QM Versus GR (for people with an understanding of these two forces

In summary, scientists are divided over whether or not General Relativity controls quantum mechanics. Some people think that this is true, while others think that it's just an assumption. Some people are also working on a theory that would unite the two groups. But overall, most scientists seem to think that the two groups can never come to an agreement on an equation that would justify their existence as one.
  • #1
Kaspah_2k
12
0
hey all ,

Why do most physicists always team up with one set of rules when it comes to their understanding of science?

on one side you have the General Relativity group. they use real experiments to calculate the world into one equation (due to calculatable Mathematics)

on the other side you have the quantum mechanics group. who work with uncertainties and unresolvable equations. (due to the volistics of science)

The TOE (theory of everything) which scientists are now working on tries to unite these two groups with one equation which is leading to nasty results and outright worldy refusal in the scientific community.

i don't think that these two groups can ever make a equation which justifies the two groups as one. its like trying to unite the equations of a black hole with a biscuit. they are on two separate paths of thought.

so when i think of this i can only come to one conclusion.

what if general relativity actually CONTROLS quantum mechanics.

lets look at it this way -

If the universe had ONLY quantum mechanics (which other alternate universe's might have) then nothing would be certain. solids would become liquids and vice versa, space-time would be chaotic and non-linear. there couldn't be any conscience in this volistic universe at all.

But if General Relativity was the only force then particles,molecules and any other sub-atomic force would be nullified and matter would not exist at all so this alternate universe would just be nothingness.

But in our Universe, couldn't General Relativity be controlling Quantum Mechanics so that it doesn't go out of control as well as quantum mechanics being an underlying force which has to be there but in a controlled state.

well i haven't heard any other scientists talking about this as they are all to busy fighting their own view.

so are you a quantum mechanic or a general Relativian?

I view myself as both. :wink:

So what are your views on this theory (as its obviously theoretical assumption)?

i don't want anybody replying with only critisism and telling me how MY view is all so wrong.

i only want to read OTHER peoples views on the unification of forces and what poeple think of my view as a new approach.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
1)They aren't forces.
2)Read some books on the subject, get a little better understanding of both concepts.
Paden Roder
 
  • #3
well,

1) They are Forces you plonker

General Relativity is the Force of Gravity.
Quantum Mechanics is the Force of Sub-Atomic Particles.
And there's one more : Electromagnetism (EM) which is the Force of Electromagnetistic pull. :wink:

2) Maybe you should go and read up some more about forces in physics before you try and act like you know something to someone else.

i bet you think yuo know a lot more than most people well...

you dont.
 
  • #4
QM and GR are theories that describe forces. And there are four known fundamental forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong/weak nuclear. QM deals with the last two of them.

Both QM and GR must at least be partially right - they accurately explain a LOT about what we see going on in the world.
 
  • #5
THUS... read some more!
Not an insult, just saying. I guarantee if you do, you will understand what you just said made no sense.
Paden Roder
 
  • #6
russ and PRod are correct -- those are not forces, they are theories. As best I can tell, you don't really know anything about either of them.

- Warren
 
  • #7
For a more detailed explanation go to the forum titled 'why all the nut cases' and read the long reply I gave.
If you then take a look at what remains on my website (access through 'members list') you will see a diagram of the force within each fundamental particle. This gives enough information to build your own fundamental particle structural tables.
Use the table to calculate the average force and force carrier per unit of volume for each particle; you will find that multiplying the two together gives a graph that almost exactly overlays a graph of the masses of the fundamental particles found by experiment.
I am at present re-writing my web page and checking the tables with the intention of publishing a new web page, but it is already clear that only one force (vacuum) is required to explain the cause of mass and the creation of the fundamental particles.
Note that this is the only proposal that converts current philosophy into scientific theory, not by my definition, but by the definition given by current leaders in both philosophy and physics.
There are far to many sarcastic comments by those who know all about physics and nothing about science.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Originally posted by elas
There are far to many sarcastic comments by those who know all about physics and nothing about science.
Ooooh, ouch. LOL!

- Warren
 
  • #9
hehe
Paden Roder
 
  • #10
I have endeavored to learn all I can about physics while learning nothing of science. Thus far I have been unsuccessful. Every time I try to learn physics, science gets in the way. :frown:
 
  • #11
well...

I only said that QM and GR are a force because they encompass the nature of the force even though they are still theories.

if i was to say for instance -

"the force of General Relativity controls gravity",

It would imply that the force isn't ACTUALLY the theory but it saves me from overstating the fact instead of -

"the theory of general relativity which involves the force of gravity controls itself"

now i know this last statement seems stupid and that is why the first statement is more easier to read.

i can't state every single line of thought for a statement which is why i shorthanded it in the first place. so don't think i have no clue what I am talking about when I am trying to compress the statement.

now time for some toffee biscuits...
 
  • #12
I realize this is physics forums, not english forums, but that was grammatically incorrect as well as scientifically incorrect. It sound to me though like once the grammar gets corrected, you'll have the scientific meaning. This statement is closest to being correct:
the theory of general relativity which involves the force of gravity controls itself
but would be better worded 'the theory of general relativity explains (or models) gravity.'
 
  • #13
boooohoooo

well if you take our two quotes -

the theory of general relativity which involves the force of gravity controls itself

and

'the theory of general relativity explains (or models) gravity.'

then add them to about 13 million more peoples explanation of the theory of relativity, then mine (or yours) could be classed a grammatically correct.

why does anyone that comes on this site, focus all their nettime and physics entries into being so 'Grammatically' correct. we don't all word our beliefs the exact way as others and language is only a medium for the sake of connections.

i think to many scientists try and think and talk one way but maybe they should learn some transpersonal psychology or some frikin social ethics.

deos it mtater if i wirte my setncenes worng?

:wink:
 
  • #14


Originally posted by Kaspah_2k
why does anyone that comes on this site, focus all their nettime and physics entries into being so 'Grammatically' correct. we don't all word our beliefs the exact way as others and language is only a medium for the sake of connections.

deos it mtater if i wirte my setncenes worng?
Yes, it really does matter. Clarity of presentation is extremely important in a scientific discussion - as important (if not more) as the validity of the ideas being presented.
 
  • #15
Yeah, there's really no way for any scientist to permit the statement "general relativity is a force" on the grounds of "frickin social ethics." It's not grammatically incorrect, it's completely incorrect. If you'd like to discuss science, you first need to learn its language. If you can't be bothered to do so, you won't have much of a future in science.

- Warren
 
  • #16
PO GTR controls QM

Here is a Physicist's website that might interest you Kasbah.
http://www.compukol.com/mendel/
Dr. Mendel Sachs wrote several published papers in the mid to late 1960's and several books published by Dordrecht Reidel and others such as GENERAL RELATIVITY AND MATTER and QUANTUM MECHANICS FROM GENERAL RELATIVITY (1986 ?).
While I'm not sure how you mean that General Relativity might CONTROL Quantum Mechanics, I'm reminded of Dr. Sachs' work in which the linear equations of quantum mechanics are derived from a nonlinear theory of matter and its interactions. In this work, the theory of general relativity is not viewed as just a theory of gravity but of matter and all its interactions - weak,strong,electromagnetic, and gravitational.
In terms of meteorology, perhaps the idea of control might be like in a hierarchy in which GTR could be said to be the equations of the atmosphere and clouds while QM was the equations describing raindrops.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What is the difference between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity?

Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity (GR) are two fundamental theories in physics that describe the behavior of particles at the smallest scales and the behavior of objects in the presence of massive bodies, respectively. QM deals with the behavior of particles such as electrons and photons, while GR deals with the behavior of objects with mass, such as planets and stars.

2. How do QM and GR fit together in our understanding of the universe?

Theories of QM and GR are currently the most accurate and comprehensive models we have for understanding the behavior of particles and objects in the universe. However, they are not entirely compatible with each other and cannot fully explain all phenomena. Scientists are still working on finding a unified theory that can combine QM and GR into a single framework.

3. Can you give an example of where QM and GR have conflicting predictions?

One example is the phenomenon of black holes. According to GR, a black hole is a singularity, a point of infinite density, where the laws of physics break down. However, QM predicts that this cannot be true, as it suggests that there must be a finite size and structure to a black hole. This is just one of the many areas where the two theories have conflicting predictions.

4. Why is it difficult to reconcile QM and GR?

The main challenge in reconciling QM and GR is that they operate at vastly different scales. QM deals with the microscopic world, where particles behave according to probabilities, while GR deals with the macroscopic world, where gravity is the dominant force. Combining these two theories requires a deep understanding of both and a new way of thinking about the laws of physics.

5. What are some current theories and approaches to reconciling QM and GR?

One approach is String Theory, which suggests that at the most fundamental level, particles are not point-like, but instead tiny strings vibrating at different frequencies. This theory has the potential to unify QM and GR, but it is still a work in progress and has yet to be fully proven. Another approach is Loop Quantum Gravity, which attempts to quantize spacetime itself. This theory also has its challenges and is still being researched by scientists.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
235
  • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top