is it possible to apply Newtonian physics at quantum gravity ?

[stephaneww]

Hello

I would like to know if the following calculation is allowed in quantum mechanics or if it's only the definition :

[latex] \Large{F_p=\frac{G*m_p*m_p}{l_p^2}}[/latex]

the numerical values are ok

 

thanks in advanced

 

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by stephaneww

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, stephaneww said:

Hello

I would like to know if the following calculation is allowed in quantum mechanics or if it's only the definition :

Fp=G∗mp∗mpl2p

the numerical values are ok

 

thanks in advanced

 

 

The equation is certainly "allowed". It might even be correct. It may be that a future theory of quantum gravity will give different results when the distance is comparable to the Planck length but we don't really know.

Note that the masses in your equation are very big compared to objects where we need to take quantum effects into account so it is probably only the distance that might cause problems with Newtonian gravity.

Also, you have labelled the force F_p but it is not the same as the Planck force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_force

[stephaneww]

Hello Strange,

of course "p" is for  "Planck"

I only try to find an element of quantum gravity for a context deterministic of quantum mechanics and submit it to a friend who works on this question

and as you say, it's not a usual way to approach the problem

thank you for your answer

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

...Also, you have labelled the force F_p but it is not the same as the Planck force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_force

edit : do the calculation, numeric value and dimension are  ok

Edited August 8, 2018 by stephaneww

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, stephaneww said:

oops do the calculation, numeric v

It seems like it is the same thing. It wasn't obvious!

[stephaneww]

um, nothing new in fact, it's under key : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Base_units

 

and it must be taken into account that:

 

[latex]\Large{F_p=\frac{c^4}{G}}[/latex]

 

so, we can deduce that it takes at least a relativistic context

Edited August 9, 2018 by stephaneww

[Sensei]

m_p can mean "mass of proton"

or

m_p can mean "Planck mass"..

It's ambiguous.

 

(Planck mass is extremely big in comparison to mass of proton)

 

[stephaneww]

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

m_p can mean "mass of proton"

or

m_p can mean "Planck mass"..

It's ambiguous.

 

(Planck mass is extremely big in comparison to mass of proton)

 

oops I missed that 

[stephaneww]

hum, I forgot to say that [latex]_p[/latex] is for Planck mass

Edited October 20, 2018 by stephaneww