The discussion revolves around the challenges and mathematical considerations involved in merging Einstein's Field Equations with Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory. Participants explore various theoretical frameworks, known problems, and the implications of non-renormalizability in this context.
There is no consensus on how to effectively merge GR with QM. Participants express differing views on the feasibility of various approaches, the significance of non-renormalizability, and the adequacy of existing theories like string theory and loop quantum gravity.
Participants note that the inability to merge GR and QM is a mainstream issue, yet the specific mathematical reasons for this remain unresolved in the discussion. The complexity of the topic and the need for a solid background in both quantum field theory and general relativity are emphasized.
The parameter r is a geometrical invariant of the hyperbolic space, and the sectional curvature is K = −1/r2. The scalar curvature is thus S = −n(n − 1)/r2. Explain this to me, from what I understand it is just a radius.weirdoguy said:Not in four dimensions. General definition is ##R=R^\mu_{\phantom{\mu}\mu}##. You should really study some textbook on very basics before you try to learn about quantum gravity.
VictorMedvil said:from what I understand it is just a radius.
Matter Times said:Why is this a "hot thread"? It is basically someone quoting from Wikipedia who demands an answer to something he is not capable of handling.
VictorMedvil said:it is just me and @weirdoguy have differing opinions about this
VictorMedvil said:How mathematically within the confines of mainstream physics would you experts in physics merge Einstein's Field Equations with Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory? ...
Please send me the link via private message (PM). Click on my avatar and "Start a conversation" to send me the PM. Thanks.rosie70 said:I've got a field model that takes one reading to understand. Hawking said that when the unifying principle comes to light it'll be understandable. Surprisingly my paper on this was published and if simplicity is the standard - then my thesis is overqualified. I'd post a link but I'm not sure that it's allowed on these forums.
IJSER is a known predatory journal.rosie70 said:Surprisingly my paper on this was published and if simplicity is the standard - then my thesis is overqualified. I'd post a link but I'm not sure that it's allowed on these forums.
Dale said:IJSER is a known predatory journal.
Have you ever heard of Big Bang theory? This is a famous theory proposed by many of scientists and accepted globally. There are some who criticize this theory. This is theory with most accuracy when compared to the other. But the theory Big Bang itself explains everything about the origin of Universe. I don't think so. There should be something that explains more about the origin of Universe. This paper presents that something, which explains the origin of the hot, dense point of the Big Bang theory. What was this hot, dense point? According to the Big Bang theory, our present Universe is formed from this point. It tells us that Universe is formed due to the massive explosion within this point. This happened some 15 billion years ago. If the Universe is formed from this point, then from where this point is formed? Let’s see it.
Dark matter and dark energy can’t be detected by heavy machineries. It is detected by subconscious mind. To achieve it we should follow awakening of kundalini energy through regular practice of mantra, tantra, yantra, yoga and meditation. After the completion of process we are able to see present, past and future through the Guru Chakra. Chakras are multidimensional vibrations from where 50 letters are come from sunyabrahma. Kundalini yoga is often identified as the most dangerous form of yoga because of the involvement of subtle energies. Sunya chakra is the void chakra connected to dark universe. We forget thyself through the process of kundalini yoga.
rosie70 said:I've got a field model that takes one reading to understand. Hawking said that when the unifying principle comes to light it'll be understandable. Surprisingly my paper on this was published and if simplicity is the standard - then my thesis is overqualified. I'd post a link but I'm not sure that it's allowed on these forums.
Thank you for sending us the link to your paper, @rosie70 -- As I said in my PM reply to you, it has been reviewed by the Mentors, and will not be allowed at the PF. Thanks for asking before posting it.berkeman said:Please send me the link via private message (PM). Click on my avatar and "Start a conversation" to send me the PM. Thanks.