GR or QM: which is more 'fundamental'?

In summary, the conversation discusses the question of which theory, either quantum mechanics (QM) or general relativity (GR), will prove to be more fundamental in the sense that one will be the foundation of a theory beyond the Standard Model (SM) while the other will be explained away by it. The speaker's personal hunch is that QM is more fundamental because there is no hidden determinism underneath it. They also mention that the current formulation of quantum field theory (QFT) is not very fundamental and a deeper non-deterministic formulation may emerge. In contrast, GR is seen as a theory of geometry itself and the speaker believes that whatever theory replaces it will be the most fundamental. They argue that it is useless to ask which theory
  • #1
Aidyan
180
13
Which and why do you believe will turn out to be more 'fundamental' (in the sense that one will prove to be the foundation of a theory which goes beyond the SM, while the other will be explained away by it). Or maybe both, or neither?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Of course, you are asking about personal hunches here. Mine is that QM is more fundamental, and GR is the 'end of the Maxwell line' of continuous, deterministic, field theories. Now, what I mean by QM more fundamental is that there is no hidden determinism underneath QM (even non-local determinism). This is a hunch, that cannot be proven, at present.

On the other hand, I think the current QFT formulation is not very fundamental, and not likely to 'last' any more than GR. Some deeper non-deterministic formulation would have spacetime, QFT, and GR as emergent phenomenon,
 
  • #3
Aidyan said:
Which and why do you believe will turn out to be more 'fundamental' (in the sense that one will prove to be the foundation of a theory which goes beyond the SM, while the other will be explained away by it). Or maybe both, or neither?
GR is a theory of geometry itself. Geometry interacting with matter is the basis of everything else.
Everything is built on/in space/time.
Asking "which" will turn out to be "more fundamental" is the wrong way to ask the question.
Something is either fundamental or it's not. GR is obviously inadequate.

What will be fundamental will be whatever theory replaces GR as our theory of spacetime itself. Its central focus will be a mathematical representation of geometry, and that picture of the world's geometry will be fully interactive with matter.

Whatever that theory of interactive geometry turns out to be, the fields of the SM will be relocated onto it.

It is useless to ask "which is closest?" you could say GR is closest because it is ABOUT geometry interactive with matter, and QM is not. Or you could say QM is closest because GR is not yet a quantum theory, so cannot possibly be itself part of the next basic theory assemblage.
It's like asking someone what's their favorite color. You might learn a bit about the metric that person uses to judge by, you learn about them not about reality.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
In 1930, Einstein attacked consistency of QM, while Bohr argued that GR saves consistency of QM. But from a modern perspective they both seem wrong, as discussed in detail here:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1203.1139

I see that as another argument that QM is more fundamental than GR.
 

What is the difference between GR and QM?

GR, or General Relativity, is a theory of gravity that explains the large-scale behavior of objects in the universe. It describes how massive objects, like planets and stars, interact with each other and how they affect the curvature of space and time. QM, or Quantum Mechanics, is a theory that explains the behavior of particles on a very small scale, such as atoms and subatomic particles. It describes how these particles interact and behave, and is essential for understanding phenomena like atomic and molecular structure, chemical reactions, and the behavior of materials.

Which theory came first, GR or QM?

GR was developed by Albert Einstein in 1915, while QM was developed in the early 20th century by a group of physicists including Niels Bohr, Max Planck, and Werner Heisenberg. Therefore, GR came first in terms of historical development.

Which theory is more widely accepted in the scientific community?

Both GR and QM are widely accepted by the scientific community and have been extensively tested and verified through experiments and observations. However, GR is considered the more established theory as it has been around for a longer period of time and has been used to make accurate predictions about the behavior of massive objects in the universe.

Why is it difficult to reconcile GR and QM?

The main difficulty in reconciling GR and QM lies in the fact that they are based on different principles and have different mathematical frameworks. GR is based on the concept of spacetime curvature, while QM is based on probability and uncertainty. Attempts to merge these two theories, such as the theory of quantum gravity, have not yet been successful and remain an ongoing area of research in physics.

Which theory is more 'fundamental'?

There is no clear answer to which theory is more 'fundamental' as both GR and QM are essential for understanding different aspects of the universe. Some scientists argue that GR may be more fundamental as it describes the behavior of space and time, which are fundamental components of the universe. Others argue that QM may be more fundamental as it describes the behavior of all particles and their interactions. Ultimately, both theories are integral to our understanding of the universe and cannot be considered more or less fundamental than the other.

Similar threads

A Will QG leave GR unchanged or QT?
    • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
60
Views
5K
I Is There A Simple Dark Matter Solution Rooted In GR?
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
I Is Time More Fundamental Than Space? Exploring Smolin's Hypotheses
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
5K
B The building blocks of strings
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
5
Views
1K
A Hardy's approach to quantum gravity and QM interpretation
    • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
I At which point is gravity inconsistent with quantum mechanics?
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
24
Views
3K
A Can Cosmic Inflation and String Theory change fundamental laws?
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
3K
A Taxonomy of Theories in Theoretical Physics
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Why is anyone looking for a graviton/force mediator if it's so widely accepted that that gravity is not a force, but physical curvature?
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
400
Unifying GR and QM - Reasons for Believing in Unity
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
8
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top