Do we know for sure if gravity exists in quantum states?

[Coldcall]

I was just wondering because it seems there is a contradiction in qm. If a quantum state can only be represented by an abstract statistic then would not gravity be equally subjective until decoherence occurs?

And what about entanglement? It appears to act as a constant (an immediate one) over whatever distances never mind any gravitational influences.

Maybe I am crazy but that seems to suggest gravity aint happening in quantum states. Any evidence either way?

 

[tom.stoer]

One can show that classical gravity couples to quantum states and induces quantum effects. One example is the gravitational red-shift of photons which can be measured via the Mössbauer effect.

 

[Dmitry67]

google
neutron gravity quantum
you get all sorts of articles of different credibility about quantum states created by gravity field.

 

[Coldcall]

One can show that classical gravity couples to quantum states and induces quantum effects. One example is the gravitational red-shift of photons which can be measured via the Mössbauer effect.

redshift doesn't prove gravity at quantum scale. You are talking light which is being measured hence its no longer in coherent state. I am talking about proof of gravity within an undisturbed quantum state.

 

[Coldcall]

google
neutron gravity quantum
you get all sorts of articles of different credibility about quantum states created by gravity field.

thanks will do.

 

[tom.stoer]

What do you mean by "gravity in an undisturbed quantum state"; do you mean "a quantum state of the gravitational field"? If yes this is quantum gravity; if not then you always couple a quantum state to a gravitational field. It doesn't matter if you call this "disturbed", it's just an interaction. The particle doesn't care where the constant force (linear potential) comes from, whether it's a constant electric field or a gravitational field.

The redshift is in some sense a proof of gravity at the quantum scale as it couples to a quantum object, a single photon. If you don't like the redshift + Mössbauer then you can use a kind of beam-splitter experiment where one beam is at constant gravitational potental whereas the other beam feels a different potential. Then instead of measuring an energy difference you can measure the phase shift.

Anyway - it's a gravitational field coupled to a quantum system.

 

[Coldcall]

What do you mean by "gravity in an undisturbed quantum state"; do you mean "a quantum state of the gravitational field"? If yes this is quantum gravity; if not then you always couple a quantum state to a gravitational field. It doesn't matter if you call this "disturbed", it's just an interaction. The particle doesn't care where the constant force (linear potential) comes from, whether it's a constant electric field or a gravitational field.

The redshift is in some sense a proof of gravity at the quantum scale as it couples to a quantum object, a single photon. If you don't like the redshift + Mössbauer then you can use a kind of beam-splitter experiment where one beam is at constant gravitational potental whereas the other beam feels a different potential. Then instead of measuring an energy difference you can measure the phase shift.

Anyway - it's a gravitational field coupled to a quantum system.

My question was simple. Have we been able to measure/sense gravitaitonal effect within a un-decohered quantum state.

But its okay becaus ei found another paper by some guys claming gravity is a macroscopic emergent property from quantum information, so i guess they are arguing gravity does not exist prior to decoherence.

Anyways not to worry, thanks.

 

[tom.stoer]

... gravity is a macroscopic emergent property from quantum information, so i guess they are arguing gravity does not exist prior to decoherence.

Hopefully you know that this is rather speculative!

 

[Coldcall]

Hopefully you know that this is rather speculative!

yes of course. However, considering no-one appears able to integrate qm and gravity..the whole idea of quantum gravity is in itself speculative.

That didnt stop you bandying about the term as if its a fact :-)

 

[tom.stoer]

To which term do you refer to? Quantum gravity?

I do refer to a specific approach, but there is a rather general reason that something like quantum gravity MUST exist. Einstein's equation (formally) read

G = T

where G[g] is the spacetime and T are all other fields; T must be quantized whereas for G no such quantization is well established up to know. But we know that

G = <T>

is inconsistent, therefore some theory of quantum gravity MUST exist. Individual approaches may be speculative, but not the general idea.

Btw.: how do you know that nobody is able to integrate gravity and the quantum? Have you studied all approaches and proven that they are all inconsistent or physically wrong? Congratulations!

 

[Coldcall]

To which term do you refer to? Quantum gravity?

I do refer to a specific approach, but there is a rather general reason that something like quantum gravity MUST exist. Einstein's equation (formally) read

G = T

where G[g] is the spacetime and T are all other fields; T must be quantized whereas for G no such quantization is well established up to know. But we know that

G = <T>

is inconsistent, therefore some theory of quantum gravity MUST exist. Individual approaches may be speculative, but not the general idea.

Btw.: how do you know that nobody is able to integrate gravity and the quantum? Have you studied all approaches and proven that they are all inconsistent or physically wrong? Congratulations!

Its a well-known fact that various approaches to quantum gravity have failed thus far. Otherwise we would all have heard about it as a major breakthrough.

Some theory of quantum gravity must exist? Well that's your opinion. I don't agree.

 

[tom.stoer]

Its a well-known fact that various approaches to quantum gravity have failed thus far. Otherwise we would all have heard about it as a major breakthrough.

Which one has failed?

 

[Coldcall]

Which one has failed?

As far as i know they've all failed. If you know of one which is now proven and accepted then please do share that breaking news with the rest of us :-)

 

[GeorgCantor]

It's the total amount of energy that is required to test a theory of quantum gravity that is a the hurdle. But as Coldcall asserts, they may all be wrong(or maybe not).

 

[tom.stoer]

Do you know what it means for a theory to have failed? It must have made at least one wrong prediction.

What I see so far is rather different: present-day approaches towards quantum gravity can make some predictions which are subject to future experimental tests; some of them establish both an UV complete and finite theory with correct low-energy limit.
CDT naturally has a phase which corresponds to macroscopic deSitter w/o any fine tuning or artificial input. CDT and LQG both indicate a "running spectral dimension" between 2 in the UV and 4 in the low-energy regime (LQG does not fix any dimension on the level of spin networks, so this can lead to a prediction of spacetime dimension). LQC (which is related but not derived from LQG) makes some testable predictions regarding the spectrum of primordial gravitational waves which can be seen as imprint in the CMB. LQC resolves big bang and black hole singularities; it points towards a natural explanation for inflation w/o artificial inflaton. Both string theory and LQG allow one to derive a microscopic picture for black holes micro state counting = entropy. From LQG (in its new formulation) one should be able to derive the long-range effective graviton propagator and therefore the correct semiclassical limit. The AS (asymptotic safety) approach provides another (rather different) setup which is UV complete and which to some extend explains the structure of Einsteins gravity as one "special point" in the "theory space" according to the renormalization group approach (via a non-Gaussian fixpoint). This approach backs up the results regarding spectral dimension 2 - 4.

So all these approaches have not yet succeeded in defining a unique theory of quantum gravity. But saying that they have failed is absurd.

 

[tom.stoer]

... they may all be wrong(or maybe not)

I agree, that's a correct statement

 

[Coldcall]

Tom,

"So all these approaches have not yet succeeded in defining a unique theory of quantum gravity. But saying that they have failed is absurd."

You know that science is in big trouble when it hides behind semantic nonsense to deny something we all know to be a fact. That being, the failure (thus far) to combine qm and gravity into a unified theory or law.

Anyways i think we all agree. My question was simple, i asked for proof, none was forthcoming, cheers.

 

[Pythagorean]

I have some random questions about QGish ideas tom as long as this thread is bumping:

1) can a quantum particle absorb gravitational energy? I mean, would all the quantum particles that make up a classical article individually absorb quantized gravitational potential energy as the classical object fell through a g-potential... or what?

2) can (does?) gravity shape the potential landscape that a typical quantum particle exists in?

3) of course, mass appears as a constant in introductory QM texts (I remember in solid state we had an effective mass, but I don't remember the context and I'm trying to keep it simple). But this is as an inertial term and doesn't necessarily imply gravity... unless one accepts Mach's principle. Is there any attempts at unification through Mach's principle?

thanks!

 

[Pythagorean]

My question was simple, i asked for proof, none was forthcoming, cheers.

well.. you DID see a theoretical proof stating that a quantum description of gravity must exist. I don't know how valid it is (it's the first time I've heard it) but I'm largely ignorant on the subject (even with a Bachelor's in physics).

But you also saw lots of suggestive experimental evidence and falsifiable statements. So far, it sounds like good science to me. But I'm a meager grad student, so I desist.

 

[tom.stoer]

You know that science is in big trouble when it hides behind semantic nonsense to deny something we all know to be a fact. That being, the failure (thus far) to combine qm and gravity into a unified theory or law.

The difference between "failed = demonstrably false" and "not yet succeeded" is not semantic nonsense but semantic clarity!

What is missing is that one of these theories has been proven to be correct; but as you know one can't prove that a theory is correct, you can only prove that it's wrong (Popper). Of course I agree that there is still a long way to go, but there are promising approaches.

 

[tom.stoer]

To come back to the original question: what about my proposal of a beam-splitter / interference experiment with one quantum object staying at constant gravitational potental whereas the other quantum object being exposed to different potential along its "path"?

 

[Coldcall]

well.. you DID see a theoretical proof stating that a quantum description of gravity must exist. I don't know how valid it is (it's the first time I've heard it) but I'm largely ignorant on the subject (even with a Bachelor's in physics).

But you also saw lots of suggestive experimental evidence and falsifiable statements. So far, it sounds like good science to me. But I'm a meager grad student, so I desist.

actually saying a theory of quantum gravity must exist is a sort of straw-man argument. There is obviously some relation which can be described in some way, between qm and gravity. Perhaps gravity is emergent from qm, which would also conclude a relationship between the two.

I am just interested in whether gravity can be, or has been, measured and confirmed, within an undisturbed quantum system/state. Obviously its a difficult task considering measurement means its no longer undisturbed.

But considering the holy grail of combining qm and gravity has been so elusive, and also considering the abstact nature of quantum state description, then it seems logical ( at least to me) to question whether gravity has a similar asbtract existence within the qauntum state's environment.

 

[Pythagorean]

actually saying a theory of quantum gravity must exist is a sort of straw-man argument. There is obviously some relation which can be described in some way, between qm and gravity...

I see your point.

I am just interested in whether gravity can be, or has been, measured and confirmed, within an undisturbed quantum system/state. Obviously its a difficult task considering measurement means its no longer undisturbed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "measuring gravity with an undisturbed quantum state" or why specifically, it would be important. Do you mean, for instance, measuring a graviton? I think I would have heard about something like that...

 

[tom.stoer]

You may check this (rather old) reference for neutron interferometry and gravity-induced phase shift:

http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/ao%20refs/aifm%20refs%20sorted%20by%20topic/inertial%20sensing%20refs/gravity/COW75%20neutron%20gravity.pdf

 

[tom.stoer]

1) can a quantum particle absorb gravitational energy?

As there is no fundamental, unifying theory available this is hard to answer. Of course each individual quantum particle would interact with the quantized gravitational field. But even classically this does not mean that it "absorbs gravitational energy". The concept of energy is notoriously difficult in ART and will not become easier to tackle in QG, I am afraid.

2) can (does?) gravity shape the potential landscape that a typical quantum particle exists in?

According to what we know the answer is "yes" - in the same sense as an electric field forms a potential; but be aware of the fact that you have to translate all this into "QG language"; already in quantum field theory the term "potential" is misleading as all fields become quantized. So there's a problem with your question already at the level of ordinary and well-understoof quantumfield theories.

3) of course, mass appears as a constant in introductory QM texts (I remember in solid state we had an effective mass, but I don't remember the context and I'm trying to keep it simple). But this is as an inertial term and doesn't necessarily imply gravity... unless one accepts Mach's principle. Is there any attempts at unification through Mach's principle?

I don't understand. Mass is mass - already in ART; gravitational and inertial mass are identical. But I guess that it's difficult to define mass in a QG theory, basically due to the same reasons as energy becomes a rather purely understood concept.

 

[Fra]

But considering the holy grail of combining qm and gravity has been so elusive, and also considering the abstact nature of quantum state description, then it seems logical ( at least to me) to question whether gravity has a similar asbtract existence within the qauntum state's environment.

I didn't understand what you meant first either, but now I think you more or less ask wether the future understanding of marrying QM and GR must necessarily be cast in the form of a "regular quantum theory" of gravity, in the sense that the state of the gravitational field somehow fits into some fixed hilbert space etc.

IMHO, we don't know that. It could equally be that instead of inventing a regular "quantum theory" of GR in some sense, QM may need to be revised. I think there is indications that using a regular quantum theory anzats of hilbert spaces of equivalenec classes of observes etc, is quite questionable.

/Fredirk

 

[tom.stoer]

I think there is indications that using a regular quantum theory anzats of hilbert spaces of equivalenec classes of observes etc, is quite questionable. /Fredirk

To which indications are you referring to?
I think that a theory of holography with "boundary Hilbert spaces" seems to be a promising framework.

 

[unusualname]

@coldcall, tom.stoer's already mentioned it but neutron interferometers are used in precision gravitational experiments, where the "quantum states" are most definitely influenced by gravity ("before they decohere").

But until the mechanism for QG is understood you can just as well argue an information based interpretation a la the entropic model of Verlinde's you alluded to (or a whole lot of other bizarre stuff)

ps you should try to be less rude to people like tom.stoer, (save the attitude for less knowledgeable people, like me )

 

[unusualname]

the link to the 1975 paper by tom (Observation of Gravitationally Induced Quantum Interference) doesn't seem to be working for me, here's a more recent paper from Nature in 2002:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6869/full/415297a.html)

And, on the subject of attitude, Lubos Motl blogged about this here

 

[emlbiltek]

Quantum gravity is seen in "gravitational red-shift" effects. This state is proven whit a lot of theoritical and experimental works.

 

[Fra]

To which indications are you referring to?
I think that a theory of holography with "boundary Hilbert spaces" seems to be a promising framework.

This again boils down to our disagreement about structural realism, so I expect that if you are self-consistent you should not accept the following arguments :) but anyways (sorry for the lenght, but it's not possible to condense more).

As there are not much experimental feedback here, the indications I see are piling up are from analysis of constructing principles and a general understanding of scientific knowledge evolves. Thus the question I ask is not if timeless observer invariant statespaces are correct or wrong, I merely ask wether it's a rational expectation for further research. For me it's not so. But this doesn't mean that I exclude the possibility.

There is no a priori mathematical problem with picturing observer invariant and timeless state spaces in cases where the set of observers can be described. The problem is to identify these mathematical structures, if we believe they exists, which again brings us back to methodology.

One problem I see is when you consider the scientific perspective how how to defend your expectations, and theories, and the process where you rationally would infer these structures. In the structural realism view, you don't demand this. Then any "mathematical existence" of timeless eternal true structures is accepted. I don't think these structures are impossible, but I think that the endavour of trying to find them is irrational. As you in any case would have to face the question of what structure, and why.

As I see it, the abstractions vectors and hilbert spaces, represent the information and the possible information states. And if we demand motivation for also the possibilities, then they are more or less "spanned" by the history of states; directly or indirectly by related information; but I have a hard time to see how a finite observer can encode an infinite history, not to mention that such a process would take infinite time. So it seems the constraints of finite information, and finite computations only yields a "window" of the set of possibilities. And from the inside view, there possible larger set of possibilities where we only see a window is not known. So any theories formulated from the inside will be bound to "live on" this evolving hilbert space. Moreoever it seems reasonable to think that each information processing agent will have a different window. This is in particularly clear when you consider a relatively speaking "simple observer" in a compelx environment; such as elementary particle vs lab environment, vs human vs entire universe.

Then reason to expect thta the observer invariant and start hilbert spaces does in fact work reasonably well when it comes to particle physics is that the observer is really the human laboratory, which is NOT "simple" relative in terms of complexity relative to the atom. Because we humans observer, these mini-observers interacting with each other. But the objection does become relevant if we try to understand the GUT models, ie. why the action between particles are what they are.

The objection is analogous to the ergodic hypothesis problem in classical physics - how do you INFER the equiprobable state space, in a real process in finite time? A structural realist is not worried about the inferrability constraint, but I am. My conclusion is that the inference of the statespce, is constrained to a complexity window, and therefor ongoing and we can never KNOW wether our "ergodic hypothesis" is right. The ergodic hypothesis is rather simply a basis for placing your bets.

This is why I think that the action of any observer, is "as if" it's distinguishable state/hilbert space, was fixed. But if it isn't (which it often isn't) the observer will face a backreaction, and sometimes this can be adjusted by a unitary correction, but sometimes it cna't, since there is no consistent correction withing the hilbert space, and thus recovering consistency requires the hilbert space to deform. But the point here is that this does not always happen. There are cases where the interactions simply work fine withing the fixed hilbert spaces. For me this is a kind of equilibrium scenario. Now to assume this from start, is to assume a certain kind of equilibrium, and given this analysis about as rational as Einsteins original expectation that the universe should be static.

Most ways around this, just tries to consider a LARGER hilber space, where the prior one evolves (again unitarlity) but anyone that accepts my arguments sees that this is nto a solution as the size of the hilber space is constrained the by observers complexity. The larger and larger and ultimately infinitely large spaces violated the entire inference and complexity constraints (which I consider to be founding of an intriinsic mesurement theory) and again we're back to structural realism, which I ultimately consider to be a non-scientific stance.

In this view, QM as we know it, with fixed hilbert space is a measurement theory that is extrinsic and that lacks the information constraint condition, and assume infinite time to equuilibrate hte hilbert spaces. And the environment is assumed to be an infinite information sink. This in fact does make sense when we do study small subsystems (like we DO in in particle physics). This is a similar point Smolin also made.

This is one of the "indications" I see as to why QM as we know it, is a special limiting case of the correct inference theory I seek.

But clearly the proper inference theory I seek, will be really weird compare to QM. Those who had problems giving up on classical realism to accept the partial step of current QM, will IMO also have to have to give up structural realism which is far more radical.

/Fredrik

 

[PTM19]

To which term do you refer to? Quantum gravity?

I do refer to a specific approach, but there is a rather general reason that something like quantum gravity MUST exist. Einstein's equation (formally) read

G = T

where G[g] is the spacetime and T are all other fields; T must be quantized whereas for G no such quantization is well established up to know. But we know that

G = <T>

is inconsistent, therefore some theory of quantum gravity MUST exist. Individual approaches may be speculative, but not the general idea.

This argument can also be read as a proof that T cannot be quantized in a fundamental theory and that quantization is a secondary effect relevant only for certain interactions.

 

[PTM19]

Quantum gravity is seen in "gravitational red-shift" effects. This state is proven whit a lot of theoritical and experimental works.

It's GR not QG, it's the result of continuous spacetime curvature.