• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Space community!

Why general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatibl

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FictionOrFact

Guest
Hi Guys,
I want to know Why general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible?
What does every theory say that make it incompatible with the other?
And which one is most likely to be the correct one?
And what does that mean?

Thanks,
Sayed
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
There are two that I can think of off the top of my head.

The first deals with singularities. Stephen Hawking gave us Hawking radiation that incorporates the mathematics of both General Relativity and Quantum field theory near the event horizon... and it makes sense. However, as you approach the singularity the maths become rather absurd. General relativity actually predicts its own failure upon reaching the singularity. I don't believe quantum theories have much to say about a singularity either. Thus the continuing research into quantum gravity.

The second is dealing with the gravitational field of particles. Given the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle's statement on defining both the velocity and location of a particle, determining the gravitation field seems rather impossible. Fortunately, the gravitational field is so small, it can simply be ignored.
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
derekmcd":2n2ietv2 said:
Stephen Hawking gave us Hawking radiation that incorporates the mathematics of both General Relativity and Quantum field theory near the event horizon...
Mathematics.

and it makes sense. However, as you approach the singularity the maths become rather absurd.
This is a contradiction.

General relativity actually predicts its own failure upon reaching the singularity.
So then it has to go. Plain and simple.

I don't believe quantum theories have much to say about a singularity either.
So Quantum Mechanics can't handle the center of a black hole either. A singularity is impossible. Flat.

Thus the continuing research into quantum gravity.
Thus? How could that possibly be a good conclusion?

Given the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle's statement on defining both the velocity and location of a particle, determining the gravitation field seems rather impossible.
you burned yourself here.

Fortunately, the gravitational field is so small, it can simply be ignored.
You cannot pick and choose what to ignore.

The standard model is hog wash. Both have to go by the wayside for a more fundamental approach, with new mathematics.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
Hi Sayed, both theories are good at predicting results in different areas. GR is a classical theory that makes very good predictions at the macro scale and therefore does not include things like the uncertainty principle of QM - there is no question that we can know both the position of the Moon and the direction it is moving in. The same is not true at the subatomic level, where QM rules.

KickLaBuka doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
both theories are good at predicting results in different areas.
Hey speedfreek. Hey Derek. It is nice hearing from you guys and touching base again. The problem with both of these mathematics is exactly this: They do not agree in ALL areas. I will quote myself, "Any model that is contradicted by another model is not an accurate tool for Nature; only for a certain scope."

I look forward to talking to you guys again soon.
 
R

ramparts

Guest
KickLaBuka":36j7e5rf said:
both theories are good at predicting results in different areas.
Hey speedfreek. Hey Derek. It is nice hearing from you guys and touching base again. The problem with both of these mathematics is exactly this: They do not agree in ALL areas. I will quote myself, "Any model that is contradicted by another model is not an accurate tool for Nature; only for a certain scope."

I look forward to talking to you guys again soon.
You don't drop a theory that works extremely well in a given range of application just because it's not universally true, otherwise we'd have no theories! ;) I mean, by your logic Newtonian gravity "had to go" a couple of centuries ago, too. Awesome.

So your solution seems to be not continuing research into quantum gravity, despite the fact that we want a consistent theory which reproduces quantum mechanics on small scales (in weak gravitational fields) and general relativity at large scales. Right...
 
R

ramparts

Guest
Mmm, just noticed this extra question Sayed had :)

FictionOrFact":yim1fuy4 said:
And which one is most likely to be the correct one?
And what does that mean?

Thanks,
Sayed
Neither is, strictly speaking, "correct". We are aware of problems with both (many of which have to do with the fact that we can't get them to work together!), although they are essentially correct - as in, they are startlingly accurate - in their individual domains, as others here have said. The ultimate "correct" theory will, presumably, incorporate pieces of each, such that when we ask questions about very small things, we'll get quantum mechanics, and when we ask questions about very big things, we'll get general relativity.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
derekmcd":3g42fmt3 said:
However, as you approach the singularity the maths become rather absurd. General relativity actually predicts its own failure upon reaching the singularity.
I occasionally remind people - it helps to keep focussed in this area - that the definition of "Singularity" is "where our math/physics break down." Singularities are known to mathematicians, for example, where infinities or absurd answers can be derived.

Simply, space and time are so warped by the extreme gravitation of a a Singularity, that we simply do not have the tools to explain it.
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
ramparts":1kuk15nh said:
You don't drop a theory that works extremely well in a given range of application just because it's not universally true, otherwise we'd have no theories! ;)

So your solution seems to be not continuing research into quantum gravity
Correct. My book lays out the solution, and I have a few fundamentals to offer once its implications are understood. It requires letting go of QM because that math looks at things from the wrong direction, outside the box, but looking in. It predicts a weblike set of solutions, and forces you to choose one. My concept focuses on the forces involved from the inside, and compares at all scales. You just have to drop a few "givens" because they are wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY