Live data from Hacker News

A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized

quantamagazine.org

91–100 of 378 posts

Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized

#91

> So if gravity is quantized, that means space-time is also quantized. But that doesn’t work, But... How could space-time not be quantized? That would imply the existence of infinities in the structure of the universe. It is like the ultraviolet catastrophe but in space-time.

Doesn't the plank distance imply quantization of space? At least in relative terms.

Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized

#92

I think it would be funny if we discover that refraction is caused by the slowing of light in close proximity to mass. That is, one of the most common and observable phenomena in physics is a quantum gravity phenonema! (The usual explanation for refraction is that light as an EM wave causes sympathetic vibration in the electrons (and the protons, a little) which slows it down. But what if light's proximity to protons…

Now I'm curious: does the refraction that happen within our eyes has anything to do with the processing and the consequent experience of sight in a way that it utilizes quantum mechanics that we don't understand?

In theory it could but in practice there isn't much about the optical portion of the eye that we do not understand, the boundary of that understanding is well behind the optical nerve. What sort of an effect is it that you are getting at?

Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized

#93
post #91

> So if gravity is quantized, that means space-time is also quantized. But that doesn’t work, But... How could space-time not be quantized? That would imply the existence of infinities in the structure of the universe. It is like the ultraviolet catastrophe but in space-time.

Doesn't the plank distance imply quantization of space? At least in relative terms.

Planck.

Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized

#94

> But when they tried to quantize gravity, they ran into unnatural infinities that had to be sidestepped with clumsy mathematical tricks. Maybe they run into unnatural infinities because all of our formalisms in physics are still fundamentally continuous rather than discrete. Uncountable infinities are baked right into the foundations of how we use reason about these systems, so infinities will naturally result. Phys…

Digital physics seems so obviously the correct approach from a philosophical perspective, it's a shame it blows up the math.

Real numbers are the most ironically named thing ever, and infinity is a thought experiment - not a real thing. Any model of the universe based on such constructs should be heavily suspect outside the range of established observations, and taking predicted limit behavior seriously is just foolish.

Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized

#95
post #2

If you believe in the Everett Interpretation, then he is wrong. The Everett Interpretation, aka Many Worlds, holds that both observer and observed are quantum mechanical systems. From this it follows that the act of observation does not produce a "collapse", but it does separate the observer into multiple observers that can't interact with each other again. So Schrödinger's cat is in a superposition of alive and dead…

Where would energy come from for creating each universe?

Sean Carroll, following Everett, puts it in the most concise form: (i) systems are described by wave functions, (ii) wave functions obey the Schrödinger equation [1]. "Many-worlds", universes, observations, observers, and so on become just entia multiplicanda [2], superfluities.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgalPdfHxM, one set of rules in quantum mechanics at 36:00; at 1:13:14 where does the energy come from? energy of the set of all universes is conserved.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a quantum physicist and you wouldn’t believe how many people try and sell me on their theory that solves everything that is literally just an idea in their head and can’t even produce any quantitative predictions. The levels of self delusion that these people display is astounding and we need to mock it more openly imo

The newage people are the worst at this. Beware, you may want to gouge your own eyes out: https://www.watkinsmagazine.com/quantum-life-of-healing-crys...

There is this thing that I like to call 'the cult of stupid' where people are somehow proud of their lack of knowledge and they are not afraid of putting it out there. They tend to laugh when asked pointed questions because in their world 'truth' has no value, it's all about belief. One family member of mine wears healing crystals because they keep her cancer free. It's really sad and it irks me that given the excellent educational opportunities we have that so many people choose willingly not to avail themselves of those opportunities. But they do have opinions on all that stuff that you need to work at to learn.

Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized

#97
post #76

> But when they tried to quantize gravity, they ran into unnatural infinities that had to be sidestepped with clumsy mathematical tricks. Maybe they run into unnatural infinities because all of our formalisms in physics are still fundamentally continuous rather than discrete. Uncountable infinities are baked right into the foundations of how we use reason about these systems, so infinities will naturally result. Phys…

> Physics has repeatedly had to tame infinities by elaborate tricks, or by eliminating them entirely or In case of black holes by actually interpreting infinity as a real place in the universe.

If I were a betting man I'd say black holes have no singularity, but rather a core of extremely dense exotic matter (probably formed from top/bottom quarks) which we haven't detected because it decays quickly under less extreme circumstances.

Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that's not possible. Either the gravitons are there, or they aren't. There's not two sets of reality of what particles exist for two different coordinate systems. No, this is completely false. Particle number is coordinate system and frame dependent. Quantum particles aren't little billiard balls bouncing around, and it's really best to not think of them as 'particles' at all. They're just a calculational tool…

Can you provide an example of a Lorentz boost that changes the number of particles?

It's pretty general. Just draw the worldlines for some particles bouncing off eachother, and then perform a Lorentz boost, which means choosing a new tilted spatial surface to intersect the worldlines. If you perform a boost, then the spatial surface intersect fewer or more worldlines, and worldlines which were for particles in one frame can become antiparticles in another.

Consider an electron absorbing a photon at spacetime point x, and then emitting a photon at spacetime point y, where (y0 - x0) > 0.

An observer in another lorenzt boosted frame would then say that they see in their boosted coordinated system (x' and y' with rapidity v), that (y'0 - x'0) = cosh(v)(y0 - x0) - sinh(v) (y1 - x1)

For large enough v, then you can have y'0 < x'0, so the observer in the boosted frame would see the events in a different order. One observer sees a negatively charged electron moving from x to y, and the other observer sees a positively charged positron moving from y to x.

Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized

#99
post #91

> So if gravity is quantized, that means space-time is also quantized. But that doesn’t work, But... How could space-time not be quantized? That would imply the existence of infinities in the structure of the universe. It is like the ultraviolet catastrophe but in space-time.

Doesn't the plank distance imply quantization of space? At least in relative terms.

No, Planck units have no intrinsic physical significance. They're just convenient to work in because they set the numeric values of several different physical constants to 1. The planck distance also happens to be roughly the length scale at which we expect quantum-gravitational effects to become significant, but roughly here means within a few orders of magnitude.

Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized

#100

Somewhat off topic, and somewhat related: I don't think there actually is such a particle as a graviton. General relativity says that you can't tell the difference between being unaccelerated, and being in free fall. But in one case you have no gravitons coming in, and in the other you have gravitons. I can change whether gravitons are there or not by a (general) relativistic transformation. But that's not possible.…

In relatively gravity is not a force like Electromagneticism etc. Instead, space time is curved and as a result the object itself is travelling in a straight, in accelerated line and only looks like it is accelerating to an observer outside of the curved space. So relativity has no gravitons and instead curves space. In quantum physics the opposite is true: space is flat, and gravity is like other forces, the result…

This is incorrect. A classical limit of the graviton picture fully reproduces general relativity. The incompatibility lies in the non-renormalizability of people's attempts and quantization of the Einstein Hilbert action, meaning that all the quantum loop corrections have unfixed coupling constants which can't be derived from the classical theory (unlike things like electromagnetism).
Post reply on HN