I Is Newton the founder of quantum gravitation?

  • 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.
 
For the quantum state ##|l,m\rangle= |2,0\rangle## the z-component of angular momentum is zero and ##|L^2|=6 \hbar^2##. According to uncertainty it is impossible to determine the values of ##L_x, L_y, L_z## simultaneously. However, we know that ##L_x## and ## L_y##, like ##L_z##, get the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. In other words, for the state ##|2,0\rangle## we have ##\vec{L}=(L_x, L_y,0)## with ##L_x## and ## L_y## one of the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. But none of these...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
397
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K