The differences and similarities between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity.
General relativity describes classical spacetime, quantum mechanics describes the properties of matter in such a spacetime.
The scientific answer to the question “What is the relationship between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity?”
- is evident: there cannot be fundamentally any relationship between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity, since quantum mechanics is based on really adequate to what exists and happens in Matter postulates, while the general theory of relativity is based on the postulate that really observed gravitational interactions in gravitationally coupled systems of bodes are the interactions “mass-spacetime-mass”, where “some mass tells to spacetime how it must curve and the curved spacetime tells to some other mass how it must move”;
- what in the GR is, as that rigorously proven in the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
, fundamentally impossible,
- as that follows from the rigorous scientific definitions in the conception of the fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter”, “Space”, and “Time”; while the strange GR postulate above was stated by the author, who had [and mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics till now has such imagination, so the GR is till now the standard theory in physics] completely transcendent imagination about what these phenomena/notions are.
Gravity is, of course, nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, which is similar in a few traits to the fundamental Electric Force, both of which – as everything else in Matter – act in the Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,g,w,e,s,ct),
- which fundamentally cannot be impacted by anything in Matter, and fundamentally cannot impact on anything in Matter. What are really Gravity and Electric Forces see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces
So, say, that
“…General relativity describes classical spacetime, quantum mechanics describes the properties of matter in such a spacetime. ….”
- by no means is an answer to the thread question. All “classical” theories, including, say, electrodynamics and classical mechanics, have their rather rational scientifically versions in QM, though also have fundamental strange postulates, see the 2-nd link above, and act just in “classical” spacetimes, i.e. in Newton and Minkowski spaces, though the last space is also some strange physical construction, however not to such extent as that the GR pseudo-Riemannian space is.
More see the linked above papers.
Cheers
Classical mechanics when quantized becomes quantum mechanics,and the same goes for general relativity,chomodynamics, electrodynamics,condensed matter physics,and so on,resulting in what is called quantum field theories for gravity,electrodynamics,etc.This transition procedure is called quantization, and there is "first quantization", "second quantization", "third quantization ",and "n-quantization". Quantization is also of different formulations such as path-integral quantization, loop quantization, and quantum-statistical quantization.Both quantum mechanics and quantization are parts of quantum physics.
In this very short BBC YouTube video, Distinguished Professor Brian Cox at the University of Manchester explains quantum mechanics in less than 60 seconds.
https://youtu.be/fcfQkxwz4Oo
The Planck unit has to do with quantum mechanics (QM), not GR. But quantum computing unifies general relativity (GR) with QM finally!
The set N shows at least 4 quantum properties, and so thus the set Q.
Instead of using mathematical real-numbers (MRN) or mathematical complex numbers (MCN) in GR, use the set Q. Then, GR follows QM natively. No imaginary numbers are used (think of it: computers do not actually use imaginary numbers -- they emulate if you insist).
We discuss a consequence in the orbit of Mercury. The orbit is now open, as a spiral around the Sun, which can now be measured by the satellite Bepi-Colombo, approaching Mercury orbit.
The preprint is at ResearchGate.
The direct Relationship between GR and QM in the constant lambda. Constant lambda is a function of vacuum energy and vacuum enrgy is a function of Planck constant h, speed of light c and a new universal constant the frequency of the fundamental state of the electromagnetic field.
In other manner QM can predict Newton law of gravitation and GR is more genralized Newton law. QM is based on the quantum of everything.
A connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity is provided by irreducible unitary multi-particle representations of the Poincaré group.
On the one hand, these representations provide a correct quantum mechanical description of multi-particle systems (of massive, electrically neutral particles); on the other hand, in the quasi-classical limiting case of large quantum numbers, these representations lead to the field equations of conformal gravity, which for our solar system are equivalent to Einstein's field equations of general relativity. The analogue of Einstein's gravitational constant \kappa_e = 8piG/c^4 is \kappa_c = 1/(N h c), where N is the total number of particles, h is Planck's constant and c is the speed of light.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.04795
“…Classical mechanics when quantized becomes quantum mechanics, and the same goes for general relativity, chomodynamics, electrodynamics, condensed matter physics,and so on,resulting in what is called quantum field theories for gravity,electrodynamics,etc…”
- that looks as rather strange set of rather strange claims – though yeah, of course, quantum mechanics fundamentally is based on the classical mechanics, where the utmost fundamental physical objects/events/effects processes, and their fundamental conditions/parameters – space and time, energy, inertia/mass, momentum, angular momentum, physical action; and the conservation laws – are defined, and which only obtain some specific meaning and application in QM,
- however that fundamentally has no any relation to the GR, which is fundamentally incompatible with QM, since, first of all, that in QM space and time fundamentally cannot have momentum, energy, etc.;
- chromodynamics , electrodynamics and condensed matter physics have also no any relation to the GR for the same reason; though the first two theories, like the GR, are also based on some fundamentally incorrect postulates, the postulates, nonetheless, are incompatible with the GR;
- correspondingly in mainstream physics there is no any real “quantum gravity”, besides a number of fundamentally fantastic, and by no means experimentally tested, mental constructions, etc.
So seems as that is in
“….In this very short BBC YouTube video, Distinguished Professor Brian Cox at the University of Manchester explains quantum mechanics in less than 60 seconds.
https://youtu.be/fcfQkxwz4Oo….”
- where somebody in less than 60 seconds explains quantum mechanics, what is also possible only in some fantasy, the poster also wrote the post in 60 seconds.
However, since Gravity is a real fundamental Nature force, which in a number of traits is similar to the fundamental Nature Electric force
[moreover, both these, and the fundamental Nuclear force in nuclei, exist and act by the same fundamental scheme, see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial models of Gravity and Electric forces in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces,
and the SS&VT 2023 Nuclear Force model in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force],
- and so the development of the real quantum Gravity theory is, in principle, possible. That is another thing that Gravity is extremely weak Force, and so some really quantum gravitational systems can exist only in some extremely exotic material objects/systems, however the quantum nature of gravity can be observed yet now, see proposed yet in 2007 experiment in - http s://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests ; the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”.
Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_think_Plancks_units_and_Einsteins_restreint_and_general_relativity_theories_are_in_link_and_all_emerge_from_one_ultimate_theory_for_physics/1 is relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
"General relativity describes classical spacetime, quantum mechanics describes the properties of matter in such a spacetime." Yes, so God switched on Gravity first and second Light
"general relativity is a classical and no quantum theory."
At the moment this is correct. But together with TD quants appears? See "Conclusions from the principle of TD"
"The Planck unit has to do with quantum mechanics (QM), not GR." No. See derivation of mass and charge from GR+TD
"A connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity is provided by irreducible unitary multi-particle representations of the Poincaré group." So you need to come up with mass and charge of an electron at rest - minimum?
sorry only private ideas.
M.G.
Don't forget the Principle of Correspondance of Bohr "For great quantum levels the QM lie to classical mechanics". For Bohr the principle of correspondance is a quantum principle . It is applicale for both hight level quantum state or low level. it is evident that for high level we can deduce the classical theory of gravitation only from QM. For low levels we can deduce vacuum energy of empty space and GR relativity is only the relationship between geometry and energy: CQFD.
They both have a ether-like medium which particles cause changes in the medium and the medium directs the particles - spacetime and ether( quantum vacuum, etc.). Neither has a dissipative force.
The thread question is clearly and completely enough answered already in the SS posts on page 1, so here only a note to that
“…Spacetime is the only link between quantum mechanics and GR. Therefore, it is necessary to find the factors that directly affect spacetime, from the elementary particles. ….”
- again, Matter’s spacetime fundamentally nothing else than is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”,(at least) [4+4+1]4D, spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,g,w,e,s,ct),
- which fundamentally cannot be affected by anything in Matter, and fundamentally cannot affectanything in Matter;
- including, so, there cannot be any scientific links between
- quantum mechanics, which, though is based on the fundamentally wrong in this case SR, where also the spacetime transformations are postulated, however in the SR that are some mystic purely “kinematical” “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc., but that isn’t principal at description and analysis of what exists and happens in Matter on not fundamental scales,
- and the GR, where dynamical spacetime transformations are postulated, what is principal point.
More see the SS posts above and links in the posts.
Cheers
Strictly speaking, they are both extensions to Newtonian mechanics. Einstein's relativity is based on the premise that there is an ultimate speed limit, which means Galilean relativity is wrong at high speeds. General relativity adds to the complexity by considering accelerated frames of reference. It assumes that action changes continuously.
Quantum mechanics tends to behave as if there is a background reference frame, and in most cases takes the approximation of Galilean relativity against that fixed background, but that is mainly because for most problems, that is sufficient. There are fixes to accommodate Einstein's relativity, but they come with costs. Quantum mechanics assumes that action changes discretely, and the discrete unit, h, defines the phase change in an accompanying wave period. Such a wave is not usually considered in Einstein's relativity.
“…Strictly speaking, they are both extensions to Newtonian mechanics. Einstein's relativity is based on the premise that there is an ultimate speed limit, which means Galilean relativity is wrong at high speeds. General relativity adds to the complexity by considering accelerated frames of reference. It assumes that action changes continuously… Quantum mechanics assumes that action changes discretely, and the discrete unit, h, defines the phase change in an accompanying wave period. Such a wave is not usually considered in Einstein's relativity.…”
- again, see the SS post above, just strictly scientifically speaking General relativity adds to all – Newton and Quantum – mechanicses first of all the postulate that the dynamical interactions “mass-spacetime-mass” are the real interactions, which are observed in gravitationally coupled systems, which [the postulated in the GR] interactions really fundamentally cannot, and so don’t, exist in Matter. As the “kinematical" interactions “material objects-spacetime” in the SR fundamentally cannot, and so don’t, exist in Matter also, though.
And, at that, the fact that Quantum mechanics assumes that action changes discretely and the wave-particle duality, isn’t some problem in all physical branches that study actions of the fundamental Nature Electric, Nuclear/Strong, and Weak, forces. Actions of all these Forces are without too much problems are coherently described on both - macroscale by “classical” theories, and on micro/QM scale by quantum theories.
Including, at that, in all mainstream theories of all Forces there is no any necessity in any dynamical transformations of Matter’s spacetime, all these theories exist in fundamentally independently on what is in the GR.
Again, Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, and by no means some actions of anything with/of spacetime; and when the really based on observed gravitational objects/events/processes data really scientific classical theory of Gravity Force will be developed, there will not be problem at development of its QM daughter.
Note at that, though, that all mainstream theories of all Forces on the fundamental depth are based on really fundamentally transcendent, moreover – really wrong – postulates,
- and the really scientific theories, at least of Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces, should be based on the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces
- and 2023 model of Nuclear Force”, see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force ,
- and, of course, basing on whole SS&VT informational physical model, the two main papers are https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics , and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics
- where, including, it is rigorously scientifically shown that Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally always flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,g,w,e,s,ct), it is explained what are Lorentz transformations, when they are valid completely and when non-completely; what really is QM and why and how the QM objects/events/effects, exist, etc.
Cheers
Let's consider "static" matter, the steps to think about it should be: 1) Matter is a superposition of matter particles, so the gravitational field of matter is a superposition of the gravitational field of particles. 2) Particles have QM properties, and the gravitational field of particles is caused by the mass of particles. 3) What causes the mass of particles? 4) The mass-energy equation (E=mc^2) specifies that "mass = energy", so it is "energy" that causes the gravitational field. 5) Then what is "energy"? It has both QM and GR properties. 6) We suggest that it is something called Euler's "Light Ring".
Preprint Supersymmetry-Light String and Light Ring
It's actually quite trivial and a matter of interpretation. GR is a misinterpretation of the evidence. See:
Article AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
The key is the FSC alpha?
See "electron, universe and large numbers between"
if you like
Dear Panagiotis Michael Mougoyannis
You ask: "What is the relationship between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity?"
It depends on which interpretation of QM you are considering in your comparison with GR
If you are thinking of the Copenhagen interpretation, then there is no relationship whatsoever, since GR is meant to describe gravitation at our macroscopic level, while the Copenhagen interpretation of QM states that there is no ontological common relation between the quantum level of magnitude and the other levels (macroscopic and astronomical).
If you have in mind the original de Broglie-Schrödinger QM, then a relationship can be established via the classical stationary resonance wave equations of classical mechanics that Schrödinger used to define his wave equation, classical mechanics on which GR is also grounded via the Special Relativity theory.
Best Regards, André
Since on this page rather strange answer to the thread question appeared, it looks as worthwhile to point here that the scientific answer to the question is given in SS posts on pages 1, 2. As to
“…It depends on which interpretation of QM you are considering in your comparison with GR
If you are thinking of the Copenhagen interpretation, then there is no relationship whatsoever, since GR is meant to describe gravitation at our macroscopic level, while the Copenhagen interpretation of QM states that there is no ontological common relation between the quantum level of magnitude and the other levels (macroscopic and astronomical)…”
- that looks as tooo strange passage. QM at all, and in accordance with the utmost rational Copenhagen QM interpretation, is principally based on “macroscopic level” physics, where the main physical mechanical parameters of material objects, i.e. mass, momentum, angular momentum, energies – i.e. “simply” and potential ones, physical action, etc., and fundamental physical laws that link the parameters in concrete situations, i.e., first of all, energies and both momentums conservation laws, were defined well before QM.
QM really only transforms, though rather specifically, “macroscopic level” mechanics so that the all above is applicable at description of what exists and happens on the QM scale; correspondingly QM equations reduce in many cases to classical mechanics in the limit ћ→0, and, while most of the parameters in QM are introduced as some operators,
- however, say, potential energy, and EM momentum that are in classical electrodynamics, practically without changes are applied in corresponding QM equations.
Correspondingly provided that in physics the really scientific theory of the fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force “Gravity”, which in a lot of traits is similar to Electric Force, would be developed, a development of QM Gravity theory would have no any principal problems.
The GR material objects interact by some transcendent, and by no means physically grounded in the GR, forces with space/time/spacetime, what is fundamentally impossible in all physics, correspondingly GR is incompatible with all physics, including QM; including, say, in GR the conservation laws don’t work, etc.;
- and all that has no any relation to any QM interpretation as well.
More see the SS posts above and links in the posts; including the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366536729_The_informational_model_-Gravity_and_Electric_Forces_Version_2
- and 2023 model of Nuclear Force”, see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force ,
- where, including, it is rigorously scientifically shown that all these 3 Forces with a well non-zero probability are similar – all act by the same scheme.
Cheers
“…"Apart from having completely different mathematical structures, quantum theory and general relativity 'live' in completely different spaces, …”
- that is, in certain sense, essentially correct, but the explanation of the wording in the quote above that
“……which means that 'Quantum General Relativity' and 'Quantum Spacetime' are meaningless concepts. Quantum theory lives in the abstract mathematical linear vector space HM with perfectly deterministic, and linear evolution. General relativity lives in, and actually constitutes, real physical 4-dimensional spacetime L4 with non-linear causal evolution of chains of 'events' = the actual 'happenings' that constitute the fundamental, irreversible, invariant 'constituents' of spacetime, ..….”
- looks as rather strange, full stop, strange claim. That 'Quantum General Relativity' and 'Quantum Spacetime' are meaningless concepts is, of course, completely true, however the rest is too strange.
Quantum theory – if we say about just non-relativistic “orthodox” quantum mechanics, and don’t mention rather questionable in this case QFTs, lives in completely real spacetime and operates with real masses, energies, momentums, fields of real fundamental Nature forces, etc.,
- and though it fundamentally is based on complex numbers mathematics, and that happens for some till now essentially unknown reason – though it looks that follows since QM operates with fundamentally uncertain “illogical” QM objects/events/processes
[more see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics],
- here note only that more 2500 years ago it was clear that Achilles cannot left behind a turtle if only some [mathematically] real numbers describe motion of both,
- and, besides, complex number formalism is used in quite classical physics, say, even electrotechnics.
In full contrast to QM just the GR is fundamentally based on the postulate that Matter’s spacetime is [mathematically] imaginary pseudo Riemannian 4D space, and is based on the postulate that really observed gravitational objects/ effects/processes are real interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass”, at that the spacetime contains energy, momentum, etc.,
- what fundamentally, and fundamentally correctly, is completely absent not only in QM, but in all physics, besides the GR, at all.
More see the SS posts on the pages 1, 2, 3; here only again remind, that the GR postulates above are fundamentally wrong, and that Gravity fundamentally is nothing else than one of the fundamental Nature forces; correspondingly when really scientific “classic” theory of Gravity will be developed, basing on the SS&VT 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366536729_The_informational_model_-Gravity_and_Electric_Forces_Version_2 ,
- there will not be some problems in writing of corresponding QM equations. That is another thing, that because of that Gravity is extremely weak Force, really gravitationally coupled QM systems don’t exist in Matter, besides, rather probably, some extreme exotic in this case central objects in “black holes”,
- which – i.e. “black holes” by no means are the “GR black holes”, i.e. some mystic real “holes in the spacetime”. Though in the GR a lot of other fantastic “holes”, “bridges”, “channels”, “warping”, etc., are quite real, though are real only in real innumerous mainstream physics publications…
Cheers
Quantum mechanics and General Relativity do not "live" in any mathematical spaces. We use mathematics to describe what we observe and what we think happens when we are not observing, but those mathematics are OUR choices, not nature's. However, there is a major incompatibility. QM is formulated to be background dependent whereas GR is not. Both cannot be correct and at least one must be merely an approximation that works IF something else holds.
“…Quantum mechanics and General Relativity do not "live" in any mathematical spaces. We use mathematics to describe what we observe and what we think happens when we are not observing, but those mathematics are OUR choices, not nature's….”
- that looks as rather strange claim. Really any really scientific theory fundamentally cannot use some arbitrary “OUR choices” mathematics; and so, till a theory remains be scientific one, it uses mathematics that is determined just by Nature. If that isn’t so, in such theories any fantasies can be, and in mainstream physics are, “discovered”.
And that
“…. However, there is a major incompatibility. QM is formulated to be background dependent whereas GR is not. Both cannot be correct and at least one must be merely an approximation that works IF something else holds.…”
- looks as rather vague claim. Really QM is formulated to be not some uncertain “background” dependent, it is, first of all, based on really correctly experimentally discovered, and essentially correctly mathematically evaluated, set of fundamental and universal laws/links/constants, which completely are determined by Nature
- using at that the phenomena/notions “space”, “time” and “spacetime” though fundamentally erroneously, however not completely erroneously,
- while in the GR the “the author choices” mathematics fundamentally contradicts with what Nature determines in this case, and so which fundamentally cannot be applicable not only in QM but in whole physics at all; and so from the GR really too many fantasies follow, moreover – really follow in numerous mainstream physics publications.
More see the SS posts above and links in the posts.
Cheers
A theoretician can choose whatever mathematics it likes. However, some forms are more convenient for a given purpose. As an example, when Newton announced his dynamics, he mainly used a geometrical argument, even though he invented calculus, because he knew his contemporaries would be more familiar with geometry. Now we favour calculus. mathematics describes. Natur4e does not fix how we describe, although it makes some methods far easier to use than others.
Here the quantisation (horizontal degeneration) from GR+TD point of view
- Badges
- Science method