> 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.
A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized
91–100 of 378 posts
Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized
#92I 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?
Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized
#93> 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
#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…
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
#95If 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?
[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.
Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized
#96Earlier 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...
Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized
#97> 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.
Re: A physicist who bets that gravity can’t be quantized
#98Earlier 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?
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> 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
#100Somewhat 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…