Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

QM Versus GR (for people with an understanding of these two forces

  1. Dec 5, 2003 #1
    hey all ,

    Why do most physicists always team up with one set of rules when it comes to their understanding of science?

    on one side you have the General Relativity group. they use real experiments to calculate the world into one equasion (due to calculatable Mathematics)

    on the other side you have the quantum mechanics group. who work with uncertainties and unresolvable equasions. (due to the volistics of science)

    The TOE (theory of everything) which scientists are now working on tries to unite these two groups with one equasion which is leading to nasty results and outright worldy refusal in the scientific community.

    i dont think that these two groups can ever make a equasion which justifies the two groups as one. its like trying to unite the equasions of a black hole with a biscuit. they are on two seperate paths of thought.

    so when i think of this i can only come to one conclusion.

    what if general relativity actually CONTROLS quantum mechanics.

    lets look at it this way -

    If the universe had ONLY quantum mechanics (which other alternate universe's might have) then nothing would be certain. solids would become liquids and vice versa, space-time would be chaotic and non-linear. there couldnt be any conscience in this volistic universe at all.

    But if General Relativity was the only force then particles,molecules and any other sub-atomic force would be nullified and matter would not exist at all so this alternate universe would just be nothingness.

    But in our Universe, couldnt General Relativity be controlling Quantum Mechanics so that it doesnt go out of control aswell as quantum mechanics being an underlying force which has to be there but in a controled state.

    well i havent heard any other scientists talking about this as they are all to busy fighting their own view.

    so are you a quantum mechanic or a general Relativian?

    I view myself as both. :wink:

    So what are your views on this theory (as its obviously theoretical assumption)???

    i dont want anybody replying with only critisism and telling me how MY view is all so wrong.

    i only want to read OTHER peoples views on the unification of forces and what poeple think of my view as a new approach.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 5, 2003 #2
    1)They aren't forces.
    2)Read some books on the subject, get a little better understanding of both concepts.
    Paden Roder
  4. Dec 15, 2003 #3

    1) They are Forces you plonker

    General Relativity is the Force of Gravity.
    Quantum Mechanics is the Force of Sub-Atomic Particles.
    And there's one more : Electromagnetism (EM) which is the Force of Electromagnetistic pull. :wink:

    2) Maybe you should go and read up some more about forces in physics before you try and act like you know something to someone else.

    i bet you think yuo know alot more than most people well....

    you dont.
  5. Dec 15, 2003 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    QM and GR are theories that describe forces. And there are four known fundamental forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong/weak nuclear. QM deals with the last two of them.

    Both QM and GR must at least be partially right - they accurately explain a LOT about what we see going on in the world.
  6. Dec 15, 2003 #5
    THUS.... read some more!
    Not an insult, just saying. I guarantee if you do, you will understand what you just said made no sense.
    Paden Roder
  7. Dec 15, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    russ and PRod are correct -- those are not forces, they are theories. As best I can tell, you don't really know anything about either of them.

    - Warren
  8. Dec 15, 2003 #7
    For a more detailed explanation go to the forum titled 'why all the nut cases' and read the long reply I gave.
    If you then take a look at what remains on my web site (access through 'members list') you will see a diagram of the force within each fundamental particle. This gives enough imformation to build your own fundamental particle structural tables.
    Use the table to calculate the average force and force carrier per unit of volume for each particle; you will find that multiplying the two together gives a graph that almost exactly overlays a graph of the masses of the fundamental particles found by experiment.
    I am at present re-writing my web page and checking the tables with the intention of publishing a new web page, but it is already clear that only one force (vacuum) is required to explain the cause of mass and the creation of the fundamental particles.
    Note that this is the only proposal that converts current philosophy into scientific theory, not by my definition, but by the definition given by current leaders in both philosophy and physics.
    There are far to many sarcastic comments by those who know all about physics and nothing about science.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2003
  9. Dec 15, 2003 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ooooh, ouch. LOL!

    - Warren
  10. Dec 17, 2003 #9
    Paden Roder
  11. Dec 17, 2003 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I have endeavored to learn all I can about physics while learning nothing of science. Thus far I have been unsuccessful. Every time I try to learn physics, science gets in the way. :frown:
  12. Dec 19, 2003 #11

    I only said that QM and GR are a force because they encompass the nature of the force even though they are still theories.

    if i was to say for instance -

    "the force of General Relativity controls gravity",

    It would imply that the force isnt ACTUALLY the theory but it saves me from overstating the fact instead of -

    "the theory of general relativity which involves the force of gravity controls itself"

    now i know this last statment seems stupid and that is why the first statement is more easier to read.

    i cant state every single line of thought for a statement which is why i shorthanded it in the first place. so dont think i have no clue what im talking about when im trying to compress the statement.

    now time for some toffee biscuits.....
  13. Dec 19, 2003 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I realize this is physics forums, not english forums, but that was grammatically incorrect as well as scientifically incorrect. It sound to me though like once the grammar gets corrected, you'll have the scientific meaning. This statement is closest to being correct:
    but would be better worded 'the theory of general relativity explains (or models) gravity.'
  14. Dec 22, 2003 #13

    well if you take our two quotes -


    then add them to about 13 million more peoples explaination of the theory of relativity, then mine (or yours) could be classed a grammatically correct.

    why does anyone that comes on this site, focus all their nettime and physics entries into being so 'Grammatically' correct. we dont all word our beliefs the exact way as others and language is only a medium for the sake of connections.

    i think to many scientists try and think and talk one way but maybe they should learn some transpersonal psychology or some frikin social ethics.

    deos it mtater if i wirte my setncenes worng??????

  15. Dec 22, 2003 #14


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: boooohoooo

    Yes, it really does matter. Clarity of presentation is extremely important in a scientific discussion - as important (if not more) as the validity of the ideas being presented.
  16. Dec 22, 2003 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yeah, there's really no way for any scientist to permit the statement "general relativity is a force" on the grounds of "frickin social ethics." It's not grammatically incorrect, it's completely incorrect. If you'd like to discuss science, you first need to learn its language. If you can't be bothered to do so, you won't have much of a future in science.

    - Warren
  17. Dec 30, 2003 #16
    PO GTR controls QM

    Here is a Physicist's website that might interest you Kasbah.
    Dr. Mendel Sachs wrote several published papers in the mid to late 1960's and several books published by Dordrecht Reidel and others such as GENERAL RELATIVITY AND MATTER and QUANTUM MECHANICS FROM GENERAL RELATIVITY (1986 ?).
    While I'm not sure how you mean that General Relativity might CONTROL Quantum Mechanics, I'm reminded of Dr. Sachs' work in which the linear equations of quantum mechanics are derived from a nonlinear theory of matter and its interactions. In this work, the theory of general relativity is not viewed as just a theory of gravity but of matter and all its interactions - weak,strong,electromagnetic, and gravitational.
    In terms of meteorology, perhaps the idea of control might be like in a hierarchy in which GTR could be said to be the equations of the atmosphere and clouds while QM was the equations describing raindrops.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook