Question regarding quantum gravity.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of gravity as an emergent phenomenon, as argued by Kobakhidze in the article "Experiments Show Gravity Is Not an Emergent Phenomenon." The key point is that while a quantum particle can be described by a wave function, it does not necessitate the existence of a large number of other particles. The conversation highlights the distinction between real particles and virtual particles in field theories, emphasizing that virtual particles are not actual entities but rather terms in a perturbation expansion. The confusion arises from misinterpreting Kobakhidze's critique of Verlinde's theory, which posits that a test particle is described by a statistically large number of microstates on a holographic screen.

PREREQUISITES
  • Quantum Mechanics (QM) fundamentals
  • Understanding of wave functions in quantum systems
  • Familiarity with field theories and particle interactions
  • Knowledge of holographic principles in theoretical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Read "Experiments Show Gravity Is Not an Emergent Phenomenon" by Kobakhidze
  • Study Verlinde's theory on emergent gravity and its implications
  • Explore the concept of holographic screens in quantum gravity
  • Investigate the role of virtual particles in quantum field theory
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, quantum mechanics students, and researchers interested in the foundations of gravity and particle physics.

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
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
15K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K