Is this why relativity and quantum physics don't mix?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges of unifying relativity and quantum physics, exploring potential contradictions and issues that arise from their respective frameworks. Participants examine concepts such as energy conservation, renormalization, and the nature of electron behavior in quantum theory.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references Feynman's lectures, suggesting that the local conservation of energy implied by relativity contradicts the behavior of electrons in quantum theory, which appear to "jump" between discrete orbits.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of renormalization in quantum mechanics, arguing that attempts to apply it to gravity, particularly through a graviton, lead to failures in the equations.
  • A different viewpoint asserts that all quantum theories incorporate relativistic principles, indicating that Poincaré symmetry is built into their foundations.
  • One participant challenges the notion of electron orbits, explaining that electrons are better described by probability distributions rather than classical orbits, and cites Schrödinger's ideas about energy levels and quantum jumps as potentially contradictory to Feynman's theorem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of electron behavior and the implications of relativity for quantum theory. There is no consensus on whether the issues raised represent a fundamental problem in unifying the two theories.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions, such as the interpretation of electron behavior in quantum mechanics and the applicability of renormalization to gravity, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

least_action
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
In one of Feynmans messenger lectures he proved that relativity implies local conservation of energy using the lagrangian (energy can't jump from one place to another). In the atom of quantum theory the electron jumps around in various discrete orbits. This seems like a contradiction.

Is this 'the' problem with unifying relativity and quantum theory? What other problems are there?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it has something to do with "renormalization" which is used in Quantum Mechanics to make answers reasonable (basically), but when you try to "renormalize" a gravity meadiator (such as a Graviton) the equations fail.

Also in places at the quantum scale, but with huge gravity (like in a black hole) the equations also give infinite answers and stupid results.
 
No, all quantum therories are "relativistic" which means the same kind of Ponciare symmetry is designed in from the beginning.
 
least_action said:
In the atom of quantum theory the electron jumps around in various discrete orbits.

No, it doesn't. There no electron "orbits" in the classical sense. Instead, there are probability distributions which have different shapes for each energy state, but which overlap each other significantly. See for example

http://www.phy.davidson.edu/stuhome/cabell_f/density.html
 
jtbell said:
No, it doesn't. There no electron "orbits" in the classical sense. Instead, there are probability distributions which have different shapes for each energy state, but which overlap each other significantly. See for example

http://www.phy.davidson.edu/stuhome/cabell_f/density.html

Oh okay so there are not orbits but energy levels, Schrödinger said:

"... It reminds a physicist of quantum theory - no intermediate energies occurring between two neighbouring energy levels. ... The mutations are actually caused by a quantum jump in the gene molecule."

and it is this idea of a jump between energy levels which I think contradicts the theorem Feynman wrote about the Lagrangian.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
10K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K