Is There a Rigorous Proof of a Quantum of Space in Quantum Mechanics and GR?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lokofer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Rigorous
lokofer
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
Is there a "rigorous" proof..

-That a "Quantum" of space (a minimum lenght, area or volume for any 4-dimensional Manifold) exist applying Quantum mechanics and GR?..both together or in the "Semi-classical" limit?...

- this "Planck lenght" should be obtained directly from math and never imposed by a "necessity" because if not theory would be wrong..this is why i don't believe much in "String Theory" you'll never be able to "see" (detect, prove) that there are 9+1 space-time dimensions or that "ojbects" called strings exist.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Apparently, yes. It has to do with Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I reproduced it here during another discussion; actually, it's the derivation for the quantization of time there, but from there you can conclude that a signal (which travels at c, always) cannot travel less than a Planck length, because it would need to do it in a fractionary amount of Planck times, which cannot happen.
 
Note that the clock calculation is somewhat naive. It takes no account of how your *length* or *time* variables might change with GR and instead treats them as perfectly quantum parameters.

Lets just say the calculation is a ballpark guess at the regime where things start to break down, and where nasty GR like objects (like black holes) will tear apart usual notions of what things are like..
 
-I don't agree much with the ¿hypothesis? \Delta E < mc^{2} since mass can be 0, the rest i can understand..

- Then is "Space-time " is Quantizied...¿what's the problem with "Path Integrals" and GR ?..since you could apply "Regge Calculus" (Numerical methods) and solve Quantum Gravity.. for my the biggest "obstacle" in Quantum Physics was that somehow space was "continouos" so the momentum could be oo but now that Space and time are quantizied then all problems should disappear.
 
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...

Similar threads

Replies
60
Views
7K
Replies
15
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
8K
Back
Top