Register to reply 
Maybe there is no grand unified theory? 
Share this thread: 
#19
Dec1712, 09:04 PM

PF Gold
P: 316

Einstein's equation
[itex]R_{\mu \nu}  {1 \over 2} g_{\mu \nu} R = T_{\mu \nu}[/itex] tells us how geometry is coupled to matter. Since matter is in a quantum superposition, isnt geometry as well? 


#20
Dec1712, 09:11 PM

P: 718

Whom is your question directed to, julian? That is in fact one the points of tension between QM and GR. The curvature tensor is purely classical and we don't have a welldefined notion for a 'superposition of curvature'. However, QM says it should be coupled to something that is in a superposition. Hence, one of the incompatibilities between QM and GR is the question of what the gravitational field looks like for a particle small enough to have quantum effects dominate.



#21
Dec1712, 09:18 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,676




#22
Dec1712, 09:23 PM

PF Gold
P: 316

The origin question was can GR and QM be independent theories...and I'm saying they are incompatible.



#23
Dec1712, 09:24 PM

PF Gold
P: 316




#24
Dec1712, 09:37 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,676




#25
Dec1712, 09:45 PM

PF Gold
P: 316

People talk about singularities and how GR and QM must merge in certain circumstances. But if you take QM to apply at all levels (which I do!) then they are always incompatible.



#26
Dec1712, 09:59 PM

PF Gold
P: 316

Hello Bapowell
The iteration is unstable in general. It was Robert Wald and Flanagan [grqc/960252] who showed this. "In other words, aren't those dangerous UV modes Thiemann mentions integrated out?" I'm not sure how to answer it, I'm not an expert either. But what I do know is that Thiemann shows in his book that a canonical quantization of GR (with full backreaction of matter on the quantum gravitational field) is finite. 


#27
Dec1712, 10:21 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,676

Thanks for the reference julian. I'll have a look.



#28
Dec1712, 10:38 PM

PF Gold
P: 316

Hi bapowell
I think people take they view that quantum mechanics stops at some length scale, beyond which matter is classical, and then put it into Einstein's equations. I'm of the opinion that there is no artificial boundary between classical and quantum... 


#29
Dec1712, 11:00 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,027




#30
Dec1712, 11:15 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,371



#31
Dec1812, 07:39 PM

P: 518

So a Grand Unified Theory is one that includes all the Standard Model without including gravity, and a Theory of Everything one that also includes gravity.
I don't think that I want to split hairs over this issue. 


#32
Dec1812, 08:41 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,676




#33
Dec1812, 10:17 PM

P: 518

I remember once discovering a pattern in the discovery of the fundamental constituents of matter, a pattern that involves several stages:
Atoms and chemical elements The idea of chemical elements goes back to antiquity, with Greek earth, air, fire, water and Chinese earth, wood, metal, fire, water. However, chemical elements became a welldefined category with AntoineLaurent de Lavoisier, and atomism became rigorous with John Dalton. By the middle of the 19th cy., Dmitri Mendeleev proposed his Periodic Table of Elements, complete with predictions of missing members of that table. Those members were later found, and they had the properties that DM had predicted for them. With the discovery of electrons, nuclei, and quantum mechanics, and the development of quantum chemistry, these entities entered the fourth stage. Atomic nuclei Discovered in 1909, they quickly skipped through the first stage to reach the second stage, and they entered the third stage around 1920, when Ernest Rutherford proposed the existence of a "neutral proton". This particle was discovered in 1932, and named the neutron, bringing nuclei into the fourth stage. Hadrons The first hadrons discovered were protons and neutrons, around 1920 and 1932. I'm counting protons by Ernest Rutherford's recognition of them; a hint of them goes back about a century more to Prout's hypothesis. When they were the only two known stronglyinteracting particles, hadrons remained stuck in the first stage. That began to change in 1947 with the discovery of the pion, and by the 1950's, physicists had discovered a big zoo of stronglyinteracting particles, bringing hadrons into the second stage. But regularities soon became evident, and in 1964, Murray GellMann, George Zweig, and Yuval Ne'eman proposed the quark model. It had some oddities, like quarks in baryons being symmetric despite having spin 1/2, and the nonobservation of free quarks. But by the early 1970's, physicists had discovered evidence that protons are composite, and that some of the "partons" in them have the properties expected of quarks. They also developed a theory of the quark's interactions, QCD. It put quarks in baryons into an antisymmetric color state, resolving the symmetry discrepancy. With this and other evidence, like quark and gluon jets and the success of lattice QCD, hadrons entered the fourth stage. StandardModel particles The first stage can go back a long way, depending on what one wants to count as first hints of the photon and electron. Visible light? Electrostatic effects? Magnetic effects? Electric shocks from electric fish? A complication along the way is that for some decades, hadrons seemed as elementary as electrons, muons, neutrinos, and photons. In fact, in the 1960's, a "bootstrap model" of hadrons used to be popular, depicting them all as fully elementary. But the success of the quark model made it evident that hadrons were composite and not quite elementary, and that quarks and the gluon were instead elementary. The term "Standard Model" was coined in the early 1980's or thereabouts, but some physicists were already speculating about Grand Unified Theories. The unbroken Standard Model has some regularities in its particles' gaugefield quantum numbers, even if not in their masses, and one can find GUT's that fit all the StandardModel particles into a small number of multiplets. So it's still in the third stage. 


#34
Dec1912, 01:27 AM

P: 518

As to StandardModel particles, there are some interesting regularities in their gauge interactions. I'll concern myself with the unbroken SM here, since that is what we must account for. Quantum numbers:
(QCD multiplicity, weakisospin multiplicity, weak hypercharge) The gauge particles are all in the adjoint representations of their gaugesymmetry groups, so that does not really tell us very much. QCD: gluon: (8,1,0) WIS: W: (1,3,0) WHC: B: (1,1,0) The Higgs particle is a single doublet: (1,2,1/2) The lefthanded and righthanded elementary fermions: Quark: (3,2,1/6)  (3*,2,1/6) Up: (3*,1,2/3)  (3,1,2/3) Down: (3*,1,1/3)  (3,1,1/3) Lepton: (1,2,1/2)  (1,2,1/2) Neutrino: (1,1,0)  (1,1,0) Electron: (1,1,1)  (1,1,1) If you are starting to suspect some patterns, you are not alone. In fact, there is an interrelationship that I rediscovered; I don't know who originally discovered it. Weak isospin works like 3D angular momentum, with overall quantum number WIS and multiplicity 2*WIS + 1. There is a "spin parity" that is conserved in rep products. Integer spins have parity 0, halfodd spins parity 1, and they add modulo 2. QCD has a similar quantum number, "triality". It's more complicated to calculate, so I'll give its values for the reps mentioned here: 1 (scalar)  0 8 (adjoint)  0 3 (fundamental)  1 3* (fund. conjugate)  2 Trialities add modulo 3. With QCD triality and WIS parity: Quark: (1,1,1/6)  (2,1,1/6) Up: (2,0,2/3)  (1,0,2/3) Down: (2,0,1/3)  (1,0,1/3) Lepton: (0,1,1/2)  (0,1,1/2) Neutrino: (0,0,0)  (0,0,0) Electron: (0,0,1)  (0,0,1) Now to the weak hypercharge. After some experimenting, one finds a simple formula: WHC = (integer) + (1/2)*(WIS parity)  (1/3)*(QCD triality) One can use (WIS) instead of (1/2)*(WIS parity), and it will work just as well. One can get this formula from some GUT's, like GeorgiGlashow. 


#35
Dec1912, 05:28 PM

P: 275

OP, the reason it should be related is very simple.
EFE simply tells how the geometry must be curved by the influence of mass/stress/energy. It doesn't show how the mass is connected to geometry... which occurs in very small scale. So without knowing how mass is connected to geometry. It's just like believing in Magic like telling children about TV getting images and not explaining how.. but only that pushing channel and volume buttons can change the images (like EFE). 


#36
Dec1912, 09:18 PM

P: 518

It isn't as magical as it might seem when one considers the Lagrangian:
L = R/(16*pi*G_{N}) + L(nongravitational) The first term is the EinsteinHilbert term. Doing a variation by the metric gives Einstein's field equation G = 8*pi*G_{N}*T. That aside, there isn't much that suggests a connection between gravity and everything else that's known, no readilyapparent pattern that the graviton fits into alongside some other elementary particles. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Kaluza, Klein, and the Grand Unified Theory  Beyond the Standard Model  0  
Grand Unified Theory aka T.O.E.  General Discussion  1  
Grand unified theories and quantum mechanics  Quantum Physics  5  
Grand Unified Field Theory  General Discussion  3  
Need some clarification..regarding GRAND UNIFIED THEORY  Beyond the Standard Model  3 