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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lokofer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Rigorous
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of a "quantum" of space, specifically whether there is a rigorous proof of a minimum length, area, or volume in the context of quantum mechanics and general relativity (GR). Participants explore the implications of this concept and its relation to theories such as string theory and path integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the existence of a rigorous proof for a quantum of space, emphasizing that it should be derived mathematically rather than imposed as a necessity.
  • Another participant suggests that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle implies a minimum length, arguing that a signal cannot travel less than a Planck length due to constraints on time intervals.
  • A third participant critiques the previous calculation as naive, noting that it does not account for the effects of GR on length and time variables, suggesting that the calculation is only an approximation in extreme conditions.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the quantization of space-time and raises questions about the compatibility of path integrals with GR, proposing that numerical methods like Regge Calculus could potentially solve issues in quantum gravity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and implications of a quantum of space, with no consensus reached on the validity of the arguments presented. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the compatibility of quantum mechanics and GR in this context.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific interpretations of quantum mechanics and GR, as well as unresolved mathematical steps related to the quantization of space-time and the application of numerical methods.

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? [tex]\Delta E < mc^{2}[/tex] 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
16K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K