Gravity in the Thermal Interpretation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between semiclassical gravity and the thermal interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM). It highlights that the semiclassical Einstein Field Equation (EFE) can be treated as fundamental rather than merely an approximation when considering q-expectations as fundamental "beables." This perspective suggests that quantizing gravity may not be necessary within the thermal interpretation framework. The insights provided by @A. Neumaier indicate that semiclassical gravity aligns with the principles of the thermal interpretation, challenging the conventional need for quantization.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of semiclassical Einstein Field Equation (EFE)
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics and thermal interpretation
  • Knowledge of stress-energy tensors in general relativity
  • Concept of q-expectations as fundamental "beables"
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of semiclassical gravity in the context of quantum mechanics
  • Explore the role of q-expectations in various interpretations of quantum mechanics
  • Study the relationship between stress-energy tensors and spacetime geometries
  • Investigate the potential for a unified theory of quantum gravity without quantization
USEFUL FOR

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

Messages
49,455
Reaction score
25,508
TL;DR
Does gravity need to be quantized in the thermal interpretation of QM?
This question is mainly for @A. Neumaier, but I post it in public in case others are interested.

The usual reason given for needing to quantize gravity is, heuristically, that, in the presence of quantized stress-energy where there can be a superposition of different stress-energy tensors, there must also be a superposition of different spacetime geometries.

One proposal for avoiding having to do this, at least as an approximation, is the "semiclassical" Einstein Field Equation, where the spacetime geometry is still treated classically, and the source on the RHS of the Einstein Field Equation is the expectation value of the stress-energy tensor. This is normally considered an approximation because in QM expectation values are normally not considered as fundamental.

In the thermal interpretation of QM, however, q-expectations are considered fundamental "beables". That raises an obvious question: would the "semiclassical" EFE even need to be treated as an approximation in the thermal interpretation? Or could it be considered as the fundamental equation of gravity, since the q-expectation of the stress-energy tensor is considered a fundamental "beable" in this interpretation? In short, would this remove the need to quantize gravity in the thermal interpretation?

[1] https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-thermal-interpretation-of-quantum-physics.967116/
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gentzen
Physics news on Phys.org
PeterDonis said:
In the thermal interpretation of QM, however, q-expectations are considered fundamental "beables". That raises an obvious question: would the "semiclassical" EFE even need to be treated as an approximation in the thermal interpretation? Or could it be considered as the fundamental equation of gravity, since the q-expectation of the stress-energy tensor is considered a fundamental "beable" in this interpretation? In short, would this remove the need to quantize gravity in the thermal interpretation?
Semiclassical gravity is consistent in the thermal interpretation, as is any mixed quantum-classical dynamics following standard patterns. (See Section 7.8 of my book.)

Thus there is no absolute need for quantizing gravity. However, since all other quantum-classical dynamical systems studied are approximations of a more fundamental purely quantum dynamical system, it appears very likely (to me, on the grounds of beauty and uniformity) that the same holds for quantum gravity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeterDonis

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
15K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 179 ·
6
Replies
179
Views
15K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
9K