Quantum fields can be defined on classical, curved, spacetimes. However, already then, problems appear when trying to describe the properties of quantum fields in spacetimes, that describe black holes and which, by the singularity theorems, are generic.

Another point is that, in order to describe the early universe, it’s not possible to consider spacetime as classical.

Claus Fütterer

I did a search online and found this answer in a public magazine.

I don't think the author will mind me quoting it because I think it is a good representation of the problem.

Richard

https://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2014/06/gravity-and-quantum

Why are gravity and quantum mechanics incompatible with each other? Why can't they be combined into a single formula or concept?

Nick Smith, Fargo, North Dakota

Published: Monday, June 23, 2014

Your questions touch on a fundamental (some would say the fundamental) problem in theoretical physics. The easiest way to understand the issue is to think about how the two theories describe the forces of nature.

The general theory of relativity is our best concept of gravity. It states that the presence of mass distorts the space-time grid, like a bowling ball that sits on a stretched rubber sheet. Particles then move in the shortest paths along that distorted grid, a process we interpret as the effects of gravity. Thus, relativity, in essence, gives a geometric interpretation of gravity.

Quantum mechanics, through what physicists call the “standard model,” explains the other three forces of nature. These are the electromagnetic force, which affects electrically charged particles, the strong nuclear force, which holds particles in nuclei together, and the weak nuclear force, which governs some radioactive decays. In the quantum mechanical picture, forces arise through the exchange of things called “virtual particles.” These particles pop into existence for a short time and then disappear. While they have no analog in our familiar world, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows them in the subatomic world. (One of the basic ideas of this principle is that the uncertainty of a system’s energy is inversely proportional to the uncertainty of its lifetime, so a particle that lives for a very short amount of time — a tiny fraction of a second — has an extremely wide range of possible energies and can never be observed.)

Virtual particles generate a force by a process analogous to two people throwing a medicine ball back and forth, recoiling on each throw. Thus, the quantum mechanical explanation of these forces is essentially dynamic rather than geometric.

The problem deepens because physicists can describe how at high enough energies the three quantum mechanical forces merge together, while gravity remains the odd man out. Another way of posing your questions, then, is to ask why it is so hard to unify gravity with the other forces of nature.

We have two serious candidate theories that attempt this unification. One is “string theory,” which posits that the basic building blocks of matter — quarks and elementary particles like electrons — are actually made of even more fundamental objects called “strings.” The different particles correspond to different modes of vibration of those strings. The other candidate theory is “quantum loop gravity,” where space-time itself becomes granular (the technical term is quantized) instead of being smooth and continuous at very small distances.

In both theories, we think the exchange of virtual particles called gravitons generates gravity so that gravity becomes a dynamic quantum mechanical force like the other three. Which of these theories, if either, will turn out to be right is something physicists are investigating.

James Trefil

George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

Claus Fütterer I might add that many people have tried and failed to extend quantum theory to include gravitation. My approach has been to try to extend the general theory of relativity to apply to the small scale:

Preprint The Unification of Physics (Feb 2022)

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics

Richard

The meeting zone of the theory of gravitation and the quantum theory is the energy of vacuum. to unify the two theories is to define the same energy of vacuum as given by the theory of gravitation and as given by the quantum theory. It will be concluded that extension in space is energy also. I am working on this question and I had predicted that the gravitational field can be derived from quantum mechanics.

Dear Stam,

thank you for answering.

Quantum fields of bosons are roughly described as a superposition of a⁺ exp(-i p^mu x_nu) + a exp(i p^mu x_nu) and of course

[b_i, b⁺_j] = delta_i_j

The Waves are defined in flat and continuous spacetime here.

Why not replacing p^mu x_nu by p_mu x_nu g^mu^nu ?

I am aware that this may appear naive to insiders, however I don't care, I just want to know.

Thanks for answering,

Claus

Dear Claus,

Indeed, that is how wavepackets are described in curved spacetime-the indices are, always, contracted with the metric, that defines the spacetime.

However the real issue is that the state, that is annihilated by the annihilation operators (the ``vacuum state'') isn't unique, in curved spacetime (whereas it is unique in flat spacetime). Said in another way, the annihilation (as well as the creation) operators, you've written, aren't globally defined. This means that while one observer measures a vacuum state-no particles-another observer will measure a finite density of particles. And yet another will measure a different density.

This is an issue, because we're dealing with ``free'' fields here. Observers can't agree on the vacuum state, when spacetime is curved. That has consequences, as Hawking found.

This has to do with the fact that, in curved spacetime, translations can't be globally defined (which means, among other things, that energy isn't globally defined).

Thanks for asking!

Stam

Let us consider two separated point masses at rest in an otherwise empty space. The energy stored in the gravitational field around those two masses has the amount 2X. If due to gravitation the two masses approach each other, at the instant of collision they have gained the kinetic energy Y. The energy stored in the gravitational field now is 4X because the energy density is proportional to the field strength squared. The gravitational field has gained the energy amount 2X. Due to energy conservation we see: 2X+Y=0. The energy content X of the field of one mass is X=-Y/2. We know that the kinetic energy is positive. Therefor the energy content of the gravitational field is negative.

If we quantitatively calculate the energy density E in the field of a point mass M, we find E=-g²/(8πG), g=MG/r²; r is the distance to the point Mass M, G is the gravitational constant, g=gravitational acceleration.

How would you describe a field with a negative energy density in quantum mechanical terms?

Dear Stam,

you say energy is not conserved in General Relativity (GRT), this appears logic to me as space-time can only be curved with presence of energy = particles+radiation (fermions+bosons). The time translation invariance of Noether does not apply anymore or can it be generalized to GRT? If that was possible that would be really great. If there is no energy, everything is flat. In this logic vacuum is always flat, isn' it? Its both ways: there is no particle in a flat space.

Claus

“…Can Quantum Fields not be formulated in classical curved space-time without trouble? Energy & momentum may be the link between the energy of quantum fields and space-time….”

- really the “Unification of Quantum and Gravitation” problem exists, first of all, as that it is impossible “to quantize” the having energy and momentum “curved space-time”, where the energy conservation law doesn’t work; say, there exist numerous rigorous solutions of the GR equations, which are some “singularities in curved spacetime” , including in energy; it is senseless to say about some conservation of some infinities. For this reason really always non-singular “quantum fields” of real fundamental Nature forces cannot be “formulated in classical curved space-time” as well; and that isn’t unique reasons, though.

Though really in this case there is no any really physical problem – the problem exists only because of that the GR is the standard physical theory, despite of that is based on fundamentally incorrect postulates that observed objects/events/effects/processes in systems of gravitationally coupled/interacted material objects are some interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass”,

- what is fundamentally incorrect. In accordance with the scientific definitions of the fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time”, and their actualizations as the space/time/spacetime in concrete informational system “Matter”, which are given in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute, and the informational physical model, which is based on the conception, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), which fundamentally cannot be “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved”, etc.

Really absolutely for sure Gravity is one of the fundamental Nature forces, which in a few traits is similar to the fundamental Nature Electric force, and exists and acts in the absolute spacetime above – as that all other fundamental Force do; and so there is no any principal non-resolvable problem in developing of corresponding physically correct classical Gravity theory, and further – as that, say, happened soon 100 years ago with Electric Force – QM Gravity Force theory.

Note, though, that existent in the mainstream physics other Forces theories have also some fundamental problems, which can be really solved only in framework of the SS&VT conception and the model above, including basing on the SS&VT initial 2007 Gravity and Electric Forces models, see section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems” in the 2-nd link above;

- whereas the quantum nature of Gravity can be observed with well non-zero probability yet now in proposed 2007 experiments with photons, see

- http s://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests ; http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979; at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”.

“…..What problems occure if we do not quantize Gravitation?.….”

- really, because of Gravity Force is extremely weak Force, in most cases it acts only between some macro – and so by no means QM, material objects, and so in physics practically no any problems appears in this case.

However in exotic, but important in cosmology, cosmological objects “black holes” the QM Gravity objects/events/effects processes become to be important – the central compact objects in BHs, and especially in SMBHs, rather probably are essentially QM ones, and at studying of such objects QM Gravity theory rather probably will be useful.

SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_universe_is_a_black_hole

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_a_certain_part_of_the_neutrinos_have_a_negative_energy , and in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_an_information_particularly_a_physical_law_itself_be_some_special_kind_of_matter_and_transform_into_energy_and_mass, though,

- are relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

Found a new mathematical-physics principle that combines gravitation with electromagnetic fields… Is this the solution?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329023855_A_New_Mathematical_and_Physical_Principle_to_Combine_Gravitation_with_Rotating_Oscillating_Magnetic_Fields_A_unifying_algorithm_that_solves_the_Sun's_differential_rotation_problem

There is a lack of a new universal constant to realize this purpose. The Planck system of unities is not the solution. We should search an alternative system of unities in which Newton's@ field of gravitation is only a derivation from quantum mechanics. Constant G is only a coupling constant and tells us how much is strong the gravitational field.

“…Found a new mathematical-physics principle that combines gravitation with electromagnetic fields… Is this the solution?….”

- there cannot be fundamentally some “mathematical-physics principles” that could solve practically any of real physical problems at all, including the thread problem. Mathematics and physics are fundamentally different sciences. And, though mathematics is extremely effective tool at description and analysis of physical objects/events/effects/processes, since Matter is a simple informational system , where everything exists and interacts basing on ultimately universal binary reversible logics and universal laws/links/constants, however it is only the tool, and from mathematics nothing directly relating to physics follows, besides some very rare limitations.

“…There is a lack of a new universal constant to realize this purpose. The Planck system of unities is not the solution. We should search an alternative system of unities in which Newton's@ field of gravitation is only a derivation from quantum mechanics. Constant G is only a coupling constant and tells us how much is strong the gravitational field.…..”

Really in this case there is no necessity in some additional constants. Planck constants and units are ultimate base of Matter, including constant G can be written as the combination of ultimately fundamental Planck length, Planck time, and elementary physical action Planck constant ћ.

Any of these units and their existence by no means follow from any mathematical theory; and Gravity is also fundamentally only “physical” fundamental Nature force, which doesn’t follow from “quantum mechanics”, though gravitational objects/events/effects/processes on the QM scale are fundamentally obligatorily in accordance with QM, i.e. are random, described by corresponding specific wave functions, etc.

Nonetheless, as that happens in other fundamental Forces case, the QM Gravity theory will be developed only basing on existent “classical” Gravity theory [not, of course, on GR], which will define at least equations for potential energy and momentum, which are elements of QM equations for the wave function; as, say, that is in Schrödinger and Dirac equations for Electric Force.

However, again – see the SS post above – Gravity is extremely weak Force, and so, say, some “gravitational Hydrogen atom” with non-practically infinitesimal “orbitals energy levels” of some m around M>>m, would be only if M and m are quite “non-QM” objects; if that is possible at all, though. Correspondingly quantum gravity can be essential only in extremely exotic material objects, i.e. “black holes”, and, moreover, rather probably only in SMBH.

More see the SS post above and links in the post.

Cheers

To Sergey Shevchenko : Planck length (Lp) & Planck time (Tp) are not the minimum length and the minimum time which can exist in nature. They are home-made system of unities done by Planck. I can find any unit of length and any unit of time which conserve the ratio c=L/T. Of course, you agree that the energy Mpxc2 is not the minimum energy that can exist in nature. The problem of unifying QM and Relativity is to find the good discretization of space, time and energy. Applying the 6th problem of David Hilbert we can deduce many laws for continuous medium by statistics. The main problem to realize this purpose is to suppose that it exist a new universal constant that link energy and time i.e. you can't communicate an amount of energy in a time equal to zero.

What if space, time and matter are the only forms of intelligence and they obey separate rules, that we are able to detect them only from one perspective at once and one of them as defined by the other two?

Anamaria Popescu "What if space, time and matter are the only forms of intelligence..."

You should discuss this with experts in theology. They surely would not like that you exclude a higher life form.

“…Found a new mathematical-physics principle that combines gravitation with electromagnetic fields… Is this the solution?….”

Yes, it exists. The new principle is the quaternity wave-corpuscle-string-unity.

The wave-corpuscle duality is of course known as that exists a universal constant (which is the Planck constant) linking the quadri-vector (energy, momentum) of a corpuscle to the quadri-vector (frequency, wave-vector) of a packet of waves. The duality corpuscle-string is that exists a universal constant linking the quadri-vector (energy, momentum) of a corpuscle to the quadri-vector (inertial time, space uncertainty) of the string of a corpuscle. The duality wave-string is that exists a universal constant linking the quadri-vector (frequency, wave-vector) of a packet of waves to the quadri-vector (inertial time, space uncertainty) of the string of a corpuscle. So we are in presence of a trinity wave-corpuscle-string. If those universal constants are equal to one then all the above dualities disappear and we are in presence of a quaternity wave-corpuscle-string-unity.

To Alaya Kouki

“…To Sergey Shevchenko : Planck length (Lp) & Planck time (Tp) are not the minimum length and the minimum time which can exist in nature. They are home-made system of unities done by Planck. I can find any unit of length and any unit of time which conserve the ratio c=L/T. …”

- Planck length (lP) and Planck time (tP) are ultimately fundamental and universal constants in the informational system “Matter”, where everything is/are some, mostly cyclic, disturbances in the ultimate Matter’s base – the [5]4D dense lattice of [5]4D fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct); and, with elementary physical action/angular momentum the Planck constant ћ, these 3 constants determine ultimately universally quantitatively everything in Matter,

- though, of course, the basic material objects, i.e. particles and fundamental Nature forces’ fields – and so again everything, exist and interact being determined by also ultimately fundamental, but non-universal, constants of strengths of 3 – Weak, Electric, Strong, Forces, and, again universal, Gravity Force G-constant.

However, despite of everything in Matter exists and happens on the Planck scale, that isn’t directly observable completely, however in the observable now scales everything is determined by the standard physical fundamental constants - the speed of light, c, the Planck constant ћ, and, again, the G-constant, which is also universal, since in Matter everything attracts everything, and so inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent; and, besides, the G-constant directly is connected with the Planck length and Planck time.

Correspondingly all Planck unities’ equations are combinations of c, ћ, and G; though really that just c and G equations are combinations of lP and tP : c=lP/tP, i.e. of the FLE “size”, and FLE “binary flip time”, G=lP5/ћtP3; and, though indeed somebody can, in some concrete cases find some value of length L and some value of time interval T so that c=L/T, however that by no means universally conserves the constant “c”.

“…Of course, you agree that the energy Mpxc2 is not the minimum energy that can exist in nature …..”

- that is too strange claim, the minimum energy that exists in Matter is practically infinitesimal energy. Say, that can be energy of a photon with infinitesimal frequency [note, though, that in Matter there exist/happens no singularities and infinites, besides that fundamentally infinite spacetime dimensions]. Planck mass is just maximal mass that Matter’s particle can have, and is equal ~1019 GeV/c2, i.e. ~1019 protons.

“….The problem of unifying QM and Relativity is to find the good discretization of space, time and energy….”

- there cannot be fundamentally no any discretization of space and time, the 4D space and time dimensions are fundamentally continuous; discretization of energy in concrete cases is well described by QM, that is another thing, that the mainstream QM and QFT have some fundamental problems.

"….Applying the 6th problem of David Hilbert we can deduce many laws for continuous medium by statistics. The main problem to realize this purpose is to suppose that it exist a new universal constant that link energy and time i.e. you can't communicate an amount of energy in a time equal to zero. …”

- mathematics and real – i.e. not mainstream – physics are fundamentally different sciences, and so practically nothing in physics follows from mathematics. All in the quote above really hasn’t some real relation to physics, including to this thread problem.

Again, any really fundamental problem in any science can be scientifically elaborated on really fundamental level only after the fundamental phenomena/notions, in physics first of all “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., .”Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, which are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream, including physics, are scientifically defined,

- what is possible, and done only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception and physical model, the links see the SS posts above. Including that

“…What if space, time and matter are the only forms of intelligence and they obey separate rules, that we are able to detect them only from one perspective at once and one of them as defined by the other two? ….”

- is some quite transcendent wording, more about what are “space”, “time”, “matter”, and “intelligence”, see first 10 pages, including section “What is Life” in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358801098_Title_page_Article_type_Review_Title_The_informational_physical_model_some_selected_fundamental_problems_in_physics

Cheers

Noether's theorem can be and has been generalized to the case of general relativity. So there's no problem there.

However Einstein's equations require boundary conditions. So, even if the energy-momentum tensor vanishes, they can have solutions that describe curved spacetime, that, only asymptotically, is flat-the typical examples being the black hole solutions of Schwarzschild, Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr.

“…Noether's theorem can be and has been generalized to the case of general relativity. So there's no problem there….”

- that looks as rather strange claim; including, e.g., when relates to Noether's theorem conclusion about why the energy conservation law acts in Matter; since, say, while that

“….However Einstein's equations require boundary conditions….”

- is, of course quite correct, any equation require some boundary conditions, and can be solved in concrete cases only if the conditions are initially rigorously defined, however that

“…. So, even if the energy-momentum tensor vanishes, they can have solutions that describe curved spacetime, that, only asymptotically, is flat-the typical examples being the black hole solutions of Schwarzschild, Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr. ….”

- looks again as too strange in this case claim – the basic specific initial condition of “black hole” equations is that on a black hole’s surface the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light; and at that on the black hole surface the equations solution “spacetime curvature” is infinite. So anything that is on this surface has infinite energy. Infinity isn’t a concrete number, correspondingly in this case it is senseless to say about some “conservation laws”, in this case of energy conservation law, and about Noether's theorem.

That is another case, that really Matter’s spacetime, as that rigorously scientifically shown in the SS&VT informational physical model, is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), which fundamentally cannot be “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved”, etc.; and, besides, in Matter fundamentally cannot be some infinities at all, so the energy conservation law in Matter always acts, etc.

About what really “black holes” are – see the SS&VT initial cosmological model in section “Cosmology” in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics, https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202110.0453/v2.

And, again, about what is really Gravity see the 2007 initial SS&VT Gravity and Electric Forces models in section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems” in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, form this model, besides, it follows the practically for sure correct solution of the fundamental cosmological “matter-antimatter asymmetry” problem in the cosmological model above.

Cheers

Recent SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_gravity_an_emergent_phenomenon

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-we-dont-or-cant-have-negative-energy-particles-with-forward-time-sense-and-positive-energy-particles-with-backward-time-sense

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_objects_pass_Black-Holes_horizon_always_with_velocity_c

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_physical_origin_of_equality_between_the_inertial_mass_and_gravitational_mass

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Quantum_mechanics_vs_Theory_of_Relativity

- are relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Before we can have a founded deeper look into new concepts, like the role assigned to information in physics, we must tidy up among messy classical concepts. Gravity is one of the messy concepts.

The mess in Gravity is the relation between potential energy and the energy contained in gravitational fields. If the classical physics considers something like gravitational binding energy, which assigns the mass equivalent of potential energy to the mass, it is not mature.

We know that mass has a rest mass and can store kinetic energy by increasing the relativistic mass. There is no room for potential energy. Otherwise, the operation of cyclotrons, would depend on the absolute height above sea level.

Another mess in standard physics is space expansion. The illusion that space at every location would give birth to new volume is in contradiction to conservation laws. New space inside atoms would have an influence on the electronic shell. On large scale, the angular momentum of galaxies would be affected. It is immature to allow the negation of basic conservation laws only to save a questionable cosmological theory.

The relation between material parts of our world and something immaterial like information is such a sensible concept, that it requires an absolute stable counterpart and not something that argues with potential energy and new volume oozing out from every point.

Wolfgang Konle

“…Before we can have a founded deeper look into new concepts, like the role assigned to information in physics, we must tidy up among messy classical concepts….”

- you seems don’t read the SS posts in the thread attentively enough, and so it is necessary to repeat here

- that the real “messy classical concepts” exist in physics just because of in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., .”Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational;

- and so in every case, when some authors attempt to tidy up among messy classical concepts, the results completely obligatorily logically are nothing else than some transcendent fantastic mental constructions;

- and that correspondingly real tidying up evidently is possible after the fundamental phenomena/notions above are scientifically defined.

What is possible, and is in most cases done, principally only if the scientific role is assigned to information in physics, what is done in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception and physical model.

Including that relates to the fundamental Nature force “Gravity”, in this case, besides the scientific definitions of the fundamental phenomena above, in the SS&VT 2007 initial models of Gravity – and its sister Electric – Forces are developed , see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems”, and so, though that “…..Gravity is one of the messy concepts….” is quite correct claim, however that

“…. The mess in Gravity is the relation between potential energy and the energy contained in gravitational fields. If the classical physics considers something like gravitational binding energy, which assigns the mass equivalent of potential energy to the mass, it is not mature.…..”

- really is correct only in that till now the phenomenon/notion “Energy” in mainstream physics is completely transcendent; and, though in the SS&VT informational physical model some fundamental points in this case are clarified, but that is not sufficiently – Energy remains in science to be some mystic phenomenon/notion.

Nonetheless now it is quite clear that indeed, really binding potential energy of gravitationally coupled in a system bodies, since Gravity is attractive Force, is negative, that is actualized in that the coupled bodies have inertial, and, in certain sense, gravitational, masses lesser than they would have if being free.

That is well known in the mainstream yet Newton’s physics, and so, say - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_binding_energy- to move Earth’s matter in free states it is necessary to spend 2.49421×1015 kgc2 energy.

More about what is the binding energy see the model above; returning to the thread question more concretely – from the SS&VT model the quantum nature of Gravity directly follows, and this nature can be directly observed experimentally, see proposed in 2007 experiment in http s://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests, at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”; and indirectly, but essentially, in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment

That

“…Another mess in standard physics is space expansion….”

- is really correct, that is in the mainstream because of the transcendence of “Space” and “Time”, and, since that are absolutely fundamental phenomena and so absolutely fundamentally are actualized in the informational system “Matter”, their interpretations exist in the mainstream also, as the postulates in mainstream theories, which are fundamental illusions, including “space expansion”.

Any “space expansion” fundamentally cannot exist, however really practically for sure, at and after, Matter’s Beginning there indeed were two drastically different expansions of the ultimate base of Matter – the [5]4D dense lattice of [5]4D fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), more see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics, section “Cosmology”.

And, finally here to

“…The relation between material parts of our world and something immaterial like information….”

- that is fundamentally strange passage. Again, in the SS&VT conception above it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing besides some informational patterns/systems of the patterns, including Matter absolutely for sure is some informational system, there cannot be absolutely fundamentally any “iminformational” material structures. More see the conception, it is useful to read SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_an_information_particularly_a_physical_law_itself_be_some_special_kind_of_matter_and_transform_into_energy_and_mass

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Sorry, but I do not consider your model as more mature than standard physics.

Field energy is not considered at all in your model. Molecules, atoms, or nuclei do not contain potential energy, they contain field energy and kinetic energy.

Another example is the consideration of 5. “What is Inertia ?”.

The simple criterion “inertia is the capability of mass to store kinetic energy” is missing in your consideration.

Before considering energetic aspects of information, the messy parts about potential - or field energy and about gravity and inertia must be cleared as well in your theory.

Sergey Shevchenko

I can build an absolute system of unities from Planck constant h, the speed of light c, and the lambda constant of GR. Why should I choose the Planck system to admit your FLE theory and not my new system?. There is not any reason to choose this one or the other. Your FLE model remains a suggestion like others. Another model that exists also is Joseph Jean-Claude model in which he chooses the nanometer as a universal constant because it seems that it is the same dimension as atoms and light wave-lengths but it remains a home-made system: there is no reason to do this.

My approach is that I found a new duality between corpuscles and the length of a packet of waves that represent the corpuscle: there is a reason to discretize space, time & energy and build a new theory that derives gravitation from quantum mechanics.

Wolfgang Konle

- you seems again don’t read the SS posts and links in the posts attentively enough – or don’t understand what you have read; so, say, in

“…Sergey Shevchenko

Sorry, but I do not consider your model as more mature than standard physics….”

- the SS&VT informational physical model indeed is, of course, in accordance with some points in the “standard” physics, if the points are reliable. Say, in the model the Lorentz transformations are the same as in the standard physics – they are reliable,

- however in the model the transformations, which are some mystic the model the transformations fundamentally differ from what in the SR is again mystically postulated, since the authors had only some transcendent imaginations about what the fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter”, “Space”, ”Time”, “Energy”, and “Inertia” are; and so “discovered” – completely legitimate in the standard physics “fundamental relativistic properties of the space/time/spacetime” and “fundamental relativistic effects”, which really are, fundamentally non-existent really, the author’s illusory interpretations of experimental data. In Matter fundamentally there are no “space contraction”, “time dilation”, “spacetime curvature” and so on.

And to

“….Field energy is not considered at all in your model…”

- that is indeed essentially so, and that is again in contrast to the standard physics, where the energies of fields are quite legitimate. However that in the standard really has no any reliable explanations – and such explanation doesn’t exist in the model, which principally includes practically only scientifically grounded points. But that

“…. Molecules, atoms, or nuclei do not contain potential energy, they contain field energy and kinetic energy….”

- looks as rather strange even in the standard claim. In every coupled by some fundamental Nature force system the system’s elements have potential energies, say electrons and nuclei in atoms, atoms in molecules, planets in stars’ systems, etc.

That

“…Another example is the consideration of 5. “What is Inertia ?”.

The simple criterion “inertia is the capability of mass to store kinetic energy” is missing in your consideration. Before considering energetic aspects of information, the messy parts about potential - or field energy and about gravity and inertia must be cleared as well in your theory…” ….”

- is something that is in accordance with the standard – and in this case fundamentally wrong – physics. Inertia isn’t a “capability of mass to store kinetic energy”, Inertia and Energy are fundamentally different things, though both relate to the same absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Change”, more see first pages in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics; etc.

- though, again, to understand what is the SS&VT model it is necessary to read the linked in the SS posts whole papers.

Alaya Kouki

“…Sergey Shevchenko

I can build an absolute system of unities from Planck constant h, the speed of light c, and the lambda constant of GR….”

- anybody can build any absolute system of unities, if we don’t say about the science “physics”. But, again, if we say about the science “physics”, what essentially isn’t correct if we say about mainstream/standard physics; where, say, the lambda constant is completely legitimate constant, despite of is physically senseless.

The answer to

“…. Why should I choose the Planck system to admit your FLE theory and not my new system?. There is not any reason to choose this one or the other….”

- is that: first of all - the system of Planck units is really unique utmost fundamental and utmost scientifically grounded system; and, correspondingly, the “FLE theory” is principally based on this system.

Cheers

Please stay focused.

It is not topic here to propose new theories. This may fit better in other discussions.

Here it is all about the question:

why it would be necessary to unify gravitiy and quantum. I have not seen conclusive reasons so far.

Cheers, Claus

Claus Futterer: "why it would be necessary to unify gravitiy and quantum"

It is necessary to unify gravity and quantum because the 6th problem of David Hilbert " Since quantum deals with finite quantities, gravity deals with continuous quantities, it is possible to derive gravity from quantum as David Hilbert think in its 6th problem of geometry" and I had do it from the quaternity wave-corpuscle-string-unity conception of the physical world.

The reason it is necessary to unify gravity and quantum (theory?) is because cosmology and microcosm are not isolated and independent worlds. They are connected. It means that one event in one world should explain another event in other world. The fact that it is a challenge to unify two separate theories suggests that an error is made at fundamental level for either theory (cosmology or microcosm) which makes both incompatible to each other. The difference between these two worlds is that the first one is continuous and the other is discrete (quantized). Unification of two worlds will yield solution that will be more accurate to describe the physical world (both cosmology and microcosm).

Any answers from experts in this field?

“…Please stay focused.

It is not topic here to propose new theories. This may fit better in other discussions.

Here it is all about the question:

why it would be necessary to unify gravitiy and quantum. I have not seen conclusive reasons so far.…..”

- really the thread question is answered in the SS posts above, so more see the posts and links in the posts; here briefly again:

“…Scientists including Einstein claim that we need to unify Gravitation (GRT) with Quantum Theory. Why?...”

- everything in Matter eventually is absolutely fundamentally some chains of elementary interactions on the quantum scale. So, though on macroscale results of these interactions are averaged on statistics of sums of dozens of orders by magnitude numbers of events, etc., every macro/“classical” physical theory of every fundamental Nature force must be “quantized”, i.e. the potentials, momentums, etc., can be used in corresponding QM equations.

If that is impossible – as that is in the GR case, where it is postulated that mass by some fundamentally unknown forces impacts on the space/time/spacetime, “curving” the spacetime, and the “curved” spacetime again by some fundamentally unknown forces impacts on mass; what really cannot be introduced in a rational way in QM, where the space [and really time] observables’ operators don’t have such abilities, that completely undoubtedly means that this theory really isn’t a physical theory, i.e. at least has only limited applications at description, analysis, and predictions of objects/events/effects/processes in Matter.

Correspondingly in that

“……Can Quantum Fields not be formulated in classical curved space-time without trouble?...”

- any theory, in principle, can be formulated in any non-drastically concretely curved space-time without too much mathematical troubles, but at that obligatorily having in mind that this curvature by no means has some energy and momentums that impact on material objects/events/effects/processes, and that really Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct); but such formulation would be only evidently completely senseless toy.

“…. Energy & momentum may be the link between the energy of quantum fields and space-time….”

- again, there cannot be fundamentally any “Energy & momentum of space-time”

“…What problems occure if we do not quantize Gravitation? ….”

- since the Gravity, which is absolutely for sure nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, which is similar in a few traits to the fundamental Nature Electric force, is extremely weak force – Gravity strength in a few dozend of orders by magnitude is weaker than Electric Force strength, in most systems of gravitationally coupled material objects the objects have macro masses, which so don’t compose some quantum systems, and in quantum systems gravitational impact is completely negligible comparing with the composing the systems Forces actions,

- and so in practically whole physics no problems exist that would be caused by that there is no QM Gravity theory. However to real study of real gravitational systems physics must have really scientific theory of Gravity Force, in other case, i.e. what happens, say, last at least more 50 years, only developing of some fantastic fairy tales about fantastic “black” , “white”, “worm” , “holes”, “channels”, in spacetime, “warped spaces”, etc., is possible.

Nonetheless it looks as would be rational to suggest that in extreme Gravity fields the really quantum gravitational effects/events/processes can be essential; though really that is only in “black holes” [real cosmological extremely massive and compact material objects, not, of course, the GR black holes; but this term looks as well suitable to indicate the fourth – after “ordinary”, “white dwarf”, and “neutron star” phases – “black hole phase” of matter state].

Again, in this case physics meets with really fundamental problems, and so the development of the really scientific theory of Gravity – and theories of all other Forces though, is possible only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception and the informational physical model, which is based on the conception; more see the papers that are linked in the SS posts above.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko "Inertia isn’t a “capability of mass to store kinetic energy”, Inertia and Energy are fundamentally different things..."

The inertial force is given by F=m*a. ∆Ekin=F*a*t²/2=m*a²*t²/2. The capability to store kinetic energy is ∆Ekin/m = a²*t²/2=v²/2.

Dear Sergey,

some parts of your explanations are written too complicated for me and some a bit too philosophical for my taste - I like experiments. Im am also not sure to understand all you wrote. However, let me try to answer.

You are writing:

"

- everything in Matter eventually is absolutely fundamentally some chains of elementary interactions on the quantum scale.

"

-> This applies for fermions and bosons but maybe not for gravitation as the existence of gravitons is a matter of pure speculation so far. Nobody knows...

"

So, though on macroscale results of these interactions are averaged on statistics of sums of dozens of orders by magnitude numbers of events, etc., every macro/“classical” physical theory of every fundamental Nature force must be “quantized”, i.e. the potentials, momentums, etc., can be used in corresponding QM equations.

"

-> The averaging of micro states does not necessarily imply the need of quantization. Boltzmann derived Thermodynamics purely from classical statistics and got viable quantitative results.Why do Navier-Stokes equations work so well? Its a question of emergence. However, this does not imply that gravitation is part of this logic.

"

any theory, in principle, can be formulated in any non-drastically concretely curved space-time without too much mathematical troubles, but at that obligatorily having in mind that this curvature by no means has some energy and momentums that impact on material objects/events/effects/processes, and that really Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct); but such formulation would be only evidently completely senseless toy.

"

-> The Field equation connects curvature to the momentum-energy-tensor. It is not just about a mathematical change of coordinate system. The coordiate system becomes part of physics in GR as far as I understand.

Anyway, why do we need to quantize gravitation? Could we not get along with a classical GRT and QFT living on curved coordinates even for black holes?

Cheers

Dear Claus

“….[SS quote]"- everything in Matter eventually is absolutely fundamentally some chains of elementary interactions on the quantum scale."

-> This applies for fermions and bosons but maybe not for gravitation as the existence of gravitons is a matter of pure speculation so far. Nobody knows...”

- really, again, eventually everything in Matter is/are some elementary interactions on the quantum scale, including interactions of particles, particles in atoms, atoms in molecules, and molecules in compounds - bodies, stars, etc. QM scale exists fundamentally – why? - that is rigorously shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, since the links are rather far back in the thread, for convenience repeat:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute,

- and the informational physical model, which is based on the conception, besides [or even first of all] the link above see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics;

- and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics.

At that all elementary interactions are really mediated by the fundamental Nature forces real mediators - when some particle radiates a mediator [say, electrons and nuclei radiate – not “virtual photons”, as that Standard Model and QED postulate, but real mediators, with a well non-zero probability – real “circular photons” in the 2007 SS&VT initial model [the link see below]; rather possibly existent quarks radiate rather possibly existent gluons, etc.]; and when a mediator hits specifically into other particle, the irradiated particle obtains some elementary momentum, the number of the momentums in 1 second is observed, say, as macro Electric force between charged bodies F=dP/dt.

Including Gravity Force fundamentally doesn’t differ in this case from any other Force, i.e. the observed macro force, say, between Earth and a brick, is also averaged on extremely innumerous elementary acts of radiating/absorption of Gravity mediators “gravitons”.

That is fundamentally true scheme, and that in the mainstream only some “speculations” exist, whereas in the mainstream there is no Force “Gravity” at all, and so in SM there is no even particle/mediator “graviton”, is simply the actualization of that in the mainstream all fundamental phenomena/notions, including “Matter”- and so everything in Matter, including Forces and fields, is/are fundamentally transcendent; and so in the mainstream fundamentally really transcendent GR theory is the standard one, which is incompatible with QM, and so there is no gravitons.

More see the 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in last link above, section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems”

“…> The averaging of micro states does not necessarily imply the need of quantization. Boltzmann derived Thermodynamics purely from classical statistics and got viable quantitative results.Why do Navier-Stokes equations work so well? Its a question of emergence. However, this does not imply that gravitation is part of this logic.…..”

- again – see above, all macro theories really describe the averaging of elementary micro states, what, since Matter is rather simple informational system that is based on a rather small set of ultimately fundamental and universal laws/links/constants, results in composing of universally constructed macro objects – bricks, planets, stars, etc., every of which is composed, exists and interacts with environment in accordance with some concrete specific additional laws/links/constants – including, say, gases, which are composed, exist and interact with, say, a container walls, in accordance with specific thermodynamic laws/links/constants. In that there is nothing that contradicts with the fundamental fact that eventually everything happens on the QM scale.

“…-> The Field equation connects curvature to the momentum-energy-tensor. It is not just about a mathematical change of coordinate system. The coordiate system becomes part of physics in GR as far as I understand.

Anyway, why do we need to quantize gravitation? Could we not get along with a classical GRT and QFT living on curved coordinates even for black holes? ….”

- that is a few times answered in the SS posts above – any science, including physics, can be real science only if the theories in the science are scientific, i.e. aren’t based on illusory transcendent interpretations of experimental data, as that the SR and the GR are; if that isn’t so, that results in illusory and incorrect interpretations of real experimental data, “discovering” of some transcendent fantastic “physical objects”, etc., as, say, rather numerous “holes”, “channels”, etc. in the spacetime,; and, of course, in this case real scientific development of physics is quite logically inevitably is impossible.

More about when and why the transcendence in the mainstream physics of “Matter”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”; and not only, though, and the corresponding transcendent postulates in physics, is/are now the real impediments for the real physics development, and what should be corrected in physics yet now – see the 2-nd link above.

Cheers

Dear friends of fundamental physics, cosmology and elementary particles,

thank you for your interesting topic.

In fact, I generalized general relativity, Carmesin (2021a).

With it, I solved many problems simultaneously, for instance:

My theory provides the curvature of spacetime.

My theory provides the gravitational force.

My theory explains how the gravitational force propagates.

My theory provides the density of vacuum.

My theory provides the parameters of the standard model of cosmology, Carmesin (2021b).

My theory provides the postulates of quantum physics, Carmesin (2022a).

Literature:

Carmesin 2021a:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350373240_Quanta_of_Spacetime_Explain_Observations_Dark_Energy_Graviton_and_Nonlocality

Carmesin 2021b:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353851329_Cosmological_and_Elementary_Particles_Explained_by_Quantum_Gravity

Carmesin 2022a:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358581911_Quantum_Physics_Explained_by_Gravity_and_Relativity

Kind regards,

Hans-Otto Carmesin

Dear Claus Fütterer

The only reason for the unification of quantum theory and Einstein’s theory of gravitation is our wish to “force” some progress in physics with the help of the existing conceptual framework. The problem is complicated because we know from experience that a correct theory can easily be expanded. Thus if one of both grand theories is nearly perfect we don’t have the present problems. Therefore it is reasonable to propose that the problems have another cause, but everybody tries to avoid this depressing conclusion.

A month ago they published the confirmation of the hypothesis that our universe has a rest frame. That means that all the motion in the universe is actually relative motion (if we use the phenomenological point of view it is “absolute motion”).

• Smoot, G.F. (July 6, 1977); “Detection of Anisotropy in the Cosmic Blackbody Radiation”. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8s11274p
• Jeremy Darling (2022): “The Universe is Brighter in the Direction of Our Motion: Galaxy Counts and Fluxes are Consistent with the CMB Dipole”. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 931, No 2. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08

Maybe the idea that the volume of the universe ("space itself") is the underlying causation behind physical reality will be the start of a more fundamental (realistic) approach to solve the theoretical problems.

With kind regards, Sydney

The 4 main problems of special relativity: ~^~

1 Motivational deviation

Deviating from the tasks of the laws of physics, attempting to replace physics with mathematics;

2 method contradictions

Saving the ether should solve the problem of the electromagnetic ether, but modifying the Galileo transformation is a contradictory method;

3 Assumptions violate experience

Invariance of the speed of light violates the general experience of relative speed and denies the foundation of physics;

4 Difficult to observe and infeasible to verify logic

The laws of physics cannot be proven, only falsified. Efforts to seek proof with a small number of low-confidence observations are logically infeasible. In fact, the magnitude of the acceleration of the Spaceborne Atomic Clock time is much greater than the predicted value of the time delay.

Here are some empirical discussions on the relative speed of light, looking forward to your valuable criticism. ~^~

Article Photon energy and photon behavior discussions

THANKS!

There are 3 problems with such unification at this time. A quantum of gravity would have to be much smaller than that of electromagnetic fields because the force is smaller. The link below is to a paper has proof and impacts of the axial and gravitational Doppler shifts change observations of time and distance; not just the Transverse Doppler shift does. Since both are directional (have angle variables in their frequency ratios) that kills the symmetry of Minokowski's space time in General Relativity at relativistic velocities. Also the angels become dimensions of time and distance you end up more than 4 dimensions at relativistic velocities. Also the equations quantum mechanics are inconsistent with how mass varies with velocity because for particles with no rest mass it does not. But for particles with rest mass (mo), mass=mo/[1-(v/c)2], from many observations.

Link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EEmaE7tIH1AOXSxGdcrwYNMiUbR-QSW8/view?usp=sharing