View Full Version : quantum theory of gravity
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nWhy does there seem to be such a bias towards searching for Unification\nthrough a quantum theory of gravity when this rules out half of the\nsolution space? Wouldn\'t a curvature theory of quantum mechanics be\njust as illuminating? What is it that makes searching for a GTR basis\nfor of quantum mechanics any more insurmountable than finding a quantum\nmechanical basis for gravity? Both are equally likely to exist and\nfinding either will point to the other.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Why does there seem to be such a bias towards searching for Unification
through a quantum theory of gravity when this rules out half of the
solution space? Wouldn't a curvature theory of quantum mechanics be
just as illuminating? What is it that makes searching for a GTR basis
for of quantum mechanics any more insurmountable than finding a quantum
mechanical basis for gravity? Both are equally likely to exist and
finding either will point to the other.
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Sep20-04, 01:43 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nIn article <691af44f.0409190934.7c88a22b@posting.google.com>, \ncte@palisad.com (george) writes:\n\n> Why does there seem to be such a bias towards searching for Unification\n> through a quantum theory of gravity when this rules out half of the\n> solution space? Wouldn\'t a curvature theory of quantum mechanics be\n> just as illuminating? What is it that makes searching for a GTR basis\n> for of quantum mechanics any more insurmountable than finding a quantum\n> mechanical basis for gravity? Both are equally likely to exist and\n> finding either will point to the other.\n\nQM and GR cannot both be correct. Most folks assume, as you write, that\nGR will have to be modified via a quantum theory of gravity. Penrose,\nhowever, takes the view that quantum theory will have to be modified.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <691af44f.0409190934.7c88a22b@posting.google.com>,
cte@palisad.com (george) writes:
> Why does there seem to be such a bias towards searching for Unification
> through a quantum theory of gravity when this rules out half of the
> solution space? Wouldn't a curvature theory of quantum mechanics be
> just as illuminating? What is it that makes searching for a GTR basis
> for of quantum mechanics any more insurmountable than finding a quantum
> mechanical basis for gravity? Both are equally likely to exist and
> finding either will point to the other.
QM and GR cannot both be correct. Most folks assume, as you write, that
GR will have to be modified via a quantum theory of gravity. Penrose,
however, takes the view that quantum theory will have to be modified.
Blake Winter
Sep21-04, 03:31 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nThere is a bit of research coming from the other direction, but not\nmuch. I suspect this is because its hard to imagine how one could get\nthe strange effects of quantum field theory (especially, say, fermion\nfields) from any classical theory of gravity. Thus people are\nunlikely to look for it. Also the proofs against hidden variables\ntend to\nHowever, here\'s a couple links to a paper purporting to do exactly\nwhat you are talking about, and the website of that person (Klaus\nHasslemann). He does show a good counterexample to Bell\'s proof\nagainst hidden variables, if nothing else:\nhttp://www.mpimet.mpg.de/~hasselmann.klaus/metron.php\nhttp://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9606033\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>There is a bit of research coming from the other direction, but not
much. I suspect this is because its hard to imagine how one could get
the strange effects of quantum field theory (especially, say, fermion
fields) from any classical theory of gravity. Thus people are
unlikely to look for it. Also the proofs against hidden variables
tend to
However, here's a couple links to a paper purporting to do exactly
what you are talking about, and the website of that person (Klaus
Hasslemann). He does show a good counterexample to Bell's proof
against hidden variables, if nothing else:
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/~hasselmann.klaus/metron.php
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9606033
Arnold Neumaier
Sep22-04, 03:45 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nBlake Winter wrote:\n> There is a bit of research coming from the other direction, but not\n> much. I suspect this is because its hard to imagine how one could get\n> the strange effects of quantum field theory (especially, say, fermion\n> fields) from any classical theory of gravity. Thus people are\n> unlikely to look for it. Also the proofs against hidden variables\n> tend to\n> However, here\'s a couple links to a paper purporting to do exactly\n> what you are talking about, and the website of that person (Klaus\n> Hasslemann). He does show a good counterexample to Bell\'s proof\n> against hidden variables, if nothing else:\n> http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/~hasselmann.klaus/metron.php\n> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9606033\n\nThis work is an attempt to deduce quantum field theory including\ngravitation from a Kaluza-Klein-type classical hidden-variable-theory.\nhep-th/9810086 is another paper by the author.\n\nAmerican Journal of Physics 68 (2000) pp. 91-93\ncontains a book review \'Understanding Physics\' by David Layser\nwith a section on Hasselmann\'s ideas:\n\n\'\'Klaus Hasselmann\'s contribution summarizes a program, the metron model,\nthat aims to replace quantum theory and general relativity by a unified,\ndeterministic theory of particles and fields based on the equation RLM 50,\nwhere RLM is the Ricci tensor in a space of at least eight dimensions.\nHasselmann rejects the standard particle wave duality ~particle or wave,\nbut not both!, in which the wave represents a probability amplitude.\nHasselmann s motto is particle and wave, as in the de Broglie Bohm\npilot-wave picture. He conjectures that the above equation has soliton\nsolutions representing particles with far fields that satisfy the de\nBroglie relations, and he attributes interference effects like those\nin a two-slit experiment with electrons to physical interactions involving\nthe particles far fields. Hasselmann emphasizes that this alternative\nexplanation has not yet gone beyond the qualitative level.\nBy contrast, the de Broglie Bohm account of interference agrees exactly,\nthough trivially, with the standard account; that, indeed, is its chief\nweakness.! The metron model predicts the stability of circular Bohr orbits\nin the hydrogen atom; whether it can make further successful predictions\nabout atomic spectra remains an open question.\nIn the metron model, fermions are particles with de Broglie far fields\nand bosons are waves. Hasselmann does not explain how effects associated\nwith the antisymmetry or symmetry of state vectors, such as exchange\ninteractions between fermions, arise in his model. The model faces other\nserious problems, some of which Hasselmann himself emphasizes.\nBut there is also, in my opinion, a much more general and fundamental\nproblem. Central to quantum mechanics as Dirac emphasized in his classic\ntext is the principle of superposition, which leads directly to the idea\nof representing physical states by vectors in a Hilbert space.\nThe interpretational problems of quantum theory and the socalled\nparadoxes all have to do with how we connect the abstract Hilbert spaces\nthat quantum theory associates with physical systems with the world of\nexperience and classical physics. Hasselmann s theory, if I understand\nit correctly, dispenses with the superposition principle.\nIt replaces interference between state vectors in a Hilbert space by\nthe far more limited notion of interference between waves in a physical\nalbeit more-than-four-dimensional space. In so doing, it replaces the\nparticle wave duality of quantum physics particle or wave by the\nclassical picture of a particle and its far field. But at the same\ntime this step abandoning the principle of superposition makes it\nimpossible to reproduce quantum theory s most distinctive successes,\nsuch as its explanation of the covalent molecular bond.\'\'\n\nSo far the book review.\n\nThis suggests that metron theory will not be able to reproduce highly\naccurate predictions of the helium spectrum or the hydrogen Lamb shift\nthat depend on tensor product Hilbert spaces.\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Blake Winter wrote:
> There is a bit of research coming from the other direction, but not
> much. I suspect this is because its hard to imagine how one could get
> the strange effects of quantum field theory (especially, say, fermion
> fields) from any classical theory of gravity. Thus people are
> unlikely to look for it. Also the proofs against hidden variables
> tend to
> However, here's a couple links to a paper purporting to do exactly
> what you are talking about, and the website of that person (Klaus
> Hasslemann). He does show a good counterexample to Bell's proof
> against hidden variables, if nothing else:
> http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/~hasselmann.klaus/metron.php
> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9606033
This work is an attempt to deduce quantum field theory including
gravitation from a Kaluza-Klein-type classical hidden-variable-theory.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9810086 is another paper by the author.
American Journal of Physics 68 (2000) pp. 91-93
contains a book review 'Understanding Physics' by David Layser
with a section on Hasselmann's ideas:
''Klaus Hasselmann's contribution summarizes a program, the metron model,
that aims to replace quantum theory and general relativity by a unified,
deterministic theory of particles and fields based on the equation RLM 50,
where RLM is the Ricci tensor in a space of at least eight dimensions.
Hasselmann rejects the standard particle wave duality ~particle or wave,
but not both!, in which the wave represents a probability amplitude.
Hasselmann s motto is particle and wave, as in the de Broglie Bohm
pilot-wave picture. He conjectures that the above equation has soliton
solutions representing particles with far fields that satisfy the de
Broglie relations, and he attributes interference effects like those
in a two-slit experiment with electrons to physical interactions involving
the particles far fields. Hasselmann emphasizes that this alternative
explanation has not yet gone beyond the qualitative level.
By contrast, the de Broglie Bohm account of interference agrees exactly,
though trivially, with the standard account; that, indeed, is its chief
weakness.! The metron model predicts the stability of circular Bohr orbits
in the hydrogen atom; whether it can make further successful predictions
about atomic spectra remains an open question.
In the metron model, fermions are particles with de Broglie far fields
and bosons are waves. Hasselmann does not explain how effects associated
with the antisymmetry or symmetry of state vectors, such as exchange
interactions between fermions, arise in his model. The model faces other
serious problems, some of which Hasselmann himself emphasizes.
But there is also, in my opinion, a much more general and fundamental
problem. Central to quantum mechanics as Dirac emphasized in his classic
text is the principle of superposition, which leads directly to the idea
of representing physical states by vectors in a Hilbert space.
The interpretational problems of quantum theory and the socalled
paradoxes all have to do with how we connect the abstract Hilbert spaces
that quantum theory associates with physical systems with the world of
experience and classical physics. Hasselmann s theory, if I understand
it correctly, dispenses with the superposition principle.
It replaces interference between state vectors in a Hilbert space by
the far more limited notion of interference between waves in a physical
albeit more-than-four-dimensional space. In so doing, it replaces the
particle wave duality of quantum physics particle or wave by the
classical picture of a particle and its far field. But at the same
time this step abandoning the principle of superposition makes it
impossible to reproduce quantum theory s most distinctive successes,
such as its explanation of the covalent molecular bond.''
So far the book review.
This suggests that metron theory will not be able to reproduce highly
accurate predictions of the helium spectrum or the hydrogen Lamb shift
that depend on tensor product Hilbert spaces.
Arnold Neumaier
Ken S. Tucker
Sep24-04, 08:09 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>cte@palisad.com (george) wrote in message news:<691af44f.0409190934.7c88a22b@posting.google. com>...\n> Why does there seem to be such a bias towards searching for Unification\n> through a quantum theory of gravity when this rules out half of the\n> solution space? Wouldn\'t a curvature theory of quantum mechanics be\n> just as illuminating? What is it that makes searching for a GTR basis\n> for of quantum mechanics any more insurmountable than finding a quantum\n> mechanical basis for gravity? Both are equally likely to exist and\n> finding either will point to the other.\n\nAgreed, the advantage GTR has over QT (Quantum Theory) is\nthe basis in principle. QT had a basis in Plancks "ad hoc"\nquanta assumption. It should be easier to shift the basis\nof QT on to GR, than otherwise.\nKen S. TUcker\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>cte@palisad.com (george) wrote in message news:<691af44f.0409190934.7c88a22b@posting.google.com>...
> Why does there seem to be such a bias towards searching for Unification
> through a quantum theory of gravity when this rules out half of the
> solution space? Wouldn't a curvature theory of quantum mechanics be
> just as illuminating? What is it that makes searching for a GTR basis
> for of quantum mechanics any more insurmountable than finding a quantum
> mechanical basis for gravity? Both are equally likely to exist and
> finding either will point to the other.
Agreed, the advantage GTR has over QT (Quantum Theory) is
the basis in principle. QT had a basis in Plancks "ad hoc"
quanta assumption. It should be easier to shift the basis
of QT on to GR, than otherwise.
Ken S. TUcker
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cimln4\\$ea5\\$1@online.de>...\n> In article <691af44f.0409190934.7c88a22b@posting.google.com>, \n> cte@palisad.com (george) writes:\n>\n> > Why does there seem to be such a bias towards searching for Unification\n> > through a quantum theory of gravity when this rules out half of the\n> > solution space? Wouldn\'t a curvature theory of quantum mechanics be\n> > just as illuminating? What is it that makes searching for a GTR basis\n> > for of quantum mechanics any more insurmountable than finding a quantum\n> > mechanical basis for gravity? Both are equally likely to exist and\n> > finding either will point to the other.\n>\n> QM and GR cannot both be correct. Most folks assume, as you write, that\n> GR will have to be modified via a quantum theory of gravity. Penrose,\n> however, takes the view that quantum theory will have to be modified.\n\nI prefer to think that neither is incorrect, however, both are incomplete\nand any Unification theory must be consistent with both. In the end, either\ngeneral relativity must be derived from quantum gravity considerations or\nquantum mechanics must be derived from the curvature and equivalent stress\nrepresentations of particles. The question is why do most researchers\nconsider the former more likely than the later?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cimln4$ea5$1@online.de>...
> In article <691af44f.0409190934.7c88a22b@posting.google.com>,
> cte@palisad.com (george) writes:
>
> > Why does there seem to be such a bias towards searching for Unification
> > through a quantum theory of gravity when this rules out half of the
> > solution space? Wouldn't a curvature theory of quantum mechanics be
> > just as illuminating? What is it that makes searching for a GTR basis
> > for of quantum mechanics any more insurmountable than finding a quantum
> > mechanical basis for gravity? Both are equally likely to exist and
> > finding either will point to the other.
>
> QM and GR cannot both be correct. Most folks assume, as you write, that
> GR will have to be modified via a quantum theory of gravity. Penrose,
> however, takes the view that quantum theory will have to be modified.
I prefer to think that neither is incorrect, however, both are incomplete
and any Unification theory must be consistent with both. In the end, either
general relativity must be derived from quantum gravity considerations or
quantum mechanics must be derived from the curvature and equivalent stress
representations of particles. The question is why do most researchers
consider the former more likely than the later?
Mike Helland
Sep25-04, 05:00 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>cte@palisad.com (george) wrote in message news:<691af44f.0409190934.7c88a22b@posting.google. com>...\n> Why does there seem to be such a bias towards searching for Unification\n> through a quantum theory of gravity when this rules out half of the\n> solution space? Wouldn\'t a curvature theory of quantum mechanics be\n> just as illuminating? What is it that makes searching for a GTR basis\n> for of quantum mechanics any more insurmountable than finding a quantum\n> mechanical basis for gravity? Both are equally likely to exist and\n> finding either will point to the other.\n\nAs others have mentioned there are approaches to modify QM to\naccomadate GR, and there are appraoches that modify both.\n\nPersonally, I\'m more stimulated by approaches that do niether. Here is\nhow it works:\n\nNature is a subset of the Universe, it is the set of all phenomena\nthat we consciouslly observe. The principles of relativity and\nuncertainty describe nature, they describe our conscious experience of\nthe universe. A bold scientist who wishes to describe nature could\nignore nature and instead focus on the larger, deeper Universe. The\nUniverse is defined in such a way that does not include the principles\nof relativity or uncertainty as postulates but instead as consequences\nthat are demonstrated by the by-product subset that represents nature.\n\nIn other words, you could unify QM and GR by understanding that they\nare theories of nature, and then create a superset of nature.\n\nOddly enough the first traces of this type of understanding were\nsuggested by Leibniz centuries before both QM and GR.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>cte@palisad.com (george) wrote in message news:<691af44f.0409190934.7c88a22b@posting.google.com>...
> Why does there seem to be such a bias towards searching for Unification
> through a quantum theory of gravity when this rules out half of the
> solution space? Wouldn't a curvature theory of quantum mechanics be
> just as illuminating? What is it that makes searching for a GTR basis
> for of quantum mechanics any more insurmountable than finding a quantum
> mechanical basis for gravity? Both are equally likely to exist and
> finding either will point to the other.
As others have mentioned there are approaches to modify QM to
accomadate GR, and there are appraoches that modify both.
Personally, I'm more stimulated by approaches that do niether. Here is
how it works:
Nature is a subset of the Universe, it is the set of all phenomena
that we consciouslly observe. The principles of relativity and
uncertainty describe nature, they describe our conscious experience of
the universe. A bold scientist who wishes to describe nature could
ignore nature and instead focus on the larger, deeper Universe. The
Universe is defined in such a way that does not include the principles
of relativity or uncertainty as postulates but instead as consequences
that are demonstrated by the by-product subset that represents nature.
In other words, you could unify QM and GR by understanding that they
are theories of nature, and then create a superset of nature.
Oddly enough the first traces of this type of understanding were
suggested by Leibniz centuries before both QM and GR.
Alfred Einstead
Oct19-04, 03:29 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nhelbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de\n(Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:\n> QM and GR cannot both be correct. Most folks assume, as you write, that\n> GR will have to be modified via a quantum theory of gravity. Penrose,\n> however, takes the view that quantum theory will have to be modified.\n\nThe pertinent question is QFT vs. GR, rather than QM vs. GR. QFT\nhas the Microcausality postulate which requires a classical lightcone\nstructure merely to formulate. But the metric (and light cone) in a\nquantum theory of gravity is non-classical, which makes it impossible\nto even write down the Microcausality postulate, never mind to actually\nassert it. Thus, it is fundamentally impossible to formulate QFT\n(in its present form) in a quantum theory of gravity, which ipso\nfacto, also means that a quantum theory of gravity cannot be a QFT.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de
(Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
> QM and GR cannot both be correct. Most folks assume, as you write, that
> GR will have to be modified via a quantum theory of gravity. Penrose,
> however, takes the view that quantum theory will have to be modified.
The pertinent question is QFT vs. GR, rather than QM vs. GR. QFT
has the Microcausality postulate which requires a classical lightcone
structure merely to formulate. But the metric (and light cone) in a
quantum theory of gravity is non-classical, which makes it impossible
to even write down the Microcausality postulate, never mind to actually
assert it. Thus, it is fundamentally impossible to formulate QFT
(in its present form) in a quantum theory of gravity, which ipso
facto, also means that a quantum theory of gravity cannot be a QFT.
Coming back to the Metron, it seems that Hasselman was not being very original in his theory. There was already another physicist using a metron, though in his case it was a quantum of area hxh as in loop quantum gravity. Hasselman may have got the idea off this physicist, Burkhard Heim (1925 - 2001), as some other features of both their theories are curiously similar - e.g. both use an 8-dimensional theory. See for example http://heim-theory.com/ . See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim .
Heim's theory is also a quantised form of General Relativity. After a period of prominence in the 1950's (Cocteau listed him in his pantheon of the 10 greatest living physicists), this German Hawking (handless, nearly blind and impaired hearing) became a recluse but continued to work obsessively on his unification theory. The crowning success thereof seemed to be a mass formula yielding remarkably accurate values for all known particles. Following his death, some physicists are evaluating his legacy to see if there is anything to the apparently remarkable results. Two of these physicists have been granted an award by the AIAA for their paper on using Heim theory as a possible field propulsion system - see their papers here http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/index.html . The award will be presented at the July meeting of the AIAA - http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=1177
Interesting stuff - too good to be true?
HD
Coming back to metrons, Hasslemann was not the first to use this term in a unification context. Apparently he may have taking a lead from the handicapped reclusive physicists Burkhard Heim, the 'German Hawking' - his theory is also 8 dimensional (or 6 or 12 depending on the version) and what's more he could (died 2001) predict paticle masses to great accuaracz - see http://www.heim-theory.com .
Hugh
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.