originally posted by: ImaFungi
So, my questions are the main obvious intuitive questions to ask about such a thing, and so in one corner there is the self consistent QM which
ignores the existence of gravity, and the other hand is general relativity which ignore existence of QM, and since Einsteins death bed and prior, have
there been any narrowing down towards consensus as to what the reality of the situation appears to be?
weve developed string theory, and put ALL our money on that one horse, sums it up pretty much i think.
unfortunatly QM and field theory dont seem to be compatible at all.
yet we do NOT look out for a flaw in the equation, but squeeze and stretch it, add arbitrary value etc until it "somehow" aproximates.
From what I have been explained about it is that QM (or GR cant remember which), the pesky thing about it deals with all sorts of infinities so
they have to create 'cut offs', to make the equations check out, and with the semi arbitrary cut offs, gravity is compatible with QM up until a
certain point, the point of approaching ever higher levels of energy, where once again there enter problems with infinities I guess and the lack of
checking out.
it dosesent really make grav. any more compatible, but the described cut offs are made to obtain results one can work with, and herein lies one of the
initial problems.
while we do have to make cutoffs for practical reasons, theory doesent account for those values being cutoff.
every pupil is told that a "coffecup full of vacuum could evaporate all of earths oceans" this tremendous ammount of energy is basically completely
ignored.
Now, the first thing I would think to ask is; musn't it be something about QM sitting down to write its self consistent equations and ignoring
gravity that makes it difficult to once QM equations are tidy and equal to then try and shove gravity in, isnt it no wonder there is a
problem?
the problem is pretty deep rooted really.
we have NO clue at all what gravity really is, and describing something mathematical that you dont understand is more a game of chance.
we know that energy packed into an area of space causes gravity. it doesent seem to matter what manifestation this energy has, its total contributes
to its "mass total" and therefore its gravitational pull.
strong force is a good example. some binding-energy that makes up the largest part of a systems total energy(with no evidence other that nuclei stick
togeather btw, again a practical, arbitrary thing that could be caused by whoknowswhat).
the underlying mechanic however is a complete mystery, and we cannot describe space-curvature in descrete terms, or even pinpoint wth is curving it to
begin with.
So musn't the problem be that in the QM equations there is a region of energy/mass that is being neglected and wrongfully appropriated to other
constituents that makes the equations and prediction experiments work, but admitting to leaving out values of gravity it is understood that the
equation, something about the values must be 'off', in the sense of their labels.
abso-freakin-lutely. now one of the problems here is science itself!
we have guys and gals who work with field equations, and the other ones being into QM.
both sides now insist in inheriting the proper theory and defend them biting, clawing and screaming.
they certainly seem to lack the ability to sit togeather and reevaluate whats really KNOWN and whats one of the arbitrary factors, to work out a
really unified thing.
bc one thing became apparent i the last like 50+ years: QM and FE are most likely not unifiable.
allso, everyone looking into the REAL numbers, including the cutoffs, is being laughed at, pretty similar to when nuclear power was discovered and
folx didnt trust the insane ammount of energy maths predicted for fission.
check this out to get a picture of how much energy matter potentially inherits:
hiup.org...
i dont toally agree with everything in there, but the derivation of energy seems pretty solid.
The second thing I would say, is could it be that when approaching high enough energies with materials the reasons the equations break down,
and this might be related to black holes because thats what happens at those energies right (?)
absolutely, and thats one of the conclusions from the linked paper.
letz say general acceptance wasnt as high, as a look at the numbers might have suggested. *cough*
theres been quite its share of theories concluding that particles must be of singular nature, if that somehow helps to reobtain serenity. :p
en.wikipedia.org... might help shed some insight on it.
regarding your unanswered question:
planck units are derived from physical constants, and physical constants
alone (thats actually what makes them so important :p).
a planck lenght is the smallest possible wavelenght, a planck time is the time a photon needs to travel a planck lenght.
there is no such thing as a planck propability, and yes its very well within the realm of possibility that einstein was right when he doubted that
"the old one would roll dice".
im not so sure about gravity being the cause of propability, but i too think theres an underlying mechanic we yet just dont understand and consider it
"random".
but again, describing something mathematically of wich you dont know the mechanism is a game of chance.
...and we quite frankly dont even know wth energy is.
edit on 18-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos