Register to reply 
Why does quantum mechanics not marry with the theroy of relativity 
Share this thread: 
#1
Feb607, 01:04 PM

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 


#2
Feb607, 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. 


#3
Feb607, 04:13 PM

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') 


#4
Feb607, 05:54 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 2,887

Why does quantum mechanics not marry with the theroy of relativity



#5
Feb607, 06:43 PM

P: 161

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 ''moretoitthangravity'' emerge early in the thread. Regards, wm 


#7
Feb607, 10:14 PM

P: 2,050

lol. If only someone here understood the correct reason well enough to explain it simply.



#8
Feb707, 05:37 AM

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. 


#11
Feb707, 10:15 AM

P: 227

Is it more of a mathematical incompatibility, or a conceptual one, or both?



#12
Feb707, 11:18 AM

P: 233

I asked a similar question a while ago.



#13
Feb707, 11:47 AM

P: 15,319




#14
Feb707, 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. 


#15
Feb707, 02:06 PM

P: 1,142

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 


#16
Feb707, 03:18 PM

P: 2,050

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 nonexperts 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. 


#17
Feb707, 04:01 PM

P: 15,319

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


#18
Feb707, 07:09 PM

P: 2,050




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 