Can Operator Theory Help Unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Physics4Funn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the potential of operator theory to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. It highlights the transition from Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics, emphasizing the role of operators in Quantum Field Theory and the relationship between mass, energy, and spacetime geometry in general relativity. The conversation suggests that extending the operator view could lead to new insights in quantizing previously unquantized concepts in physics. A referenced paper indicates ongoing research in this area, suggesting a growing interest in these unifying theories.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Mechanics and its operator formalism
  • Familiarity with Quantum Field Theory concepts
  • Knowledge of General Relativity and spacetime geometry
  • Basic grasp of mathematical operators and their applications in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of operator theory in Quantum Field Theory
  • Explore the paper referenced in the discussion for insights on quantizing physics concepts
  • Investigate the relationship between mass, energy, and spacetime in modern physics
  • Study the mathematical frameworks used in unifying theories, such as string theory and loop quantum gravity
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, graduate students in theoretical physics, and researchers interested in the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Physics4Funn
Messages
24
Reaction score
6
TL;DR
The mathematical operator view might be extended.
Maybe expand the number of operators to phenomena that haven't been considered.

What do you think about using operator theory to model spacetime?
1. In Newtonian physics, F = ma describes exactly describes mass m at an exact point x, a force F, and acceleration a by absolute and independent x and time t.

2. In quantum mechanics, physics moved to an energy description including a trade off between time and energy. There is uncertainty in the state and a tradeoff between location and movement.
Instead of just solving a differential equation, mathematics changed to an operator view and a Hilbert space for solutions.

3. Quantum Electrodynamics introduced special relativity so mass and energy, time and space are related. The operator view increased and was named Quantum Field Theory. Now operators also described charge, mass, rotation, and others.

4. General Relativity replaced force with spacetime geometry. But quantum field theory continued using the idea of gravitational force through mass and energy.

The newest concepts have been quantized. There are still some concepts that have not been quantized. Quantum states can be discrete and continuous.

The mathematical operator view might be extended.
Maybe expand the number of operators to phenomena that haven't been considered.

What do you think about using operator theory to model spacetime?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This paper is new to me, but I know that this idea not new. Another scientist has been working along these lines since 2000. I can usually talk to grad students about new techniques for work beyond the standard model, but I have not found many working physicists willing to even discuss these approaches. The last time that I posted about this subject on Physics Forums I received no replies.

So what do think about the prospect quantizing more physics concepts? The math gets complex for all of the ideas about bringing theories together. I'm just wondering if this approach might be less weird than 11 dimensions or multiverses. Not that I am against other approaches. I'll accept any model that is verified in the lab.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K