New attempt to Reconcile Quantum Physics and Relativity

[RagingWarGod]

Some random article came up on google for me about how there is a new attempt to reconcile both QM and Relativity through some space time dimension field.

https://www.sustainability-times.co...es-from-hidden-spacetime-symmetry-principles/

But I thought the problem with QM is that time is static down there while in the "macro level" time is relative?

Or how some argue that QM is Timeless, which still goes to my main point:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIxTfFovGn0


The point being that wouldn't such a theory not really get off the ground because time at that level seems to be fundamentally different than our view? I'll admit I don't know much about this stuff but that's a common thing I've heard. Well that and that everything is quantum.

 

[Scandinavian Film]

I'll admit I don't know much about this stuff

So, you’ve clearly been reading a lot about quantum mechanics, astrophysics, and so on, but one thing to keep in mind about this stuff is that, while the pop-science explainers can be very good at introducing you to the topics and helping you get a “feel” for them, they are not sufficient for applying or critiquing the theories. For that, you really do have to study them formally and learn the math.

 

[demultiplexer]

Also, please don't use this forum as your ChatGPT.

 

[RagingWarGod]

So, you’ve clearly been reading a lot about quantum mechanics, astrophysics, and so on, but one thing to keep in mind about this stuff is that, while the pop-science explainers can be very good at introducing you to the topics and helping you get a “feel” for them, they are not sufficient for applying or critiquing the theories. For that, you really do have to study them formally and learn the math.

I've tried to learn the math before but couldn't make heads or tails of what they were trying to say. I'm only really able to ask people who know this stuff to be able to help me.

 

[ajk48n]

I mean to be fair, these are hard topics. I've read a lot of books about them, but I didn't study this in school and don't do it for a job.

In my opinion, it's perfectly fine to ask questions about the topics here. If the mods disagree, so be it.

But to your question, there is no accepted theory that reconciles quantum mechanics and relativity. There are a few well thought out theories, and probably lots of other not as well thought out theories. Even the well thought out theories don't necessarily have a lot of (or any) experimental data to back them up.

The link you posted looks like one of second type. Specifically, part of the article states that they have an idea, but it needs to actually be tested and verified before in comes anywhere close to be called the "truth". Who knows, maybe it will get there one day.

Experimental verification will be crucial in determining the viability of this approach and its potential to become a cornerstone of modern physics. Scientists will need to develop new methods and technologies to probe the predictions of this theory at both the quantum and cosmic scales

 

[ajk48n]

Well that and that everything is quantum

Maybe technically yes, everything is quantum. But quantum effects essentially disappear once you are looking at objects at anywhere near the size of physical things we interact with on a daily basis.

 

[Scandinavian Film]

I've tried to learn the math before but couldn't make heads or tails of what they were trying to say. I'm only really able to ask people who know this stuff to be able to help me.

I don't want to discourage you from asking questions, but I do think you need to realize that questions alone will only take you so far. At some point, growing your understanding will stall out, and the only way to advance will involve learning the math.

 

[RagingWarGod]

Maybe technically yes, everything is quantum. But quantum effects essentially disappear once you are looking at objects at anywhere near the size of physical things we interact with on a daily basis.

But aren't the notions of objects questioned too though? I read that the distinction between macro and quantum was more something the instrumentalists made and isn't really something in science or quantum physics.

There's also weird theories about time such as it being timeless, the past present and future all being one, and other wonky stuff I don't understand.

 

[ajk48n]

But aren't the notions of objects questioned too though?

Well, anything can be questioned. It doesn't mean it's necessarily right. There's not an exact line of scale between when quantum effects are seen, and when they aren't, it depends on the experiment.

In any case though, I've never heard it said that objects aren't real. Quarks and electrons make up atoms. And atoms make up molecules. And molecules make up larger things. The objects we can touch are real.

Edit: this discussion also starts getting into semantics. When I say the word "object", I'm kind of hoping that we all roughly understand the same concept. But any particular scientific paper could always have a specific definition for words they are using.

There's also weird theories about time such as it being timeless, the past present and future all being one

Again, there are lots of theories. I've never come across the past, present, and future being all the same thing. There is a concept of there not being an agreed upon "now" between different reference frames in relativity. But within in each of those reference frames, there is still a past, present, and future.

 

[dmsilev]

But aren't the notions of objects questioned too though? I read that the distinction between macro and quantum was more something the instrumentalists made and isn't really something in science or quantum physics.

I don't know what you mean by "the notions of objects", but there isn't anything intrinsic about when it makes sense to think about a given system using the framework of quantum mechanics vs. classical physics or statistical mechanics or whatever. It just gets harder and harder to both pose and solve the "how will this system behave" question as the system gets bigger. Sometimes, the nature of the system is such that even on a large scale, using quantum structures makes sense. Other times, once the system size passes a few hundred or a few thousand objects (atoms, say), you throw in the towel and start using semi-classical tools. It just depends. From a philosophical standpoint, that's not a very satisfying answer, but from an empirical view, it's what it is.

 

[RagingWarGod]

I don't know what you mean by "the notions of objects", but there isn't anything intrinsic about when it makes sense to think about a given system using the framework of quantum mechanics vs. classical physics or statistical mechanics or whatever. It just gets harder and harder to both pose and solve the "how will this system behave" question as the system gets bigger. Sometimes, the nature of the system is such that even on a large scale, using quantum structures makes sense. Other times, once the system size passes a few hundred or a few thousand objects (atoms, say), you throw in the towel and start using semi-classical tools. It just depends. From a philosophical standpoint, that's not a very satisfying answer, but from an empirical view, it's what it is.

I'm guessing from what I heard it's sorta making the argument that "objects" aren't ontologically separate objects that operate under different physics but that it's all just one level at work and that's the elementary particles and things like that, and trying to attribute people or objects existing apart from us is the "mind-projection fallacy" which IMO isn't really a real fallacy, because you'd have to throw everything humans do under it (even claiming there is just one thing at work).

I got the idea off Lesswrong and it sounded kinda wonky when I read it.

 

[tb12939]

Maybe technically yes, everything is quantum.

Is gravity? In the two slit experiment, when an single electron causes an interference pattern by appearing to have taken both paths, did the gravity from this electron appear to come from one or both paths?

 

[ajk48n]

Is gravity?

Ah good point. We don't know yet if gravity is quantized

 

[UserJoe]

Some physicists have recently merged gtavity with the standard model using quantum field theory. The details are published in this open access paper. They say it is a renormalizable quantum field theory that reproduces all of the standard model and general relativity. The gravity quanta (gravitons) of the unified gauge field theory are spin 2 tensor bosons.

 

[RagingWarGod]

Some physicists have recently merged gtavity with the standard model using quantum field theory. The details are published in this open access paper. They say it is a renormalizable quantum field theory that reproduces all of the standard model and general relativity. The gravity quanta (gravitons) of the unified gauge field theory are spin 2 tensor bosons.

That's then same thing I post above.

 

[UserJoe]

That's then same thing I post above.

My port was responding to the post before it. It is not directly related to your original post.