Register to reply

Why does quantum mechanics not marry with the theroy of relativity

by Schrodinger's Dog
Tags: marry, mechanics, quantum, relativity, theroy
Share this thread:
Schrodinger's Dog
#1
Feb6-07, 01:04 PM
Schrodinger's Dog's Avatar
P: 1,142
I often hear it said that quantum mechanics does not marry with the theory of relativity because of the problem of gravity which can change the vectoral properties and throw the system out, but I'm pretty sure there's more to it than this, without becoming too maths heavy if possible can someone suggest why this is? I asked someone else and he said to be honest I've never really looked into it? So I thought I'd try here?

Sorry about the spelling mistake I didn't check the title before I posted
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Refocusing research into high-temperature superconductors
Neutron tomography technique reveals phase fractions of crystalline materials in 3-dimensions
Tiny magnets, huge fields: Nanoscale ferromagnetic electrodes create chemical equivalent of solid-state spin valve
Moridin
#2
Feb6-07, 02:42 PM
P: 858
GR works satisfactory for objects with larger and larger mass. For objects with a small mass, such as an electron, gravity can often be neglected. Quantum Mechanics works satisfactory for objects will a small size, such as an electron. However, HUP doesn't work that good for a truck.

How about for objects with a large mass and a small size? That is when things start to get a bit freaky. Freaky in the sense of results that are just about pointless.
DaveC426913
#3
Feb6-07, 04:13 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
GR is a field theory - it requires that there is a variable with a distinct value at every point in space (just like in an electric or magnetic field). That means every point; the fabric of space is a continuum.

QM states that, as you measure on a smaller and smaller scale, the uncertainty of position or velocity (or energy) goes up. This means that, for any given point in the GR fabric of space, you can have an arbitrarily large amount of energy - even infinite.

So, if you try to plug one formula into the other, you get infinites popping out.



(Figuring this out and being able to verbalize it succinctly has taken years, and I consider it a personal success. In fact, the last piece (that first paragraph) only just fell into place at lunchtime today, while reading 'The Trouble with Physics')

nrqed
#4
Feb6-07, 05:54 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 2,887
Why does quantum mechanics not marry with the theroy of relativity

Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
GR is a field theory - it requires that there is a variable with a distinct value at every point in space (just like in an electric or magnetic field). That means every point; the fabric of space is a continuum.

QM states that, as you measure on a smaller and smaller scale, the uncertainty of position or velocity (or energy) goes up. This means that, for any given point in the GR fabric of space, you can have an arbitrarily large amount of energy - even infinite.

So, if you try to plug one formula into the other, you get infinites popping out.



(Figuring this out and being able to verbalize it succinctly has taken years, and I consider it a personal success. In fact, the last piece (that first paragraph) only just fell into place at lunchtime today, while reading 'The Trouble with Physics')
But all the same comments could be made about the electromagnetic fields. And indeed, there are infinities popping up all over the place while quantizing electromagnetism (which occur because on finer and finer scales, the fields become infinitely "rough" i.e. the two-point correlator of fields goes to infinity). And yet, E&M is a renormalizable theory wit spectacular successes (for example the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron). So the appearance of infinities in itself is not the culprit. It's that in the case of GR, those infinities cannot be "tamed" (the theory is not renormalizable). This is harder to explain in a simple way.
wm
#5
Feb6-07, 06:43 PM
P: 161
Quote Quote by Schrodinger's Dog View Post
I often here it said that quantum mechanics does not marry with the theory of relativity because of the problem of gravity which can change the vectoral properties and throw the system out, but I'm pretty sure there's more to it than this, without becoming too maths heavy if possible can someone suggest why this is? I asked someone else and he said to be honest I've never really looked into it? So I thought I'd try here?

Sorry about the spelling mistake I didn't check the title before I posted
Two suggestions re your good question:

1. Ask the admin people to fix the title so that later searches of the archive (eg, re ''theory of relativity'') will yield your post and its thread.

2. As you seem to be seeking a simple answer, why not simplify your question by removing ''gravity'' from it? That might help replies re the ''more-to-it-than-gravity'' emerge early in the thread.

Regards, wm
DaveC426913
#6
Feb6-07, 09:14 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by nrqed View Post
But all the same comments could be made about the electromagnetic fields. And indeed, there are infinities popping up all over the place while quantizing electromagnetism (which occur because on finer and finer scales, the fields become infinitely "rough" i.e. the two-point correlator of fields goes to infinity). And yet, E&M is a renormalizable theory wit spectacular successes (for example the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron). So the appearance of infinities in itself is not the culprit. It's that in the case of GR, those infinities cannot be "tamed" (the theory is not renormalizable). This is harder to explain in a simple way.
Don't you wreck my dreams!
cesiumfrog
#7
Feb6-07, 10:14 PM
P: 2,050
lol. If only someone here understood the correct reason well enough to explain it simply.
Schrodinger's Dog
#8
Feb7-07, 05:37 AM
Schrodinger's Dog's Avatar
P: 1,142
You can use maths if you like but keep it calculus, I'm not au fait with field theories very complex mathematics. Einsteins equations and a little of the Dirac equation probably wouldn't be too taxing, so long as your prepared to explain what it means I'd have no problem understanding it, like the Hermetian is the energy of mass x in a field, or whatever.

Can a mentor correct the spelling mistake: no rush.
cristo
#9
Feb7-07, 06:09 AM
Mentor
cristo's Avatar
P: 8,306
Quote Quote by Schrodinger's Dog View Post
like the Hermetian is the energy...
I think you probably mean the "Hamiltonian"
Schrodinger's Dog
#10
Feb7-07, 07:08 AM
Schrodinger's Dog's Avatar
P: 1,142
Quote Quote by cristo View Post
I think you probably mean the "Hamiltonian"
I think you might be right.
Tomsk
#11
Feb7-07, 10:15 AM
P: 227
Is it more of a mathematical incompatibility, or a conceptual one, or both?
Thrice
#12
Feb7-07, 11:18 AM
P: 233
I asked a similar question a while ago.
DaveC426913
#13
Feb7-07, 11:47 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by cesiumfrog View Post
lol. If only someone here understood the correct reason well enough to explain it simply.
Actually, I believe I did do just that. You can't have an explanation QM and/or GR that is BOTH simple AND completely accurate.
baryon
#14
Feb7-07, 01:18 PM
P: 35
SD, I'm sure that you were referring to GR even though you didn't specify it. In most physics circles, if you ask a question like that without specifying either GR or SR you would be laughed at because quantum field theory does marry with SR in a most agreeable way.
Now as for GR, I thought that it was because the particles that are affected by the forces in the Standard Model oscillate at freqencies to high to be affected by gravity. This may als be incorrect as I have very little physics background and am still learning. I would like for someone to explain to me why I might be wrong instead of simply pointing out my mistake.
Schrodinger's Dog
#15
Feb7-07, 02:06 PM
Schrodinger's Dog's Avatar
P: 1,142
Quote Quote by baryon View Post
SD, I'm sure that you were referring to GR even though you didn't specify it. In most physics circles, if you ask a question like that without specifying either GR or SR you would be laughed at because quantum field theory does marry with SR in a most agreeable way.
Now as for GR, I thought that it was because the particles that are affected by the forces in the Standard Model oscillate at freqencies to high to be affected by gravity. This may als be incorrect as I have very little physics background and am still learning. I would like for someone to explain to me why I might be wrong instead of simply pointing out my mistake.
I certainly was, thanks for clarifying though anyway.

Well I have had most of my questions answered, so feel free to get as mathematical and technical as you like - well unless you're answering baryon's questions - this semi laymen is clear on why they don't marry. Seems like they've chosen to live together in uncomfortable agreement and on speaking terms and for the sake of their kids, oh no wait just kidding.

Big up to all the concise and capable people who have supplied very simple but very enlightening responses
cesiumfrog
#16
Feb7-07, 03:18 PM
P: 2,050
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Actually, I believe I did do just that. You can't have an explanation QM and/or GR that is BOTH simple AND completely accurate.
I disagree on both counts. I believe nrqed demonstrated your explanation was plain wrong, it fails to capture the core issue. (I wonder if the real one has anything to do with gravitational charge being inertial mass, since that's what first sets gravity apart from other forces. At any rate, it clearly isn't anything in common with the usual other field theories.)

In my experience, given sufficient understanding of a field of knowledge, pretty much any specific question can be answered simply (though perhaps it also takes some skill to separating all the factors/details that aren't relevent and in stating what's left in a manner non-experts can relate to). Of course, I don't think it's just that I've only understood things that turned out to have been simple. Anyway, it's certainly worth trying to boil one's understanding down to a few lines, since it makes it so much more practical for someone else to spot any flaw.
DaveC426913
#17
Feb7-07, 04:01 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
It's that in the case of GR, those infinities cannot be "tamed" (the theory is not renormalizable).
nrqed demonstrated your explanation was plain wrong
So add to my explanation: "and since GR is not renormalizable, those infinities give nonsensical results".

I think you're bifurcating bunnies as far as the OP's question is concerned.



In my experience, given sufficient understanding of a field of knowledge, pretty much any specific question can be answered simply (though perhaps it also takes some skill to separating all the factors/details that aren't relevent and in stating what's left in a manner non-experts can relate to).
Easy to say. I'm fishin' - you're cuttin' bait while telling me I can't fish.
cesiumfrog
#18
Feb7-07, 07:09 PM
P: 2,050
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
So add to my explanation: "and since GR is not renormalizable, those infinities give nonsensical results".

I think you're bifurcating bunnies as far as the OP's question is concerned.
With apologies then to the OP, can someone then try to explain simply why GR is not renormalisable?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Quantum Physics 2
Quantum mechanics and relativity Beyond the Standard Model 20
Relativity, confinement and Quantum Mechanics Quantum Physics 12
Conflict between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity General Physics 17