able to account for all these phenomena.

 

[vent]

Look at it this way. Quantum mechanics describes the behaviour of very small entities, in weak gravitational fields, general relativity describes the behaviour of large entities in large gravitational fields, classical mechanics describes the behaviour of intermediate scale entities in intermediate scale gravitational fields, but there is no theory that adequately describes the behaviour of very small entitites in strong gravitational fields, such as, for example, the behaviour of subatomic particles near a black hole horizon leading to things like the Hawking effect (which was developed using premature ideas of quantum gravity)

Hi. I'm a biologist, but I have been reading books about physics and cosmology since I was young. So I'd like for someone who understands physics much better than me to answer my question.

I've always considered the scientific method the best way we have to understand reality. Still I believe that reality is far too complex to pretend that everything in the Universe can be understood by the human mind, except through complex models (effective and useful, but still approximations).

Right now we have the standard model that has managed to describe the entirety of matter and forces down to their elementary constituents, and we have general relativity that has managed to explain gravity through changes in the geometry of spacetime and so to describe cosmological events.

If we treat gravity as other forces and assume it can be quantized, either we quantize the very fabric of spacetime or we assume it is mediated by particles. Both the approaches have been tried without being able to gather experimental evidence in decades.

So if general relativity gives uncorrect results only in extreme situations such as beyond the event horizons of black holes or the beginning of the universe (or of its current cycle), and it's even possible that gravity can't be quantized, why it has to be unified with quantum mechanics? Isn't it possible that gravity can't be quantized, that the Universe isn't elegant or perfectly symmetrical, and that we can't have a "theory of everything"?

Look at it this way. Quantum mechanics describes the behaviour of very small entities, in weak gravitational fields, general relativity describes the behaviour of large entities in large gravitational fields, classical mechanics describes the behaviour of intermediate scale entities in intermediate scale gravitational fields, but there is no theory that adequately describes the behaviour of very small entitites in strong gravitational fields, such as, for example, the behaviour of subatomic particles near a black hole horizon leading to things like the Hawking effect (which was developed using premature ideas of quantum gravity). A successful Quantum theory of Gravity would be able to account for all these phenomena. Subatomic particles would be sensititive to small quantum fluctuations of the spacetime metric, for which there is no adequate theory.
. A successful Quantum theory of Gravity would be able to account for all these phenomena.

 

[Neebert]

Hi. I'm a biologist, but I have been reading books about physics and cosmology since I was young. So I'd like for someone who understands physics much better than me to answer my question.

I've always considered the scientific method the best way we have to understand reality. Still I believe that reality is far too complex to pretend that everything in the Universe can be understood by the human mind, except through complex models (effective and useful, but still approximations).

Right now we have the standard model that has managed to describe the entirety of matter and forces down to their elementary constituents, and we have general relativity that has managed to explain gravity through changes in the geometry of spacetime and so to describe cosmological events.

If we treat gravity as other forces and assume it can be quantized, either we quantize the very fabric of spacetime or we assume it is mediated by particles. Both the approaches have been tried without being able to gather experimental evidence in decades.

So if general relativity gives uncorrect results only in extreme situations such as beyond the event horizons of black holes or the beginning of the universe (or of its current cycle), and it's even possible that gravity can't be quantized, why it has to be unified with quantum mechanics? Isn't it possible that gravity can't be quantized, that the Universe isn't elegant or perfectly symmetrical, and that we can't have a "theory of everything"?

Gravity is not a force. Space is the key, the universe is expanding? More space! But gravity is the opposite? Well it's removing space. The big bang? Last expansion ran out of space. Why? Space exists in the Meow, energy creates space if it gets into the Meow.(only when there is no space for it)

If there was just one big bang everything would have ended ages ago so it's off to infinity.(most likely)