Saturday, April 29, 2017

Why Do General Relativity And Quantum Mechanics Need To Be Unified?


Good description of what we have here.   However as someone who has a deep understanding of relativity and the metrics necessary to unify physics, I am able to make a remarkably simple observation.  
 
It is that the inverse of mathematical infinity as zero fails in our empirical universe.  Understanding just this means that the assumption of a field is a gross error that quickly fails even at the electron level.  Throw out mathematical infinity and you quickly enter a world of hurt with all our theory, not least with Relativity although that at least provides an underlying geometry but quickly gets into trouble with the Schwartzchild solution when it spits out a perfect surface we call a black hole.  That is exactly where empirical infinity reasserts itself.
 
Great work has been done with these tools but they are severely flawed.  My work neatly describes the neutral neutrino as a first movement in our universe and then opens the road for the expansion of our universe as first tier matter.  The expansion rate of the universe varies as the inverse of the number of such  particles in the universe.  This is all based on a three dimensional manifold plausibly embedded in space time geometry.  In this way time is the process of flipping pages and is not itself obviously mathematically continuous.  In this manner we can eliminate mathematical continuity which depends on mathematical infinity except as a handy tool..
 
Why Do General Relativity And Quantum Mechanics Need To Be Unified?

Do General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics even need to be unified? originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.


Answer by Viktor T. Toth, IT pro, part-time physicist, on Quora:


https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/04/13/why-do-general-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics-need-to-be-unified/#723bb54d4aa2


Both general relativity and quantum physics describe Nature. We would like to have a description of Nature that is self-consistent. That’s what unification is: a self-consistent framework that works.


From a practical perspective, this unification may never be needed. Quantum field theory works just fine on a curved background. And classical gravitational theory describes that curved background with exquisite precision.


So the issue of unification only comes up when the geometry can no longer be treated as a mere background, or conversely, when the classical theory is no longer accurate. But these circumstances exist (as far as we know) in only two places: the earliest moments of the Big Bang, and the immediate vicinity of singularities hidden behind black hole event horizons.


Everywhere else, a theory called semiclassical gravity works just fine: it uses the so-called expectation value of quantum fields as a source of classical gravity, which in turn determines the curved background for those quantum fields.


So perhaps from a pragmatic perspective, this is all we need, as there will never, ever be an experiment that takes us beyond semiclassical gravity. But even then, it is (philosophically, perhaps) deeply unsatisfying that only such an imperfect marriage exists between the two theories.


And who knows, one day we may find out that the regime of quantum gravity is accessible after all to some clever observations/experiments, in which case the question acquires practical significance. Or conversely, perhaps a unification of the two theories might lead to novel applications, which may even lead to new kinds of engineering.

No comments:

There was an error in this gadget