I Is Newton the founder of quantum gravitation?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter south
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Newton Quantum
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether Newton's gravitational formula can be considered a theory of quantum gravity. It concludes that simply relating energy to frequency does not suffice for a consistent quantum theory, thus rejecting the idea. The conversation highlights the importance of credible references, emphasizing that without a textbook or peer-reviewed paper to support the claim, it lacks validity. The original poster expresses confusion due to a respected individual's assertion linking the two concepts. Ultimately, the thread emphasizes the need for rigorous scientific backing in discussions of complex theories.
south
Messages
91
Reaction score
20
TL;DR
Someone I value told me that just by using the formula
$$ E = h \hspace{0.03 cm} \nu $$
any high school level statement becomes a theory of quantum gravity . My opinion is that this is not the case, but I admit that often I am wrong.
Is it okay to assume that the Newtonian formula

$$ F = G \ \dfrac{ m_{_1} m_{_2} }{d^2} $$

is itself a theory of quantum gravity ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Relating energy to frequency is of course a part of quantum theory, but this alone is not sufficient to have a consistent quantum theory. So the answer is - no.
 
Demystifier said:
Relating energy to frequency is of course a part of quantum theory, but this alone is not sufficient to have a consistent quantum theory. So the answer is - no.
Thank you Demystifier for answering my question.

I asked this because someone I value said that if you use the equation $$ E = h \hspace{0.03 cm} \nu $$ , plus high school physics, and you get to the Newtonian gravitational formula, you have developed a theory of quantum gravitation.

Obviously I have a can't admit that, but the person's insistence made me doubt that I was wrong.
 
I'm sure you have good reasons to value that person, but perhaps good knowledge of physics should not be one of them.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes jbergman, phinds and vela
Demystifier said:
I'm sure you have good reasons to value that person, but perhaps good knowledge of physics should not be one of them.
I have many reasons to trust his knowledge and this is the first time I have encountered a shocking surprise. Maybe I expressed poorly in English what I really wanted to ask. Or Google Translator fulfilled the Italian saying: traduttore, traditore.
 
south said:
I asked this because someone I value said that if you use the equation $$ E = h \hspace{0.03 cm} \nu $$ , plus high school physics, and you get to the Newtonian gravitational formula, you have developed a theory of quantum gravitation.
This is not a valid reference. Either there is a textbook or peer-reviewed paper that expounds and defends such a claim, or there isn't.

Unless and until you can produce such a reference (maybe the "someone" you value knows of one? I doubt it, but you can ask), this thread is closed.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...