Quantum theory of gravity.

[Amazing Random]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Can you provide a reference to support that claim?

Ok it can be my mistake you misunderstood because i first learn relativistic stress  and later i found out it is relativistic momentum.

3 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Not stating - suggesting!

I'm suggesting that there might not be any gravity in QM, because it operates under different rules than the macro/relativistic world.

Yes but relativistic events occur in the microscopic world . A big proof for my statement is QFT.

[QuantumT]

3 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

Yes but relativistic events occur in the microscopic world . A big proof for my statement is QFT.

QFT is a conjecture, as far as I know. We can call it evidence, but not proof. Proof is not really something science operates with, as far as I know.

[Amazing Random]

1 minute ago, QuantumT said:

QFT is a conjecture, as far as I know. We can call it evidence, but not proof. Proof is not really something science operates with, as far as I know.

Ok but QFT seems to work pretty well . How do you explain it?

[QuantumT]

2 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

Ok but QFT seems to work pretty well . How do you explain it?

How do I explain what?

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

Ok it can be my mistake you misunderstood because i first learn relativistic stress  and later i found out it is relativistic momentum.

Where did you find that? It is not something I have heard before.

How is relativistic momentum relevant to the topic?

5 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

QFT is a conjecture, as far as I know. We can call it evidence, but not proof. Proof is not really something science operates with, as far as I know.

QFT is one of the most well-tested theories we have. If you were going to apply the word "proof" to any scientific theory, then it would be a good candidate.

[Amazing Random]

1 minute ago, QuantumT said:

How do I explain what?

QFT.If relativistic events didnt occur at the microscopic world , QFT would have been wrong.

Just now, Strange said:

Where did you find that? It is not something I have heard before.

How is relativistic momentum relevant to the topic?

QFT is one of the most well-tested theories we have. If you were going to apply the word "proof" to any scientific theory, then it would be a good candidate.

Something with relativistic momentum bends space-time.

If it has enough relativistic momentum.:)

[QuantumT]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

QFT is one of the most well-tested theories we have. If you were going to apply the word "proof" to any scientific theory, then it would be a good candidate.

I meant that 'proof' is a concept not used in theoretical physics (not science), where 'evidence' is a preferred word. Agree?

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

Something with relativistic momentum bends space-time.

True. But this seems to contradict your claim that gravity doesn't exist at the quantum level. Photons have momentum. Electrons have mass. Therefore they should curve spacetime and cause gravity.

2 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I meant that 'proof' is a concept not used in theoretical physics (not science), where 'evidence' is a preferred word. Agree?

Yes. But it was your suggestion that QFT is a "conjecture" that I was objecting to. It is a very well-tested theory. 

Theoretical physics is part of science.

[QuantumT]

3 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

QFT.If relativistic events didnt occur at the microscopic world , QFT would have been wrong.

Well, a singularity can have elements found elsewhere, but still have different rules. So both could be correct.

[Amazing Random]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

True. But this seems to contradict your claim that gravity doesn't exist at the quantum level. Photons have momentum. Electrons have mass. Therefore they should curve spacetime and cause gravity.

Yes. But it was your suggestion that QFT is a "conjecture" that I was objecting to. It is a very well-tested theory. 

Look at the whole answer.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

True. But this seems to contradict your claim that gravity doesn't exist at the quantum level. Photons have momentum. Electrons have mass. Therefore they should curve spacetime and cause gravity.

Yes. But it was your suggestion that QFT is a "conjecture" that I was objecting to. It is a very well-tested theory. 

I say in the end if it has enough relativistic momentum.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Amazing Random

[QuantumT]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

True. But this seems to contradict your claim that gravity doesn't exist at the quantum level. Photons have momentum. Electrons have mass. Therefore they should curve spacetime and cause gravity.

Yes. But it was your suggestion that QFT is a "conjecture" that I was objecting to. It is a very well-tested theory. 

Theoretical physics is part of science.

I stand corrected. It is a theory.

Science as a whole does sometimes use proof, but TP as a stand alone branch does not. Is that wrong?

Edited August 2, 2019 by QuantumT

[Amazing Random]

1 minute ago, QuantumT said:

I stand corrected. It is a theory.

QFT has been experimentally proved . Using QFT we were able to calculate things very very unbelieveably precisely.

[QuantumT]

3 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

QFT has been experimentally proved . Using QFT we were able to calculate things very very unbelieveably precisely.

We should not turn this into a glass half full, half empty discussion. I'm just saying there is a reason we call them 'theories' and not facts. And that it's safer to use the word 'evidence' instead of 'proof', because 'proof is a radical word, that rejects interpretation.

[Amazing Random]

8 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

We should not turn this into a glass half full, half empty discussion. I'm just saying there is a reason we call them 'theories' and not facts. And that it's safer to use the word 'evidence' instead of 'proof', because 'proof is a radical word, that rejects interpretation.

It is verified experimentally. And from the definition of science if something is verified experimentally , it is true and theories must change and adapt to this truth.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Could there not be a minimum energy for action or effect? I'm thinking along the lines where virtual particles individually have no action until a quantum is produced by combination.

That's not the model being proposed. And if it were, you'd still need a model to explain the activation.

The focus is on the molecule, not the virtual particle. Having two hydrogen molecules that don't interact gravitationally is not an instance of a virtual particle without a partner to interact with.

 

[Amazing Random]

I think that the conservation is not related to the primary discussion anymore . Please accept the statement the quantum world doesnt have any relativistic events.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

Please accept the statement the quantum world doesnt have any relativistic events.

No.

Because we know it does.

[Amazing Random]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

No.

Because we know it does.

I know it does but just for this conversation lets accept it.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

I think I'm doing okay. It should be obvious what I mean.

That's just it. If you don't use the proper definition, we assume you are saying one thing when in reality you are saying another.  

21 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

I know it does but just for this conversation lets accept it.

Why should we agree to a blatantly false premise?

[Amazing Random]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's just it. If you don't use the proper definition, we assume you are saying one thing when in reality you are saying another.  

Why should we agree to a blatantly false premise?

He wont change his mind anytime soon and this discussion is nice.

[QuantumT]

6 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

He wont change his mind anytime soon and this discussion is nice.

Are you talking about me?
Please address me directly, if you have any issues. I believe the above mentioned issue has been solved, but swansont just didn't catch up yet.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, QuantumT said:

We should not turn this into a glass half full, half empty discussion. I'm just saying there is a reason we call them 'theories' and not facts. And that it's safer to use the word 'evidence' instead of 'proof', because 'proof is a radical word, that rejects interpretation.

!

Moderator Note

Yes. Such discussion has been split

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119717-theories-and-proof-split-from-quantum-theory-of-gravity/

Please confine discussion here to quantum theory and gravity

 

1 hour ago, Amazing Random said:

He wont change his mind anytime soon and this discussion is nice.

As with QT, I don't know who you are addressing.

[Mordred]

Here is the thing what we term as gravity is in actuality spacetime curvature. Particles are subject to this curvature so indeed it exists on the quantum level. A collection of photons can cause curvature.

 The problem really stems is the scale of influence individual particles can induce upon other particles.

This is described by the gravitational coupling constant.

[latex]\alpha_G=1.75*10^{-45}[/latex]

This is defined as the gravitational attraction between two electrons. It is a dimensionless constant that will vary with the choice of particles.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Mordred

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Amazing Random said:

I know it does but just for this conversation lets accept it.

Why don't we don't we accept that the earth is flat, or light moves at walking speed, or fire-breathing dragons exist, "just for this conversation". What is the point?

[Amazing Random]

11 hours ago, Strange said:

Why don't we don't we accept that the earth is flat, or light moves at walking speed, or fire-breathing dragons exist, "just for this conversation". What is the point?

Because QFT is a nearly proven theory but there is also an unbelievably small chance that it is wrong , and fire-breathing dragons dont exist for sure.