One difference between GR and quantum mechanics

[sphyrch]

I wanted to ask about a potential difference between general relativity and quantum mechanics phenomena - that we are observing them at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit ($c$), every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR).

When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future.

GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable.

Is this line of reasoning useful in attempting to combine GR and QM into one framework? Or is/are there any flaw(s) in the above argument?

 

[Dale]

I don’t see any connection between what you wrote and the math of GR. I don’t know as much QM as I do GR, but I also don’t see any connection between what you wrote and the little QM math that I do know.

 

[martinbn]

Is this line of reasoning useful in attempting to combine GR and QM into one framework?

No.

 

[pines-demon]

When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM).

In what sense? Do you know that we do know how to merge quantum mechanics and special relativity? That means that we know how to deal with all the issues of causality (finite $c$) and QM (far from strong gravitational effects). Also what this has to do with present and short distances? For example, in entanglement Bell test like experiments, the measurements can be separated by very long distances and the definition of which measurement is the present one gets lost (it is frame dependent).

It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic.

Probabilistic yes-ish, however only according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics.

GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable.

This is not even wrong. Imagine that I make a measurement of some quantum system at the same time that I measure some gravitational wave. Both happened at the same time in the same place. What this has to do with future or past?

 

[sphyrch]

No.

Could you elaborate please?

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's not other people's responsibility to find value in your random musings. If you can't, it is surely not up to others. As it stands, what you wrote is at best philosophy and it worst, word salad.

If you think this has value, show us how this allows us to make a calculation that better matches experiment.

 

[martinbn]

Could you elaborate please?

Have you combined GR and QM? If no then it didn't help, so in what sense can your line of reasoning be useful?

 

[sphyrch]

It's not other people's responsibility to find value in your random musings. If you can't, it is surely not up to others. As it stands, what you wrote is at best philosophy and it worst, word salad.

If you think this has value, show us how this allows us to make a calculation that better matches experiment.

I see your point. Any random person (like me) can come up with a vague qualitative hypothesis, but working out details and following all the way through is what matters. Thanks for the wake up call and I understand that I should work out concrete details before presenting to others

 

[pines-demon]

I see your point. Any random person (like me) can come up with a vague qualitative hypothesis, but working out details and following all the way through is what matters. Thanks for the wake up call and I understand that I should work out concrete details before presenting to others

Suggestion: Instead of making a thread to express an idea as if it solves some big problem in physics, start by confirming what you think you know. You can open threads on topics like "is there a difference on how QM handles time with respect to GR?" "What can we say about the future in QM?" and so on.
Once that you have your arguments well covered you can tackle larger questions.

Don't forget to look first for similar posts before opening a thread. No need to open a new thread if there is already a good one. Also a forum is not a excuse to not read the material, study QM and GR.

 

[PeterDonis]

Is this line of reasoning useful in attempting to combine GR and QM into one framework?

No.

Or is/are there any flaw(s) in the above argument?

Unfortunately it's not even enough of a coherent argument to have specific flaws.

I understand that I should work out concrete details before presenting to others

Before even trying to do that, you need to first understand what our current theories of GR and QM actually say. That requires spending years working your way through textbooks and peer-reviewed papers and working problems to make sure you understand the material.

 

[PeterDonis]

Since the OP is not even a well posed question, this thread is now closed.