Objects without quantum nature, or without relativistic nature

In summary, the question is whether there could be entities that exclusively follow either quantum mechanics or general relativity, without approximation. Some suggest that there may be a limit to observation where quantum properties cease, or a lower bound at the Planck length for relativistic properties. However, there is currently a conflict between the two theories and attempts to merge them, such as through String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. It is also debated whether there is an infinite number of physical systems that may follow different laws. Max Tegmark's "Level IV Multiverse" theory suggests the possibility of systems with only one theory.
  • #1
Loren Booda
3,125
4
Could there exist entities that either obey only quantum mechanics or obey only general relativity - not as an approximation but as an absolute rule?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The question is a bit surprising. Do you have anything in mind?
 
  • #3
Relativity applies to all matter and energy and so does quantum physics.

Quantum "properties" are not, in general, noticeable on the macro scale and relativistic "properties" are not, in general, noticeable at low (relative) speeds- but they are there.
 
  • #4
Gonzolo,

Perhaps there is a correspondent limit to observation at which the quantum nature of matter ceases. This might be the observable universe horizon, for instance. Likewise, the Planck length might demarcate a lower bound for the relativistic nature of space.

I suspect that HallsofIvy is right (as far as one can show), but in an infinite universe there can be an infinity of physical systems. The question is where do our familiar rules stop and how can we extend measurement beyond them?
 
  • #5
Loren Booda said:
Gonzolo,

Perhaps there is a correspondent limit to observation at which the quantum nature of matter ceases. This might be the observable universe horizon, for instance. Likewise, the Planck length might demarcate a lower bound for the relativistic nature of space.

I suspect that HallsofIvy is right (as far as one can show), but in an infinite universe there can be an infinity of physical systems. The question is where do our familiar rules stop and how can we extend measurement beyond them?

There is a conflict between Relativity and QM, very basically, QM treats gravity as a force, Relativity treats gravity as a secondary effect caused by the curvature of spacetime. Right now, it doesn't seem possible to extend Relativity down to the quantum level - the mathematics goes nuts. But, by the same token, it currently isn't possible to smoothly merge QM into relativity. This is probably the number one problem in physics today, and is what String Theory, and Loop Quantum Gravity etc are attempting to address.

As to your second paragraph, I don't think that's exactly true. There are only a finite number of ways that energy and matter can be arranged. And even if it were true, and there were an infinite number of physical systems, the basic assumption of our science is that no matter how many systems there are, they all have to obey the same physical laws.
 
  • #6
geometer,

If you can, read the article by Max Tegmark on page 40 of the May 2003 Scientific American, especially about his "Level IV Multiverse." His reasoning seems to allow for physical systems, as negligible as they might be, that contain only QM or only GR.

I was intrigued to read from you and for the first time together that QM considers gravity as a force, where GR models it as an artifact of spacetime curvature. To this effect I wonder what helpful compromise remains in the second article, "P-Duality General Relativity Inside-Out," on my website, below. There I try to introduce action quantization into the metric tensor radial dependence.
 

1. What are objects without quantum nature?

Objects without quantum nature are those that do not exhibit any quantum properties, such as superposition or entanglement. These objects follow classical laws of physics and can be accurately described by classical mechanics.

2. Can objects without quantum nature exist in the macroscopic world?

Yes, objects without quantum nature can exist in the macroscopic world. Examples of such objects include everyday objects like a pencil, a table, or a car. These objects are too large and complex to exhibit any quantum properties.

3. What are the implications of objects without quantum nature?

The implications of objects without quantum nature are that they follow deterministic laws of physics and can be predicted with certainty. This is in contrast to quantum objects, which can only be described probabilistically.

4. Are there any real-life applications of objects without quantum nature?

Yes, there are many real-life applications of objects without quantum nature. For example, classical mechanics is used in engineering to design structures and machines, in medicine to understand the human body, and in astronomy to study celestial objects.

5. How are objects without quantum nature different from objects with quantum nature?

Objects without quantum nature follow classical laws of physics and do not exhibit any quantum properties, while objects with quantum nature follow quantum laws and can exhibit properties like superposition and entanglement. Additionally, classical objects can be described deterministically, while quantum objects can only be described probabilistically.

Similar threads

Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
986
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
4
Replies
124
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
922
Replies
28
Views
2K
Back
Top