Penrose interpretation of quantum gravity

In summary, I think the general association between gravity and collapse is interesting, but I don't share Penrose vision that somehow gravity should explain or yield and "objective collapse". I personally think it's the wrong way to understand it. However, if you turn the logic around, it seems more plausible to me at least that when a group of observers interact, their respective actions onto their respective environment (the other "observers") progressed by subjective collapses, will predict universally attractive force, that is emergent in the sense that spacetime is a mutual thing among observers that's beeing negotiated. Still that's an open question, but it's what I personally think may be the better way to think of it, which is also
  • #1
relativityfan
75
0
hi,

what do you think of the Penrose interpretation of quantum gravity, that gravity is responsible of the transitions between the quantum world and the macroscopic world?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think the general association between gravity and collapse is interesting, but I don't share Penrose vision that somehow gravity should explain or yield and "objective collapse". I personally think it's the wrong way to understand it.

But if you turn the logic around, it seems more plausible to me at least that when a group of observers interact, their respective actions onto their respective environment (the other "observers") progressed by subjective collapses, will predict universally attractive force, that is emergent in the sense that spacetime is a mutual thing among observers that's beeing negotiated. Still that's an open question, but it's what I personally think may be the better way to think of it, which is also the reversed logic of Penrose.

Ie. the understand how gravity is EMERGENT when a group of observers are interacting as per a subjective rationality (and see from the subjective perspectives "collapses").

/Fredrik
 
  • #3
Fra said:
But if you turn the logic around, it seems more plausible to me at least that when a group of observers interact, their respective actions onto their respective environment (the other "observers") progressed by subjective collapses, will predict universally attractive force, that is emergent in the sense that spacetime is a mutual thing among observers that's beeing negotiated.

Another way of seeing this is a little bit like a group of observers, each have a different holographic view of their common environment, that's encoded on their respective distinguishable horizons. The point is then that the information encoded on this "surface" is in fact subjective, and does not in the objective sense encode information beyond it like you usually think of in holography, it rather encodes the observers subjective EXPECTATION of the bulk info; and then the point is that as these "holographic pictures" interact, an at least locally objective holographic picture will emerge and so with it gravity.

So the idea would even suggest that holographic principle is also emergent. But this is formally speculative as well, but it's just my personal view. I've also been excited by Penrose thinking befor but come to realize that he has most probably revered the logic.

/Fredrik
 
  • #4
Is this still the way he is thinking about that?

I know his ideas from "The emperor's new mind", but I have never seen the reasoning in the last couple of years.
 
  • #5
tom.stoer said:
Is this still the way he is thinking about that?

I know his ideas from "The emperor's new mind", but I have never seen the reasoning in the last couple of years.

I don't know.

My characterisation of his thinking is just my understanding based on various things I've seen, books and some papers, but I don't remember what the date of the latest one was or if he changed his mind. But for sure the papers were at least a number of years old. I'm not sure if he is still active. He should be 79 now.

/Fredrik
 
  • #6
  • #7
It's depends on what doyou think fundamental ,GRAVITY or QUANTUM behavior.
 
  • #8
George Jones said:
I think it is interesting, but highly unlikely. See

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=910951#post910951.

Maybe you shouldn't give up yet.

Some of my own ideas are related to this, but it's too early for me to present details. But in short I think the way this could be analysed furhter is first of alla to reverse penrose argument; it's not gravity that explains the collapse, it's the random walk progressing by "collapses" that gives emergent forces.

Then I think this can be combined with some of the "gravity as entropic force" ideas, by considering a random walk at "collapse level" and use that as the very internals of any itneractiong process. So all forces should emerge this way, maybe it's also a way to take some of the feynmann PI computation more seriously (in particular the "physics of counting" that is essential in the PI, and also the main problem, since the main issue is to know what the physical measure is on the mathematical integration space)

Then question is then to distinguish gravity from the other forces, but if gravity is associated to the overall "distance" in information space that maybe helps and all other forces would be more like "noise" ontop of that. And only when the distances are short enough, the other forces become more dominant.

This would IMO require reworking of QM, although with a reversed logic that what maybe Penrose originally thought.

/Fredrik
 

Related to Penrose interpretation of quantum gravity

1. What is the Penrose interpretation of quantum gravity?

The Penrose interpretation of quantum gravity is a theory proposed by physicist Sir Roger Penrose that seeks to reconcile the theory of general relativity with quantum mechanics. It suggests that gravity, like other forces in the universe, is a manifestation of quantum particles known as gravitons.

2. How does the Penrose interpretation differ from other theories of quantum gravity?

The Penrose interpretation differs from other theories of quantum gravity, such as string theory or loop quantum gravity, in its focus on the geometric nature of space-time. It suggests that the fabric of space-time is composed of tiny geometric building blocks that interact with each other to create the force of gravity.

3. What evidence supports the Penrose interpretation of quantum gravity?

Currently, there is no direct evidence to support the Penrose interpretation of quantum gravity. However, some theoretical calculations and experimental observations, such as the detection of gravitational waves, lend support to the idea that gravity is a quantum force.

4. What are some potential implications of the Penrose interpretation of quantum gravity?

If the Penrose interpretation of quantum gravity is proven to be true, it could have significant implications for our understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe. It could also lead to new technologies and advancements in fields such as cosmology and space exploration.

5. What challenges does the Penrose interpretation face?

One of the main challenges facing the Penrose interpretation of quantum gravity is the lack of experimental evidence. Additionally, the theory is still in its early stages and has yet to be fully developed or tested. It also faces criticism from other theories of quantum gravity, and further research and investigation are needed to fully understand its implications.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
27
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
60
Views
6K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
5
Views
518
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
5
Views
528
Back
Top