Why are Quantum mechanics and General relativity incompatible?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity (GR), exploring theoretical, mathematical, and conceptual aspects. Participants examine why these two fundamental theories cannot be reconciled, particularly in extreme conditions such as black holes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the incompatibility arises from complicated mathematics, particularly when both theories are applied simultaneously.
  • Others argue that the principle of superposition in QM, which requires linear equations, conflicts with the non-linear field equations of GR.
  • A participant mentions that while linearized gravity can be quantized to some extent, it is not practical and only makes limited predictions.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes that GR accurately describes large objects while QM explains the behavior of small particles, suggesting a fundamental difference in how each theory operates.
  • Concerns are raised about the uncertainty principle in QM, which states that small particles cannot be measured accurately without affecting their behavior, complicating the integration with GR.
  • Some participants note that QM can explain the behavior of large objects under gravity, but the lack of a quantum theory of gravity remains a significant issue.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of the stress-energy distribution in GR and the uncertainty in energy distribution in QM, highlighting a conceptual incompatibility.
  • Participants express that mathematical inconsistencies arise when trying to apply both theories simultaneously, leading to bizarre or contradictory results.
  • One participant points out that QM and GR differ fundamentally in their treatment of spacetime, with QM using it as a static backdrop while GR treats it as a dynamic entity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the reasons for the incompatibility, with multiple competing views and interpretations remaining throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved mathematical steps and the dependence on specific definitions of concepts like spacetime and energy distribution, which may vary between QM and GR.

MagnusM
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Why are Quantum mechanics and General relativity incompatible?
Probably some complicated mathematics going on? Right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MagnusM said:
Why are Quantum mechanics and General relativity incompatible?
Probably some complicated mathematics going on? Right?
Your guess is correct. When both need to be applied at the same time (for example inside a black hole), mathematical nonsense results.
 
Actually, it's not that complicated. The most obvious incompatibility is principle of superposition. Basically, Quantum Mechanics requires that equations that describe the system are linear. QM completely breaks down without this assumption. On the other hand, the field equations from General Relativity are non-linear.

Linearized gravity, which is basically Newtonian Gravity with added gravitomagnetic effects, can be quantized with some success. It's not terribly practical, but it makes some predictions about gravitational waves and gravitons.

Alternatively, you can do some limited quantum mechanics in GR setting, so long as effects of QM don't alter gravity too much. Hawking Radiation relies on this, for example.

So there are ways to make them work together in some limited situations, but overall, the equations are incompatible, and so a better theory is needed. My bet would be on QM being wrong and working only as a small-scale approximation, with true field theory being non-linear, same as that of gravity. But that's just a stab in the dark, really. Of course, we'll keep using QM in all likelihood regardless, due to it's great utility, same as we keep using Newtonian Mechanics despite its limitations.
 
to put it rather simple , general realtivity aplies and correctly predicts the action of "big objects " while quantum mechanics tries to explain the unpredictable behaivor of small paricle , particles that everything is made of.
you can`t have a set of rules for big objects and another for the small particles that they are made of .
to me the most important factor why they can't go togehter , is called the uncertanity principle , it states that small particles can't be acuratly meaured without interfering on the particles behaivor and thus altering the result of the measurment. small particles simple seem to be to random to unpredictable , in fact they cannot even be meausered without being altered , and you can surely figure that this is not the case for any " big object "
big objects made of small particles seems to behave different from the particles that they are made of , that is way the general relativity and QM fails to "explain" things , when put together
 
castro, quantum mechanics adequately explains all of the behaviors of "large objects" with gravity being the only exception.
 
and gravity beeing a result of an objects effect on space time due to its mass , so if you can't predict the effects of spacetime on an object and viceversa , can you truly say that you have explained the objects behavior ?
i know that the problem is that quantum mechanics fails to quantized gravity , or explain for the particlee that would act as "transport" .
and the point that i wanted to highlight was the fact that small particle acts " ramdomly " and unpredicteable. i know that the obsevation paradox is a tricky problem , to say the least ,and i can't se how i would eventually get a slotion , becuase you can't meauser without measuring ... and i think that the same aplies for big objects as well , but its precissly their mass ,and their effects on spacetime that make them differ from particles, a person can't be at two place at the same time , simply because he weights to much ..
or maybe i got all this wrong ?
 
In GR, the metric of spacetime depends on the stress-energy distribution. In QM, you never know the energy distribution exactly.
 
Khashishi said:
In GR, the metric of spacetime depends on the stress-energy distribution. In QM, you never know the energy distribution exactly.
That's exactly the sort of thing that Quantum Field Theory is designed to deal with. And for other fields it does.
 
  • #10
Thank you for the replies. Getting some (although little compared to everyone else) understanding now. Still, I have one question remaining.

mathman said:
Your guess is correct. When both need to be applied at the same time (for example inside a black hole), mathematical nonsense results.

Mathematical nonsense as in bizarre answers and something very different from reality?
Like gravity being predicted to be too weak or something like that?
 
  • #11
MagnusM said:
Mathematical nonsense as in bizarre answers and something very different from reality?
Like gravity being predicted to be too weak or something like that?
The assumptions are incompatible. And by assuming a contradiction, you can derive absolutely anything. So in principle, any result you'd like, you can get. Want it to be too high, it can be made too high. Want it to be too low, it can be made too low. Mathematics is completely broken at this point.
 
  • #12
MagnusM said:
Why are Quantum mechanics and General relativity incompatible?
Probably some complicated mathematics going on? Right?

K^2 is giving you some good information.

QM and GR are also incompatible on a conceptual level- QM, even QFT, uses spacetime as a background upon which fields are described- for example, fields are written as U(x,t). However, in GR, spacetime is itself a dynamical field.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K