Question regarding quantum gravity.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of gravity as an emergent phenomenon in the context of quantum mechanics, specifically referencing a paper by Kobakhidze and its implications for understanding quantum particles and their descriptions. Participants explore the coherence of these ideas with established quantum mechanics principles.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the claim that quantum particles must be described by a large number of other particles, arguing that this contradicts standard quantum mechanics where a system can be described by a fixed number of particles.
  • One participant highlights that in field theories, while virtual particles can be introduced, they are not necessary for describing real particles and do not represent actual particles.
  • A participant references Kobakhidze's paper, noting that it discusses the idea of a test particle being described by a statistically large number of microstates related to its position with respect to another mass, which is a key aspect of Verlinde's model.
  • Another participant acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the original claim, clarifying that it was a critique of Verlinde's theory rather than a general statement about quantum particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the interpretation of quantum particles and their descriptions, with some supporting the traditional view of fixed particle numbers while others explore the implications of emergent gravity theories. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in understanding the implications of emergent gravity and the role of microstates in quantum mechanics, as well as the dependence on specific interpretations of Verlinde's theory and Kobakhidze's critique.

Sigurdsson
Messages
24
Reaction score
1
I was recently reading a small news article named Experiments Show Gravity Is Not an Emergent Phenomenon.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27102/?ref=rss.

It goes on about gravity not being a traditional force but a emergent phenomenon. But the interseting thing is
Kobakhidze argues that since each quantum particle must be described by a large number of other particles

I've gone through undergraduate courses in QM but have never heard of this. We can construct a wave function describing a quantum particle but how is this coherent with the statement above?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sigurdsson said:
I've gone through undergraduate courses in QM but have never heard of this. We can construct a wave function describing a quantum particle but how is this coherent with the statement above?
The journalists only know what he said originally, but in this form this statement is clearly false. And N-particle quantum system has exactly N particles, and can be described as such. E.g., when simulating a molecule (a very quantum-y system!), the number of electrons is generally fixed and no other particles than the input electrons occur.

In field theories there are also ways of describing a few real particules using additional virtual particles. But: (i) doing that is not necessary (they result from a particular form of a perturbation expansion of interactions), and (ii) the virtual particles are not real (they just represent terms the the mentioned perturbation expansion, not actual particles in any sense).
 
If you read the paper that is linked in the story, http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161, you'll find that Kobakhidze actually writes (emphasis mine):

"An inevitable consequence of Verlinde’s approach is that a test particle m is described by a statistically large number n(r) of microstates which depends on the position of the particle with respect to another particle M"

The microstates in question are the ones on the holographic screen surrounding the particle of mass M. A certain mixed state, not explicitly described, of these holographic microstates corresponds to the test particle. This representation is crucial to Verlinde's model.
 
Oh, my bad. I thought he was generally stating that quantum particle must be described by a large number of other particles. But this is only his criticism to Verlinde's theory. Thanks guys. :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
16K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
7K