Quantum indeterminacy says that without interaction/ measurement the actual state of a particle is not determined.
Gravitation on the other - by measurement and theory - reaches indefinitely far out. Meaning it interacts with particles. But how can it do that if particles are not determined, which we also know from experiment).
Those two observations are both measured by experiment, but actually are exclusive of each other. Gravitaiton between two particles is depending on the positions of both. If they are not determined, gravitaition would not be determined. Yet it is, it dictates large parts of our universe.
Conversly, if gravitation acts deterministically, e.g. of a planet on a particle, why is it not determined?
Apparently very weak gravitational forces (as between two particles, or between a planet and a particle) are not enough to make the situation "deterministic", which is not represented in any formulation for gravitation, despite the apparent contradiction between observation of gravitational effects and quantum indeterminacy.
What am I overlooking? Both cannot be true, due to that contradiction.
Dear Volker Maiwald science does not know meaning of many thing What is particle? How could you compare a "particle" with a "Planets" ? to my understanding these two has no relation.
Other question, what is gravity? science believes Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity, while any one-dimension equation that does not recognize temperature, pressure, cannot describe three-dimension of nature that it is changing constantly.
We should think brighter on nature.
Gravitation, as described by general relativity, and quantum mechanics indeed present challenges when trying to reconcile them in certain contexts, such as when dealing with extreme conditions like the center of a black hole or the moment of the Big Bang. This has been a major pursuit in theoretical physics, with efforts towards a theory of quantum gravity. However, in most everyday situations, such contradictions don't arise, and both theories work well within their respective domains. It's an ongoing area of research to develop a unified theory that can seamlessly incorporate both quantum mechanics and gravity.
The answer to
“Gravitation and Quantum indeterminacy contradict each other => something is not right?”
- is as: Gravitation and Quantum indeterminacy fundamentally cannot contradict each other, since Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, which in a few traits is similar to fundamental Nature Electric force, and gravitational interactions on QM scale – as fundamentally every other fundamental Forces interactions, though – fundamentally are “quantized”.
So after the correct “classical” theory of Gravity Force will be developed, there would not be any principal obstacles at developing QM Gravity theory incorporating corresponding potential energy in QM equations
– as that happened, in certain sense, though, since in the standard mainstream physics classical electrodynamics and QED [and all QETs] really are rather strange theories.
So really not “Gravitation” but the standard GR is fundamentally incompatible with QM, since is based on fundamentally wrong postulate that interactions in gravitationally coupled systems of bodies are interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass”, while in QM interactions of particles, etc., with space/time/spacetime – in this case fundamentally correctly - don’t exist.
Really, as that rigorously scientifically proven in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics ,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force
- Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute “infinite empty container”, which fundamentally cannot be impacted by anything in Matter and fundamentally cannot impact on anything in Matter;
- and it is rigorously shown that it is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), where everything in Matter exists and happens.
More see the links above, SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_ultimate_reason_for_the_gravitational_force/18, pages 18, 19, are relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Here you find the latest related papers of the Quantum Information Structure of Space-time consortium (https://www.qiss.fr/publications/). It is a research collaboration from:
- INSTITUTE FOR QUANTUM OPTICS AND QUANTUM INFORMATION, VIENNA
- ROTMAN INSTITUTE FOR PHILOSOPHY, WESTERN UNIVERSITY
- CENTER FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS, AIX-MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY
- QUANTUM GROUP AND CLARENDON LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
- PERIMETER INSTITUTE
- UNIVERSITY OF PARIS-SACLAY, QUANTUM COMPUTATION STRUCTURES GROUP
- QUANTUM INFORMATION AND COMPUTATION INITIATIVE, HKU
- OKINAWA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
- UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA, PHYSICS DPT
- CENTER FOR QUANTUM INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION, BRUSSELS
- QUANTUM INFORMATION LABORATORY, ROME LA SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY
- PENN STATE UNIVERSITY, INSTITUTE FOR GRAVITATION AND THE COSMOS
- CENTER FOR MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES, UNAM
- BARD COLLEGE, NEW YORK
- ETH ZÜRICH
- THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE
- ROYAL HOLLOWAY, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
- UNIVERSITÄT BONN
With kind regards, Sydney
“…Here you find the latest related papers of the Quantum Information Structure of Space-time consortium (https://www.qiss.fr/publications/). It is a research collaboration from:
- INSTITUTE FOR QUANTUM OPTICS AND QUANTUM INFORMATION, VIENNA
…..”, etc., etc., etc..
- yeah, after the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model [links see in the SS post above] was developed, where more 30 fundamental physical problems are either solved
[including, besides condense matter problems even most of standard ones in mainstream physics, see Appendix in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics, but also the problems that really exist, but mainstream physics, having purely instinctive imagination about what are, say, “Matter”, “Energy”, fundamental Nature forces, particles, etc., seems even didn’t/ don’t suspect that the problems – so what are “Matter”, “Energy”, fundamental Nature forces, particles, etc.?, are real fundamental problems]
- or at least clarified on level, when rational ways for solutions became be rather clear,
- in the mainstream rather numerous physicists and collaborations started to develop “informational physics”, the pointed in the quoted post “consortium” is only an example.
These “institutes”, “consortiums”, etc., attempt to “discover” what is in the SS&VT model, attempting to invent the terms, equations, etc., that would make image that the “discoveries” are something different, but the model is formulated perfectly completely enough, and so, say – while indeed in the case above, most of the members of the consortium frankly believe
- that, say, the completely scientifically rationally postulated in the SS&VT model Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE],
- which is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP,
- can be really replaced by completely fantastic – and fundamentally wrong - “Quantum Information Structure of Space-time”. Matter’s spacetime – and any spacetime of anything – fundamentally is nothing else than some logical “empty container”, which fundamentally hasn’t some structure. Though yeah, this “Structure” in at least first publications of the consortium eventually will inevitably have FLE lattice structure.
Etc. – however at that the SS&VT model, despite that any information about the model and real authors is blocked everywhere that is possible, is, nonetheless rather widely known, and so really legitimate “discovery” of what is in the model is possible really only provided that the corresponding “alive real authors problem” is solved,
- and attempts to solve this problems are quite real, more see SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-it-true-that-physicists-do-not-want-to-understand-quantum-mechanics#view=642b89716f2a73457707a995/260/259/260/259/260/260/260/261/262/263/263/264/263/264/263/264/264/264/265/265/266/267/269/270/270/271/271/270/273/272/273/273/274/274/274/274/275/275/276/277/276/277/276/279/279/279/280/280/281/281/282/282/282/284/284/283/284/284/285/284/284/285/285/286/287/287/288/288/288/289/288/289/289/290/289/290/290/291/291/292/293/293/294/295/294/295/295/295/295/296/296/296/296/296/296/297/297/296/297/297/297/298/297/298/299/298/297 , pages 297, 300.
The posts on this thread [and time-to-time on other RG threads] are practically unique way to decrease the activity of the “solvers”,
- and so after these SS posts on the pages above corresponding specific posters attempt to organize intensive spamming, last time a 2-nd organizer and a few corresponding posters make that after 297 page rather effectively.
Cheers
Recent SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravity_and_Inertia ,
- and in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ideas_for_Aether_Theory_of_Gravity/2 is relevant to this thread question, pages 1, 2
- are relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Recent SS posts in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO36_Doubts_about_General_Relativity_1-Is_the_Geometry_Interpretation_of_Gravity_a_Paradox/1 ,
- and in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-criteria-do-you-have-in-mind-while-characterizing-a-scientific-theory/31 pages 29, [30,31], though
- are relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Recent SS posts in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Dark_Matter-Do_we_need_to_change_the_law_of_gravity_Or_is_there_extra_mass_in_the_universe#view=662d7d1462f33170f0070224/5/6/7/6/7/7/7 pages 5,7,8
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_mass_energy_equation_and_energy-momentum_relation_E2_mc22_pc2_fundamental/10
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_is_the_most_convincing_physical_experiment_Not_Thought_Experiment_that_conclusively_validates_Einsteins_Special_Theory_of_Relativity#view=6630bef58309f9d74b0d49d4/154/155/155
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_Quantum_Physics_still_use_the_concept_of_particle
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Photons_have_zero_mass_P_mc_If_m_0_P_0_No_light_energy#view=6626037c14993435bc05c712/11/12/12/13
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_for_a_second_and_more_time_dimensions_to_exist#view=663454774b43cd33a802e672/2- and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_time_a_fundamental_property_of_the_universe/8
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition/246 pages 242, 243, 244, 246
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_illusion_of_knowledge2#view=6625410c5d8030b32501bacb/7/8/7/8/6/5/7/8/8, though,
- are relevant to this thread question
Cheers
- Badges
- Science topic