Quantum Measurements with Gravitational Waves

In summary, using gravitational waves to measure the position and momentum of an electron in a specific state would not necessarily disprove the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), as it would still be subject to the fundamental quantum uncertainty. It is possible to have an arbitrarily small uncertainty in both position and momentum measurements with gravitational waves, but it would require extremely sensitive equipment that is currently not available. The relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity is still a major unknown in physics, and many believe that gravity should have quantum aspects like everything else. However, it may be a long time before we are able to test this experimentally.
  • #1
lightarrow
1,965
61
TL;DR Summary
Would using gravitational waves to measure position and momentum of an electron disprove HUP since grav. waves are not "made of" particles?
Would using gravitational waves to measure (it's obviously a gedankenexperiment!) position and momentum of, say, an electron in a specific state, disprove HUP since the quantum of energy of grav. waves does not exist? Would it be possibile to have an arbitrarily small uncertainty in position measurement, and in momentum measurement (e. g. with arbitrarily small wavelenght and arbitrarily small amplitude of the wave)?

--
lightarrow
 
  • Skeptical
  • Like
Likes Alex Ford, weirdoguy, Vanadium 50 and 1 other person
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What makes you think a electron gives off gravitational waves? It creates an EM field that theoretically reveals its exact position and momentum. But, that's classical EM, which experimentally QM trumps.

QM (not GR) describes the dynamics of an electron. If anything the HUP disproves GR - if you want to put it like that.
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE and Vanadium 50
  • #3
PeroK said:
What makes you think a electron gives off gravitational waves?

We can take a step back from even this. What makes you think QM forbids measuring both position and momentum?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #4
lightarrow said:
Would using gravitational waves to measure (it's obviously a gedankenexperiment!) position and momentum of, say, an electron in a specific state, disprove HUP since the quantum of energy of grav. waves does not exist?

Why do you think the quantum of energy of gravitational waves does not exist?
 
  • #5
The relationship between QM and GR is maybe the biggest unknown in physics now. I certainly don't know the answer, and I have a strong suspicion that no one else does either; at least that's what everyone tells me.

If you want to make progress in this area, you'll want to clean up your question. For example, why do you presuppose that an electron even has "a position"? It's my understanding that the HUP doesn't say that an electron has a unique position and a unique momentum, but we can't measure it. I believe it says that the concept of a unique position and momentum are incompatible in a very fundamental way.

OTOH, physics has been revolutionized in the past with dramatic new theories that contradicted what everyone thought. So, I guess we'll see what develops.
 
  • #6
PeroK said:
What makes you think a electron gives off gravitational waves? It creates an EM field that theoretically reveals its exact position and momentum. But, that's classical EM, which experimentally QM trumps.

QM (not GR) describes the dynamics of an electron. If anything the HUP disproves GR - if you want to put it like that.
No, I don't want to disprove GR, or HUP, or QM or anything else. I only would like to know if what I wrote could be seriously taken as strong clue of the existence of gravitons.
Concerning the fact an electron gives off g. waves, I am not sure; indeed, if I remember well, a dipole oscillation of mass can't generate g. w. Is this the case?

--
lightarrow
 
  • #7
Vanadium 50 said:
We can take a step back from even this. What makes you think QM forbids measuring both position and momentum?
If this question is referred to me: I haven't written that.

--
lightarrow
 
  • #8
lightarrow said:
I only would like to know if what I wrote could be seriously taken as strong clue of the existence of gravitons.

If we could actually make sensitive enough measurements involving gravitational waves for quantum aspects of such waves to be testable, then yes, we could test experimentally to see if such quantum aspects were present.

However, we are many, many orders of magnitude away from being able to make such measurements.

Theoretically, most physicists believe that gravity should have quantum aspects because everything else does. That is why one of the main theoretical efforts ongoing in fundamental physics is trying to find a theory of quantum gravity that works.

lightarrow said:
a dipole oscillation of mass can't generate g. w. Is this the case?

Yes. You need at least quadrupole oscillations. More precisely, you need a nonzero third time derivative of the quadrupole moment.
 
  • Like
Likes lightarrow and vanhees71
  • #9
lightarrow said:
If this question is referred to me: I haven't written that.

You might not have intended to, but you weren't very clear about what question you were asking until post #6. Prior to that, it certainly looked as though you were saying that measurements involving gravitational waves could violate the HUP.
 
  • Like
Likes lightarrow
  • #10
PeterDonis said:
You might not have intended to, but you weren't very clear about what question you were asking until post #6. Prior to that, it certainly looked as though you were saying that measurements involving gravitational waves could violate the HUP.
Ok, it was a mistake I made in order to express my question.
Then, could, in theory a g. w. be scattered off an electron in such a way to theoretically measure the electron's position and momentum similarly to what we can do with an em wave?
Thanks.

--
lightarrow
 
  • #11
lightarrow said:
Then, could, in theory a g. w. be scattered off an electron in such a way to theoretically measure the electron's position and momentum similarly to what we can do with an em wave?

I don't see why not, in principle. And in principle we would expect such a measurement to have the same quantum properties as an EM wave measurement does.

Of course in practice it is going to be a long, long time before we can do anything like this.
 
  • Like
Likes lightarrow
  • #12
lightarrow said:
No, I don't want to disprove GR, or HUP, or QM or anything else.

Then why did you title this thread "Disproving Heisenberg principle with Gravitational Waves"?
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman, weirdoguy and PeroK
  • #13
As I wrote to PeterDonis, it was my mistake. I just wanted to focus the attention on grav. waves' presumed quantization using HUP: either g. w. are quantized or they cannot be used in measuring a particle's non-commuting observables. The concept should be: since HUP obviously holds (I never had doubts about it), does this imply that g. w. have to be quantized (without the need to make the experiment in reality)?

--
lightarrow
 
  • #14
lightarrow said:
I just wanted to focus the attention on grav. waves' presumed quantization using HUP

Then the thread title needs to be changed. Done.

lightarrow said:
since HUP obviously holds (I never had doubts about it), does this imply that g. w. have to be quantized

This is one of the reasons why most physicists believe we will need a quantum theory of gravity, yes.
 
  • Like
Likes lightarrow
  • #15
PeterDonis said:
Then the thread title needs to be changed. Done.

This is one of the reasons why most physicists believe we will need a quantum theory of gravity, yes.
Thanks.

--
lightarrow
 
  • #16
Well, we should be forgiven that we thought you meant that this disproves HUP because a) it was in the title (now changed) and b) in the text (still there).

Now we have another issue - I can't for the life of me figure out what we are trying to show. That electrons do (or do not) interact with gravity waves? That gravity waves do (or do not) obey the HUP. Something else? Message #10 did not clarify it. Why don't you think about it and post exactly what you want to know.
 
  • #17
Vanadium 50 said:
Well, we should be forgiven that we thought you meant that this disproves HUP because a) it was in the title (now changed) and b) in the text (still there).

Now we have another issue - I can't for the life of me figure out what we are trying to show. That electrons do (or do not) interact with gravity waves? That gravity waves do (or do not) obey the HUP. Something else? Message #10 did not clarify it. Why don't you think about it and post exactly what you want to know.
In a discussion with a friend, he claimed that gravitons = quantum of g.w. have to exist, because if they didn't, it would be possibile to measure, e. g., an electron's position and momentum in some state with ∆x and ∆p (standard deviations) arbitrarily small, disproving HUP, which is impossible.
Actually I didn't believe this simple consideration could prove that g.w. have to be quantized, even if I know very little on the subject, so I asked here to have more... context and PeterDonis answered clearly that... I was wrong.

--
lightarrow
 
  • #18
Nobody knows what gravitons are, because there's no satisfactory quantum (field) theory of gravitation yet. So it's useless to speculate about their properties. Whether or not there is a quantum theory including gravitation is not known either, i.e., it's not clear whether or not the fundamental formulation of QT has to be changed or not. So the question, whether or not the general Heisenberg-Robertson uncertainty relation (which is about state preparation not about the ability or disability to measure simultaneously any pair of observables) still holds in the present form or not in some future quantum theory including the gravitational interaction of not.
 
  • Like
Likes lightarrow
  • #19
vanhees71 said:
Nobody knows what gravitons are, because there's no satisfactory quantum (field) theory of gravitation yet. So it's useless to speculate about their properties. Whether or not there is a quantum theory including gravitation is not known either, i.e., it's not clear whether or not the fundamental formulation of QT has to be changed or not. So the question, whether or not the general Heisenberg-Robertson uncertainty relation (which is about state preparation not about the ability or disability to measure simultaneously any pair of observables) still holds in the present form or not in some future quantum theory including the gravitational interaction of not.
So you're saying that the Gedankenexperiment I described cannot prove at all that g. w. are quantized?

--
lightarrow
 
  • #20
lightarrow said:
So you're saying that the Gedankenexperiment I described cannot prove at all that g. w. are quantized?

No, he's saying that we currently have no theory that predicts what the result of your gedankenexperiment would be. A theory that could do that would have to be a theory that has General Relativity and our current quantum field theory as approximations in appropriate limits (roughly, the limit in which gravity is significant but quantum mechanics can be ignored, and the limit in which QM is significant but gravity can be ignored), and also explains what happens in cases, such as your gedankenexperiment, in which both gravity and quantum mechanics are significant and cannot be ignored.

However, if we were able to actually do your experiment, it wouldn't matter whether we had a theory; the experiment itself would tell us whether gravitational wave measurements obey the HUP or not.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #21
lightarrow said:
So you're saying that the Gedankenexperiment I described

You haven't proposed a Gedankenexperiment. You have neither described the state preparation nor the measurement. When pressed, you say what you are proposing is the opposite of what you have written. Thus far, all we have is there's an electron, a gravitational wave, and then something something something.

I suspect that if you described a proper experiment - defined in enough detail that someone could in principle perform it - you would discover that you are insensitive to the effect that you are interested in, because the electron and whatever generates the gravitational radiation are still subject to quantum mechanics.
 
  • #22
I can only conclude that you don't have an experiment in mind - one defined in enough detail that someone could in principle perform it.
 
  • #23
PeterDonis said:
However, if we were able to actually do your experiment, it wouldn't matter whether we had a theory; the experiment itself would tell us whether gravitational wave measurements obey the HUP or not.

I don't think we do. I don't think we even have an experiment. But if the idea is to somehow look at the path of the recoil electron, that recoil electron obeys the HUP.
 
  • #24
vanhees71 said:
Nobody knows what gravitons are, because there's no satisfactory quantum (field) theory of gravitation yet. So it's useless to speculate about their properties. Whether or not there is a quantum theory including gravitation is not known either, i.e., it's not clear whether or not the fundamental formulation of QT has to be changed or not. So the question, whether or not the general Heisenberg-Robertson uncertainty relation (which is about state preparation not about the ability or disability to measure simultaneously any pair of observables) still holds in the present form or not in some future quantum theory including the gravitational interaction of not.
Thanks, vanhees.

--
lightarrow
 
  • #25
PeterDonis said:
No, he's saying that we currently have no theory that predicts what the result of your gedankenexperiment would be. A theory that could do that would have to be a theory that has General Relativity and our current quantum field theory as approximations in appropriate limits (roughly, the limit in which gravity is significant but quantum mechanics can be ignored, and the limit in which QM is significant but gravity can be ignored), and also explains what happens in cases, such as your gedankenexperiment, in which both gravity and quantum mechanics are significant and cannot be ignored.

However, if we were able to actually do your experiment, it wouldn't matter whether we had a theory; the experiment itself would tell us whether gravitational wave measurements obey the HUP or not.
Tanks, PeterDonis.

--
lightarrow
 
  • #26
lightarrow said:
the Gedankenexperiment I described

I should clarify, in the light of the comments @Vanadium 50 has been making, that I agree with him that you have not actually defined a specific experiment. You have just given a very general hand-waving description of a category of possible experiments, along the lines of "use gravitational waves to measure something about a quantum particle in a similar way to how we would make an analogous measurement with EM waves". Everything I have said applies to any possible experiment in that category, which is why I've gone ahead and responded even though no specific experiment has been described. As far as I can tell, the same applies to what @vanhees71 has said as well.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #27
PeterDonis said:
I should clarify, in the light of the comments @Vanadium 50 has been making, that I agree with him that you have not actually defined a specific experiment. You have just given a very general hand-waving description of a category of possible experiments, along the lines of "use gravitational waves to measure something about a quantum particle in a similar way to how we would make an analogous measurement with EM waves". Everything I have said applies to any possible experiment in that category, which is why I've gone ahead and responded even though no specific experiment has been described. As far as I can tell, the same applies to what @vanhees71 has said as well.
I believed you all know the "Heisenberg microscope gedankenexperiment":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg's_microscope
Am I so old? 🤔

--
lightarrow
 
  • #28
lightarrow said:
I believed you all know the "Heisenberg microscope gedankenexperiment":

Us all knowing it is not the same as us knowing that that is the gedankenexperiment you were talking about. You need to give such references explicitly, not make other people guess what you mean.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Vanadium 50
  • #29
It's not clear how that relates to gravity.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #30
Vanadium 50 said:
It's not clear how that relates to gravity.

Substitute gravitational waves, in the geometric optics approximation, for the light rays in the Heisenberg microscope setup.
 
  • Like
Likes lightarrow and vanhees71
  • #31
PeterDonis said:
Substitute gravitational waves, in the geometric optics approximation, for the light rays in the Heisenberg microscope setup.

I don't see how this can possibly work. You have a gravity wave source, a gravity wave detector and a target. All three of them are subject to the rules of QM. You will not violate the HUP - assuming that's what we are trying to discuss now - because every element you build your experiment out of is subject to it.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #32
Vanadium 50 said:
I don't see how this can possibly work.

In principle, setting up the experiment should be the same as for the corresponding experiment with EM waves. Of course that's way beyond our present technical capabilities, but I don't see why it would be impossible in principle.

Vanadium 50 said:
You have a gravity wave source, a gravity wave detector and a target. All three of them are subject to the rules of QM.

We don't know that for certain because we don't have a theory of quantum gravity and we have no capability at present of probing any quantum aspects of gravity (or more precisely of spacetime geometry) experimentally. Most physicists believe that we will sooner or later discover a theory of quantum gravity that works and confirm it experimentally; but until it actually happens, it's a belief, not a proven fact. Of course if the belief is correct then the theoretical prediction of what would happen in such an experiment would be exactly as you describe. Hopefully someday we'll be able to actually test it and see.
 
  • #33
But for this you don't need quantum gravity but just the semiclassical approximation, i.e., electron quantized the gravitational field classical. It's exactly analogous to the em. case, and indeed there's no way to violate the Heisenberg-Robertson uncertainty relation. Ironically Heisenberg's first paper is wrong. It has been corrected by Bohr immediately after its publication ;-)).
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #34
PeterDonis said:
We don't know that for certain

Of course we do. Our generator, to pick one element, is some contraption of masses and springs (perhaps with high spring constant, like a rod) and some energy source to push them around, Those components behave according to QM. Their behavior does not change just because our intent is now to use them to study gravity.

This is obscured because the OP has steadfastedly refused to provide a description of what he is suggesting. So long as we are talking about black boxes one can implicitly ascribe to them all sorts of non-physical behavior. Even if there were some funny business going on with gravity, we would not be able to tell because our tools to study it are all subject to the HUP.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #35
Vanadium 50 said:
This is obscured because the OP has steadfastedly refused to provide a description of what he is suggesting.
"In principle, setting up the experiment should be the same as for the corresponding experiment with EM waves. Of course that's way beyond our present technical capabilities, but I don't see why it would be impossible in principle".
PeterDonis, who wrote this, seems to have understood what I meant. The same for vanhees.
Of course you didn't mean to ask me to describe in all details such an experiment, since:
1. It's highly speculative.
2. I'm not an experimental physicists and not even theoretical, I don't even have a degree in physics.
3. If I had in mind an experiment with full details I wouldn't have described it here but in a research paper.

Obviously all (or almost) of us are good in answering a perfectly described question.
But questions are asked, mostly, because we don't know well the subject, isn't it?

--
lightarrow
 
<h2>1. What are gravitational waves and how are they related to quantum measurements?</h2><p>Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space-time caused by the acceleration of massive objects. They are related to quantum measurements because they can provide information about the quantum properties of matter and energy in the universe.</p><h2>2. How are quantum measurements with gravitational waves different from traditional quantum measurements?</h2><p>Traditional quantum measurements involve interactions between particles, while quantum measurements with gravitational waves involve the detection of gravitational waves passing through space. This allows for the measurement of quantum properties on a much larger scale.</p><h2>3. What types of quantum properties can be measured with gravitational waves?</h2><p>Gravitational waves can be used to measure properties such as spin, polarization, and entanglement of particles. They can also provide information about the quantum states of matter and energy in the universe.</p><h2>4. How do scientists detect and measure gravitational waves?</h2><p>Gravitational waves are detected using specialized instruments called interferometers, which use lasers to measure tiny changes in the length of space caused by passing gravitational waves. The data collected from these measurements can then be analyzed to determine the properties of the waves.</p><h2>5. What are the potential applications of quantum measurements with gravitational waves?</h2><p>Quantum measurements with gravitational waves could have a wide range of applications, such as improving our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics, aiding in the development of quantum technologies, and providing insights into the properties of black holes and other astrophysical phenomena.</p>

1. What are gravitational waves and how are they related to quantum measurements?

Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space-time caused by the acceleration of massive objects. They are related to quantum measurements because they can provide information about the quantum properties of matter and energy in the universe.

2. How are quantum measurements with gravitational waves different from traditional quantum measurements?

Traditional quantum measurements involve interactions between particles, while quantum measurements with gravitational waves involve the detection of gravitational waves passing through space. This allows for the measurement of quantum properties on a much larger scale.

3. What types of quantum properties can be measured with gravitational waves?

Gravitational waves can be used to measure properties such as spin, polarization, and entanglement of particles. They can also provide information about the quantum states of matter and energy in the universe.

4. How do scientists detect and measure gravitational waves?

Gravitational waves are detected using specialized instruments called interferometers, which use lasers to measure tiny changes in the length of space caused by passing gravitational waves. The data collected from these measurements can then be analyzed to determine the properties of the waves.

5. What are the potential applications of quantum measurements with gravitational waves?

Quantum measurements with gravitational waves could have a wide range of applications, such as improving our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics, aiding in the development of quantum technologies, and providing insights into the properties of black holes and other astrophysical phenomena.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
529
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
752
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
12
Views
584
Replies
4
Views
785
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
693
Back
Top