Live data from Hacker News

New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

phys.org

191–200 of 203 posts

Re: New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

#191

So to unify the theories they are actually keeping them separate?

In a way, yes, but not exactly. As far as I understand the idea is that gravity induces the collapse in quantum mechanics, which would be a huge conceptual change (and IMO a very satisfying solution to the measurement problem).

Moreover, according to the article this collapse does not preserve the key property of quantum mechanical time evolution: unitarity (aka "preservation of past information" aka "predictability of the future").

> The new theory allows for information to be destroyed, due to a fundamental breakdown in predictability.

Re: New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

#192
post #50

> and this scale can be determined by another experiment where we test how long we can put a heavy atom in superposition of being in two different locations." Im a physics noob, but does this imply the theory helps explain why we usually only see quantum effects on the mucroscopic scale, since it says something about how heavy objects cant be put in superposition?

Yes, at least that's my understanding.

Re: New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

#193
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some theories are only untestable for practical reasons, like needing a particle accelerator the size of the solar system. That doesn't make them unscientific or "not theories". That is not the kind of falsifiability that Karl Popper had in mind.

Do you have any examples? I‘d to read up!

This guy is exploring ultra large colliders:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.02048

> The CCM will be an important stepping stone toward an ultimate Planck- scale collider, with a centre-of-mass energy of ∼10^16 TeV, that would require a minimum size equal to a tenth of the distance from Earth to Sun.

Re: New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

#194
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, you know, all the elementary particles. I have this intrusive thought those are just bits of non-smoothly kinked/knotted spacetime but have neither the physics background or sense where to even start to look further into that.

Maybe what you're looking for is a "geon"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)

>held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy

Hm, not quite, they'd be held together topologically but the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrodynamics is interesting.

Re: New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

#195
post #152

Holy hell, talk about burying the lede here! The last sentence of the whole article is: The new theory allows for information to be destroyed, due to a fundamental breakdown in predictability. Are you kidding me?!

Is there something fundamental that breaks when information is allowed to be destroyed?

I mean, yes, things like The Arrow of Time, Entropy, our entire understanding of black holes, most of quantum mechanics.

Yeah, if information can be destroyed then a lot of physics needs to be redone.

Re: New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

#196

Exciting times! Any physicist here aware of how these two papers would impact the applicability or validity of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND)? background: my lay understanding of MOND is that it modifies the gravitational interaction parameter over cosmological distances. the force exerted on objects due to gravity is currently accepted to scale with distance in a certain manner (ex. 1/distance^2) while MOND post…

I am pretty sure that MOND has been completely ruled out[0] given some recent evidence. And by more than 5 sigma. [0] https://bigthink.com/hard-science/dark-matter-alternative-mo...

That article linked does not completely rule out MOND. It is a great article, but it even mentions several difficulties that complicate their observations.

Re: New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>redshift because their mass is changing. Why would that cause red shift?

Losing energy shifts the frequency of your emissions towards red. Basically, cooling down is the same thing as moving farther away from an inertial reference point.

Are you thinking of thermal radiation? And what does losing mass have to do with cooling down?

We observe redshift in the spectrum. Hydrogen emits radiation in very specific frequencies, which are redshifted. This cannot be explained by losing mass, heat or energy.

Re: New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

#199
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that it saves time to just start by assuming the experts haven't thought of X because of how many times I've seen assuming that they _have_ thought of X turn out to be a poor assumption, across many domains.

Can you give any examples of times you’ve easily anticipated X when a whole field of subject matter experts have demonstrably overlooked it?

* [insert every example of "15 year old unknown vulnerability in X found" here]

* have to be a bit vague here, but while working as a research scientist for the US Department of Defense I regularly witnessed and occasionally took part in scenarios where a radical idea turned "expert advice" on its head, or some applied thing completely contradicted established theoretical models in a novel or interesting way. Consistently, the barrier to such advancements was always "experts" telling you that your thing should not / could not work, blocking your efforts, withholding funding, etc., only to be proven wrong. Far too many experts care more about maintaining the status quo than actually advancing the field, and a concerning number are actually on the payroll of various corporations or private interests to actively prevent such advancements.

* over the last 30 years in the AI field, there have been a few major inflection points, Yann LeCun's convolutional neural networks and his more general idea that ANNs stood to gain something by loosely mimicking the complexity of the human brain, for which he was originally ridiculed and largely ignored by the scientific community until convolution revolutionized computer vision; and the rise of large language models, which came out of a whole branch of AI research that had been disregarded for decades and was definitely not seen as a thing that might ever come close to something like AGI, natural language processing.

* going back further in history there are plenty of examples, like quantum mechanics turning the relativistic model on its head, Galileo, etc etc. The common theme is a bunch of conservative, self-described experts scoffing at something that ends up completely redefining their field and making them ultimately look pretty silly and petty. This happens so frequently in history that I think it should just be assumed at all times in all fields, as this dynamic is one of the few true constants throughout history. No one is an expert, no one has perfect knowledge of everything, and the next big advancement will be something that contradicts conventional wisdom.

Admittedly, I derived these beliefs from some of the Socratic teachings I received very early in life, around 6th grade or so back in the late 90s, but they have continually borne fruit for me. Question everything. When debugging, question your most basic assumptions first., "is it plugged in?" etc, etc

It's sort of at a point these days where if you want to find a fruitful research idea, probably best to just browse through conventional wisdom on your topic and question the most fundamental assumptions until you find something fishy.

Re: New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give any examples of times you’ve easily anticipated X when a whole field of subject matter experts have demonstrably overlooked it?

I don't really agree with the OP, but I do think there is at least one, possibly two such examples. The pretty clear one is nutrition: the vast majority of studies and recommendations made over the years are pure bullshit, and quite transparently so. They either study a handful of people in detail, or a huge swathe of population in aggregate, and get so many confounding variables that there is 0 explanatory power in…

Nutrition in particular is a scenario where major corporations willfully hid research about sugar and things for years and years and funded research attacking fat content instead, which turns out is actually pretty benign. Perfect example.
Post reply on HN