Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I'm asking why Quantum Theory and Relativity don't work together

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I have a question about the three fundamental forces of (Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear and Electromagnetic).
Each of these forces are well understood processes of quantum mechanics

My question has to do with the in ability of these mathematically established forces of structure of the universe and the inability of mathematics to apply the Fourth for gravity to theses three fundamental forces

Basically I'm asking why Quantum Theory and The Principals of Relativity don't work together

I have a concept as to the reason; and would like feed back on it.

Gravity aside, If you look at the Three forces on their own there what provide stability or the appearance of it and allows for however long a period of time for psychical structures to existence.

To me it seems like these Three Forces are in action against gravity, keeping the particles, that form matter and its mass From quickly collapsing in on itself. Which is why objects with more mass possess more gravity, but all matter more or less is affected by it.

Stars have the to produce massive amounts of energy to fight the inward pull of gravity
What I propose is this the idea of time is miss applied as a forward progressing aspect of space, For both theories to be correct which on their own they most imperatively are. Then the progression of time most be moving both forward and backwards

Think of it like this when the big bang began it was as if the A side of a cassette tape, time a this point is a bit immeasurable by human standers but then the universe expanded and cold this was the point where the A side of the tape end and began to rewind drawing back in the creation it let out, this is where the B side started to play, because as the A side of a cassette tape rewinds the B side plays

You see we subsist on both sides but the forward motion only appears so, we live on the B side, but look out into space both up and down watching the A side rewind the Universe through the force of gravity which is stably slowed by the Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear and Electromagnetic forces




posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by IblisLucifer
 


They don't work together? I always thought that if you had a formula, you would have to add relativity bits if the object(s) were going fast, and quantum parts to it if the object(s) were small. Therefore, if a small object was going fast, you would just tag on both add-ons.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Life is the struggle against backwards

Animal, Plants, Planets, Stars and Atoms. But all are living things they are created and live for a time however long that maybe.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Both fields of theory still need understanding, agreement, definition and tweaking. The reason why some theories prove the other field wrong but the theory works alone, is indicative of unknown factors. Science is moving so far out and so far in, do you think it will ever touch?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:59 AM
link   
From my limited understanding, all these theories are based off of mathematics. Mathematics is only a way humans can describe certain things, although limited, and sometimes disagreeing is also highly and has been wildly successful explaining things. Why don't they work together, I'm sure under the right context it may work together and with the right teacher to articulate maybe they can work out alright.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by IblisLucifer
 



IblisLucifer
Think of it like this when the big bang began it was as if the A side of a cassette tape, time a this point is a bit immeasurable by human standers but then the universe expanded and cold this was the point where the A side of the tape end and began to rewind drawing back in the creation it let out, this is where the B side started to play, because as the A side of a cassette tape rewinds the B side plays

I already replied to the duplicate of this post in more detail, but I'll just add here that I don't think the universe is like a giant cassette tape with an A side and a B side, at least I've seen no evidence for that.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by IblisLucifer
 


The simplest answer is that quantum mechanics governs the "very small" (subatomic particles), while relativity applies to the "very large" (i.e. planets, etc.). In essence it is a problem of scalability, in that when trying to apply quantum theory to the macro world and relativistic principles to the micro world the mathematics "breaks down" (think of it as the equations/formulas/expressions used don't aren't solvable or that when they are solved the answers don't make sense) and in general don't work. This is a very basic, very generalized explanation and doesn't necessarily apply to every scenario in physics, yet I hope it helps.

Edit: The exact reason why the two theories don't work together is unknown. Please ignore the above if unhelpful or just pointing out what you may already know- I can be a master of the obvious at times.
edit on 30-12-2013 by FatherStacks because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Every physicist understands why relativity and quantum mechanics are inconsistent with each other.
Relativity is based upon classical (i.e., pre-quantum) physics in which motion of objects in space-time can be described with no limits on the accuracy of the measured values of their positions in space-time, their momenta, energies and angular momenta. Quantum mechanics reveals that this is is only a description of their average motion because their instantaneous motion is subject to the indeterminacies of Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, which makes impossible such a classical physics description in which, for example, the simultaneous position and momentum of a particle can be measured with arbitrary accuracy. Applying Special Relativity to the quantum mechanics of particles and forces, i.e., ignoring their gravitational forces, introduces infinities into the mathematics that can be side-stepped by the trick of "renormalisation". Applying General Relativity to them, i.e., considering these forces in a curved space-time, cannot side-step this problem because the gravitational field due to the curvature of space-time turns out to be non-renormalizable. The problem persists because the space-time continuum is no longer a mathematically continuous entity at the (Planck) scale where quantum fluuctuations in the gravitational field become significant.

String theory provides a possible solution to this inherent inconsistenct between the two pillars of modern physics. However, it has yet to be demonstrated because the general, so-called "M-theory" has not been found yet- only its various approximations in terms of the five know types of superstrings. I am confident it will appear soon, together with some surprises for theoretical physicists that will usher in a revolution in particle physics.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by IblisLucifer
 


They don't work together because the equation that defines a black hole in quantum mechanics requires the singularity to be divided by zero.

(and dividing by zero is impossible in physics)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by IblisLucifer
 


There are FOUR fundamental forces governing the universe at the most basic level. Gravitational force is the "fourth musketeer". Just thought I'd clarify that particular detail.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

micpsi
Every physicist understands why relativity and quantum mechanics are inconsistent with each other.
Relativity is based upon classical (i.e., pre-quantum) physics in which motion of objects in space-time can be described with no limits on the accuracy of the measured values of their positions in space-time, their momenta, energies and angular momenta. Quantum mechanics reveals that this is is only a description of their average motion because their instantaneous motion is subject to the indeterminacies of Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, which makes impossible such a classical physics description in which, for example, the simultaneous position and momentum of a particle can be measured with arbitrary accuracy. Applying Special Relativity to the quantum mechanics of particles and forces, i.e., ignoring their gravitational forces, introduces infinities into the mathematics that can be side-stepped by the trick of "renormalisation".



Applying General Relativity to them, i.e., considering these forces in a curved space-time, cannot side-step this problem because the gravitational field due to the curvature of space-time turns out to be non-renormalizable. The problem persists because the space-time continuum is no longer a mathematically continuous entity at the (Planck) scale where quantum fluuctuations in the gravitational field become significant.


To me it seems that one solution is to believe that general relativity including gravitation is---unlike special relativity which requires transformation properties which are strongly observationally validated--only valid as a macroscopic approximation and does not strictly describe the underlying QM structure down to the microscopic level, at least on the source term.

Like the nuclear strong force is a 'residual' of underlying QCD, and Van der Waals is a residual of underlying electromagnetism.

After all, we only really know experimentally about gravitation in very large scale macroscopic objects which are electrically nearly uncharged and are made of ordinary protons, neutrons and electrons.

Actually this brings up a question: do we have experimental evidence that electrons gravitate? (I.e. are part of source term)?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

darkbake
reply to post by IblisLucifer
 


They don't work together?




No, they don't. That's why the Holy Grail of science is the "Unified Theory" that makes everything work together nicely.

And it's been quite a long time since I studied any of this, but I thought it was gravity, specifically, that did not quite work the same on both a micro and macro level....



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   

FatherStacks
The simplest answer is that quantum mechanics governs the "very small" (subatomic particles), while relativity applies to the "very large" (i.e. planets, etc.). In essence it is a problem of scalability, in that when trying to apply quantum theory to the macro world and relativistic principles to the micro world the mathematics "breaks down" (think of it as the equations/formulas/expressions used don't aren't solvable or that when they are solved the answers don't make sense)





It leaves a nasty taste in their mouths. That's when they put down their chalk, walk away from the board and get a cup of coffee.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
They don't work together yet because they only describe what it seems like we're observing, not what is really going on. We'll get there.

For example, a cosmologist looks at distant galaxies and realizes that the universe is expanding, or inflating, as it were. But he cannot quite make the connection that if that type of inflation is occurring at the macrocosmic level, it is indeed also happening at the microcosmic level. Thus he himself, and his entire environment is inflating at a uniform rate.

This literally meaning that if you were the size of a baby when you were born, you may actually be the size of a planet, or even a star by the time you died, relative to the size of the baby you were.


Also, we humans have a problem with observation. From the cosmologists vantage point and variable proximity to other objects, he sees an illusion created by perspective, not the reality.

We actually see our world in a two dimensional way, and our brain creates a three dimensional reality with neat tools like stereoscopic vision and vanishing lines (perspective), and also experience - remembering how big that car looks at varying distance, giving one an idea of depth.

I'm probably rambling now, but we also have a really hard time conceptualizing and especially visualizing an action such as gravity. We can't correctly observe gravity for what it is, because as a species we've always lived within a gravitational field. Our brains are so used to relating to the action of gravity in the way it affects our lives directly, that we would have to use a great amount of imagination to observe it from a perspective other than our own.

On the surface of the Earth, gravity is two dimensional. The thought experiment goes, if you were at the hypothetical center of the Earth, what would the effects of gravity be? Would your guts and blood splay out toward the inner surfaces of your body and your extremities? Would it create a hole in the center of your body where guts used to be? And if so, what would be the significance of that hole?

The idea is that the matter surrounding you would 'pull' on you, from the inside out as a result of the 'gravitational force' of the matter. I do not believe that this is the case, in reality. But only because we are not able to actually observe what the cause and effect of what gravity is yet.

All that being said, I believe there are people that indeed know the answers to these questions, and others, particularly regarding energy production and transmission, and are obfuscating those answers behind fossil fuels, and the partiality, if not the simplicity of the relativity theory.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FatherStacks
 


Is there no conversion step? Is there no midway point at which one translates into the other? Not even a hybrid which reconciles the two and determines the differences?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Mon1k3r


I'm probably rambling now, but we also have a really hard time conceptualizing and especially visualizing an action such as gravity. We can't correctly observe gravity for what it is, because as a species we've always lived within a gravitational field. Our brains are so used to relating to the action of gravity in the way it affects our lives directly, that we would have to use a great amount of imagination to observe it from a perspective other than our own.


No, that isn't true. It's much easier to conceptualize general relativity intuitively than quantum field theory.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


That's not even related to what I said.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mon1k3r
 


It is, actually; you just don't see it, probably because you're not too familiar with general relativity. No shame in that; it's a tough subject.

This, too, is incorrect:


For example, a cosmologist looks at distant galaxies and realizes that the universe is expanding, or inflating, as it were. But he cannot quite make the connection that if that type of inflation is occurring at the macrocosmic level, it is indeed also happening at the microcosmic level. Thus he himself, and his entire environment is inflating at a uniform rate.

It is only interstellar space, far from significant gravitational influences, that expands. In the vicinity of galaxies and their components, the metric expansion of space does not apply. Neither do physical objects expand along with space.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

I read post by Mon1k3r's post about microcosmic expansion and was starting to wonder if that might explain the extra 2cm in my waistline, but you sure know how to burst my bubble by saying it ain't so. I should have been suspicious when I didn't measure any increase in my height.



Mon1k3r
They don't work together yet because they only describe what it seems like we're observing, not what is really going on. We'll get there.

For example, a cosmologist looks at distant galaxies and realizes that the universe is expanding, or inflating, as it were. But he cannot quite make the connection that if that type of inflation is occurring at the macrocosmic level, it is indeed also happening at the microcosmic level. Thus he himself, and his entire environment is inflating at a uniform rate.
Scientists question if what they are observing is accurate probably more than you realize. Here is an article which again you may not think is related, but it's very related to what you said:

Is The Speed of Light Constant?
So you're talking about expansion, and maybe wondering why is the speed of light relevant? The speed of light is a critical part of how we measure distance now (until 1960 it was a physical bar, the "the International Prototype Metre", and if that had been growing with everything else, it might not be so easy to tell. But we no longer use that and now use the speed of light to define distance, and our understanding of physics would need to be vastly flawed for our latest measurement of the meter to change without our noting it).


We could, for example, take the definitions of the units as they stood between 1967 and 1983. Then, the metre was defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the reddish-orange light from a krypton-86 source, and the second was defined (then as now) as 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of caesium-133. Unlike the previous definitions, these depend on absolute physical quantities which apply everywhere and at any time. Can we tell if the speed of light is constant in those units?

The quantum theory of atoms tells us that these frequencies and wavelengths depend chiefly on the values of Planck's constant, the electronic charge, and the masses of the electron and nucleons, as well as on the speed of light. By eliminating the dimensions of units from the parameters we can derive a few dimensionless quantities, such as the fine structure constant and the electron to proton mass ratio. These values are independent of the definition of the units, so it makes much more sense to ask whether these values change. If they did change, it would not just be the speed of light which was affected. The whole of chemistry is dependent on their values, and significant changes would alter the chemical and mechanical properties of all substances. Furthermore, the speed of light itself would change by different amounts according to which definition of units you used. In that case, it would make more sense to attribute the changes to variations in the charge on the electron or the particle masses than to changes in the speed of light.

In any case, there is good observational evidence to indicate that those parameters have not changed over most of the lifetime of the universe. See Have physical constants changed with time?
So this is really a little background on why we believe what Astyanax said is true, in a way that overcomes your insightful objections that we might not know if our "yardstick" was changing. Before 1960 that may have been more of a concern since that was the last year we used "the International Prototype Metre" as a standard for distance measurement.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by IblisLucifer
 


my guess is they both ignore magnetism which probably is the real mechanism behind everything.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join