Why Should We Revisit Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the challenges of merging quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR), highlighting the inherent flaws in both theories. Key issues include the collapse of the wave function in QM, as discussed by Dr. David Griffiths, and the EPR paradox. Participants suggest that instead of attempting to unify these theories, researchers should focus on refining and improving each theory independently. The conversation emphasizes the importance of a strong mathematical foundation and the relevance of thermodynamics in understanding these complex topics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, specifically wave function collapse.
  • Familiarity with general relativity concepts and their implications.
  • Knowledge of the EPR paradox and Belle's Theorem.
  • Basic mathematical concepts, including topology and thermodynamics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the EPR paradox in quantum mechanics.
  • Study Dr. David Griffiths' introductory quantum mechanics book for foundational insights.
  • Explore advanced topics in general relativity and its current challenges.
  • Investigate the role of thermodynamics in the context of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in physics, particularly those interested in quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the philosophical implications of merging these theories. Additionally, mathematicians exploring applications of topology in theoretical physics will find this discussion beneficial.

physillator
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
This is my first post ever so please forgive me if it seems a bit clumsy!

I have recently been reading some popular literature about string theory and other stuff, as well as been studying some more advanced technical books on quantum mechanics, general relativity and particle physics. I know that researchers right now have been running into serious problems when trying to combine quantum mechanics with general relativity. My question is, why even take that step at this point?

I remember in my quantum course first learning about the collapse of the wave function in a 1 dimensional square well: that upon measurement, outside factors interfere with the distribution. One student in class then brought up this point: what about the confinements of the well (finite or infinite)? The potential energy at the borders is itself an outside factor (independent of the particle), so how is it that this alone does not collapse the wave function? Our professor sent an email about this to Dr David Griffiths (author of the introductory quantum book used at our college). He replied that it was a good argument and proof that the theory is still new and mostly incomplete. This is one example of a possible flaw, as well as other more known problems such as the EPR paradox and Belle's Theorem.

Admittedly, I'm not that far into my understanding of general relativity (yes, I am currently reading and learning about it), but I suspect that this theory has its flaws as well. So why are researchers putting so much time, energy, and money into trying to merge 2 theories that can't really stand much pressure on their own?

We have so, so many incredibly intelligent, clever, and resourceful scientists all over the world (probably all of whom are better than I am). Why don't we instead focus ALL of our energies into revamping and improving both theories before trying to interlock them to go even further?

I believe we may in fact speed up our progress by regressing and cleaning up before proceeding onward. Anyone who has anything to say about this I would love to hear from you, I could very well be mistaken.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Basics vs exotica

Yes things are becoming a bit exotic; just look at the arXiv.org sometime. Just sticking to basics, QM and GRT are plenty interesting. Also thermodynamics, one pillar that survived the GRT and QM revolutions, is worthwhile. And there is almost unlimited mathematical conceptualizations. For example, topology can apply to a scenario of torn Calabi-Yau rolled up manifolds for final evaporation of BH, if I remember exotica a little. So a good conceptual mathematical base, is an additional asset.
 
Thanks for the website, this will provide hours of interesting reading.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K