Live data from Hacker News

Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe

arxiv.org

81–85 of 85 posts

Re: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe

#81
post #41
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that just relativistic quantum field theory?

that's the thing, gravity from GR doesn't quantize well, or actually at all.

Einstein gravity quantizes remarkably well in the weak field limit; it's called perturbative quantum gravity, and is considered (with good reason) a sound effective field theory (in the Kenneth G Wilson sense of "effective"). One of the results of perturbative quantization is the discovery of the non-renormalization -- by power-set counting -- of gravity and why (very roughly and simply, it's because gravity is a long-range and self-interacting force). However, this only matters in systems where you would need to use Feynman diagrams involving multiple loops of gravitons, which essentially defines strong gravity, and you'll only find that well inside the event horizons of black holes, or in the extremely early big bang universe.

Outside the strong gravity limit, perturbative quantization of Einstein gravity exactly corresponds with General Relativity, as indeed any theory seeking to extend or replace General Relativity pretty well must (since GR accords with so much observational and experimental evidence).

There is also little reason to expect that we will never arrive at methods other than power-set counting to deal with the explosion of variables in many-loop systems, although that in itself should not preclude investment in other quantum gravity programmes that are very different.

Re: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe

#82
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you will find all the models are false to a degree. A model is only an approximation of the real thing. Quantum mechanics and General relatively cannot both be right. The obvious answer is that they are both wrong.

A thought experiment of mine. Assume that all possible hypothesis or theories (explanations in general) form part of an "explanation space." Some explanations are good (theories), some have no evidence (hypothesis) and some are false (we are riding a giant turtle). Given the number of false explanations, the overall space is infinite. Hypothesis spaces would be islands within the false explanation space, theories isl…

Your "explanation space" is almost certainly infinite and mostly empty.

The closer any model approaches reality, the more it is indistinguishable from the object being described. Like any map, it becomes unwieldy with increased accuracy. The model becomes the size of the universe. So, a universe-sized model inside of an infinite explanation space?

Re: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe

#83
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_bead_argument I suppose I should have said energy, not mass, but unlike a photon which can disappear into nothing, leaving just the energy, a gravitational wave can't ever vanish entirely, so it's more like mass in that regard. And don't forget that a wave can travel at the speed of light even if the wave is carried by massy particles that can not.

> I suppose I should have said energy, not mass, but unlike a photon which can disappear into nothing, leaving just the energy, a gravitational wave can't ever vanish entirely, so it's more like mass in that regard. This sentence is wrong. I'm not sure what you mind with "photon which can disappear into nothing, leaving just the energy", but gravitons [1] can do the same thing. A gravitational wave is made of a huge…

> can disappear into nothing, leaving just the energy", but gravitons [1] can do the same thing.

I'm not convinced they can vanish, unlikely photons there is nothing that can stop a graviton, they are able to travel through all matter.

So given they have unlimited range, how would one vanish?

> A gravitational wave is made of a huge amount of gravitons

That is not established at all!! Not to mention it's mathematically identical to saying gravity is made up of gravitons, and we certainly have not established gravitons exist even for plain gravity.

After all a gravity wave is just a modulation in gravitational force, not some new entity.

Re: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe

#84
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suppose I should have said energy, not mass, but unlike a photon which can disappear into nothing, leaving just the energy, a gravitational wave can't ever vanish entirely, so it's more like mass in that regard. This sentence is wrong. I'm not sure what you mind with "photon which can disappear into nothing, leaving just the energy", but gravitons [1] can do the same thing. A gravitational wave is made of a huge…

> can disappear into nothing, leaving just the energy", but gravitons [1] can do the same thing. I'm not convinced they can vanish, unlikely photons there is nothing that can stop a graviton, they are able to travel through all matter. So given they have unlimited range, how would one vanish? > A gravitational wave is made of a huge amount of gravitons That is not established at all !! Not to mention it's mathematica…

Gravitons (if they exist) will interact with any particle with mass, so a big heavy wall should stop them. Since the interaction is extremely small, the wall must be extremely heavy, probably bigger than a galaxy, not just a normal wall.

>> A gravitational wave is made of a huge amount of gravitons

> That is not established at all!!

Completely agree. My conviction that they exist is based in many assumptions. In particular that we will someday have a quantum gravity theory that will be correct and that it will integrate nicely with the other physics theories. It's a good guess, but it's possible that we will not know the answer for hundreds of years.

Re: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe

#85
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can disappear into nothing, leaving just the energy", but gravitons [1] can do the same thing. I'm not convinced they can vanish, unlikely photons there is nothing that can stop a graviton, they are able to travel through all matter. So given they have unlimited range, how would one vanish? > A gravitational wave is made of a huge amount of gravitons That is not established at all !! Not to mention it's mathematica…

Gravitons (if they exist) will interact with any particle with mass, so a big heavy wall should stop them. Since the interaction is extremely small, the wall must be extremely heavy, probably bigger than a galaxy, not just a normal wall. >> A gravitational wave is made of a huge amount of gravitons > That is not established at all!! Completely agree. My conviction that they exist is based in many assumptions. In part…

> Gravitons (if they exist) will interact with any particle with mass

Yes. Except gravity actually interacts with any particle with energy, not just mass.

> so a big heavy wall should stop them

No. There is no way (as far as we know) to shield against gravity. Unlike charge, we don't even know of any way to attenuate it, never mind shield.

Post reply on HN