Will Quantum Mechanics Swallow Relativity?

[Arthur]

Will Quantum Mechanics Swallow Relativity?

The contest between gravity and quantum physics takes a new turn.

...Now for the problem: Relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality.

Nice read here.

Excuse mobile link. Am on phone.

 

[Xarog]

Just as a pixel is the smallest unit of an image on your screen, so there might be an unbreakable smallest unit of distance: a quantum of space.

And here is the critically missing piece of the puzzle: The size of the smallest unit has not been consistent since the start of time as we know it. Thus, c has not been constant (it is slowing down in absolute terms, actually).

Dark energy is simply the illusory energy we attribute to the fact that space-time is dividing upon itself. It is this process which has caused the cosmic background radiation to (appear to) lose its energy as time has unfolded in the universe. The total amount of energy in the EM-wave has remained constant relative to the total size of the Universe the entire time.

The Universe is both expanding and in a steady-state at the same time. And I predict that QM and GR will only be unified in a description of the Universe that reflects the truth of this apparent paradox.

 

[crackersa]

And here is the critically missing piece of the puzzle: The size of the smallest unit has not been consistent since the start of time as we know it. Thus, c has not been constant (it is slowing down in absolute terms, actually).

Dark energy is simply the illusory energy we attribute to the fact that space-time is dividing upon itself. It is this process which has caused the cosmic background radiation to (appear to) lose its energy as time has unfolded in the universe. The total amount of energy in the EM-wave has remained constant relative to the total size of the Universe the entire time.

The Universe is both expanding and in a steady-state at the same time. And I predict that QM and GR will only be unified in a description of the Universe that reflects the truth of this apparent paradox.

Any recommend readings to get a good understanding of quantum physics?

 

[Xarog]

Any recommend readings to get a good understanding of quantum physics?

Aside from Wikipedia? Not really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics

The history of quantum mechanics is a fundamental part of the history of modern physics. Quantum mechanics' history, as it interlaces with the history of quantum chemistry, began essentially with a number of different scientific discoveries: the 1838 discovery of cathode rays by Michael Faraday; the 1859–60 winter statement of the black-body radiation problem by Gustav Kirchhoff; the 1877 suggestion by Ludwig Boltzmann that the energy states of a physical system could be discrete; the discovery of the photoelectric effect by Heinrich Hertz in 1887; and the 1900 quantum hypothesis by Max Planck that any energy-radiating atomic system can theoretically be divided into a number of discrete "energy elements" ε (epsilon) such that each of these energy elements is proportional to the frequency ν with which each of them individually radiate energy, as defined by the following formula:

\epsilon = h \nu \,

where h is a numerical value called Planck's constant.

I would say if you can appreciate the meaning of the word "discrete" in this context, then you have a starting point for the understanding of Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Arthur]

And here is the critically missing piece of the puzzle: The size of the smallest unit has not been consistent since the start of time as we know it. Thus, c has not been constant (it is slowing down in absolute terms, actually).

One possible hypothesis. The problem is we have no way of knowing that. It cannot possibly be experimentally verified. It's a frame of reference problem.

A shrinking c cannot be observationally verified, because c is itself the basic 'ruler'. The shrinking c lives only in some mathematical models, hotly contested by others.

Analogously, if your ruler is expanding or shrinking at the same rate as the object you're measuring, the nominal units remain the same. In this case, c is both ruler and object.

 

[crackersa]

Aside from Wikipedia? Not really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics


I would say if you can appreciate the meaning of the word "discrete" in this context, then you have a starting point for the understanding of Quantum Mechanics.

Dang, really wanted to get into depth with it

 

[Xarog]

One possible hypothesis. The problem is we have no way of knowing that. It cannot possibly be experimentally verified. It's a frame of reference problem.

Experimentally, perhaps not, but observationally there is quite a bit to support it.

A shrinking c cannot be observationally verified, because c is itself the basic 'ruler'. The shrinking c lives only in some mathematical models, hotly contested by others.

Exactly. So if the ruler itself bends, then for the system to remain coherent it must be able to accomodate the bending in a coherent manner.

The point here is that the increasing number of intervals between 0 and 1 as time goes on would appear to us as observers to be an expansion of the Universe even if that expansion was entirely illusory.

Analogously, if your ruler is expanding or shrinking at the same rate as the object you're measuring, the nominal units remain the same.

Precisely. But we still have observations that are coming to us of events that happened billions of years ago. If the amount of energy relative to the distance light travels in one second has been changing because the distance that light travels in a second has also been changing, then it stands to reason that the evidence of this phenomenon would be apparent in our observations of the light reaching us from so long ago.

And it does. It's the "Lambda" in the Lambda-CDM model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

http://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html

 

[Xarog]

Dang, really wanted to get into depth with it

Google is your friend?

The biggest problem with QM is that it has so many varying philosophical interpretations. Many of the interpretations are mutually exclusive with other interpretations; thus many statements and explanations about QM hold only according to certain interpretations. And this muddies the water rather badly, imo.

 

[Arthur]

The point here is that the increasing number of intervals between 0 and 1 as time goes on would appear to us as observers to be an expansion of the Universe even if that expansion was entirely illusory.

But there is no increase in the number of intervals, at least not since the first five femtoseconds of the (current) universe. Quantum theory requires a constant number of postulated 'space quanta', the only variable being the extension/dimension of the quantum.

That's basically what the argument is between the Quantum School and the Relativity School.

 

[Xarog]

But there is no increase in the number of intervals, at least not since the first five femtoseconds of the (current) universe. Quantum theory requires a constant number of postulated 'space quanta', the only variable being the extension/dimension of the quantum.

Sources please. I think we may be talking past each other here.

That's basically what the argument is between the Quantum School and the Relativity School.

According to the article above, the disagreement is over whether or not there's such a thing as discrete locations in spacetime. My point is that if the structure of space-time is discrete, then there's a set of rules governing the relationship between (i.e. individuating the identity of) those discrete locations.

 

[Techne]

Any recommend readings to get a good understanding of quantum physics?

Jim Baggot's "The Quantum Story".

 

[Xarog]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Many things about the nature of dark energy remain matters of speculation.[11] The evidence for dark energy is indirect but comes from three independent sources:

Distance measurements and their relation to redshift, which suggest the universe has expanded more in the last half of its life.[12]
The theoretical need for a type of additional energy that is not matter or dark matter to form the observationally flat universe (absence of any detectable global curvature).
It can be inferred from measures of large scale wave-patterns of mass density in the universe.

I haven't been able to find anything about the expansion being limited to the first five femtoseconds of the (current) Universe, and this description from Wikipedia seems to directly contradict it.