QM and General Relativity may have finally been merged

[Crick]

See sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927650524001130

Could be some very big news.

 

[1srelluc]

Lazy OP is lazy....No hot link, no commentary.

Come on man.....At least pique our interest.

 

[Oddball]

Link sucks....Not enough original content for a legit OP....Best clean that up, dude.

Now, onto the topic....

The concept of time is three dimensional: Newtonian & Einsteinian...Quantum physics has no concept of time: it transcends what we can see, even with the most high tech instrument of measurment.

You might as well be trying to reconcile baseball with SCUBA diving.

 

[JGalt]

See sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927650524001130

Could be some very big news.

Great news! Now we can build more powerful nuclear bombs and make bigger 'splosions for next year's Fourth of July.

I like 'spolsions.

 

[Crick]

Lazy OP is lazy....No hot link, no commentary.

Come on man.....At least pique our interest.

You're right. My apologies. I originally hit the article on my phone and had some difficulty getting it to my pc. Let's see if this works:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927650524001130

This link came from the latest issue of "Astroparticle Physics" at Redirecting

Both these links now work for me

 

[Crick]

Link sucks....Not enough original content for a legit OP....Best clean that up, dude.

Now, onto the topic....

The concept of time is three dimensional: Newtonian & Einsteinian...Quantum physics has no concept of time: it transcends what we can see, even with the most high tech instrument of measurment.

You might as well be trying to reconcile baseball with SCUBA diving.

Working links in post #5 just above.

 

[Crick]

Great news! Now we can build more powerful nuclear bombs and make bigger 'splosions for next year's Fourth of July.

I like 'spolsions.

It's a trifle more profound than that. Working links in post #5, two up.

 

[Oddball]

Working links in post #5 just above.

Was able to access it despite the shitty link.

My point still stands...The whole thing is a blizzard of incomprehensible equation spewing, which doesn't address the core matter that time doesn't exist in the quantum realm.

BTW, there's still not enough original content for the OP pass muster.

 

[Wuwei]

Was able to access it despite the shitty link.

My point still stands...The whole thing is a blizzard of incomprehensible equation spewing, which doesn't address the core matter that time doesn't exist in the quantum realm.

BTW, there's still not enough original content for the OP pass muster.

QM and General Relativity may have finally been merged​

The title is enough to pique anyone's interest if they know what the major physics problems are!

 

[para bellum]

Whoa! If this proves out, it is the most powerful advance in physics in history.

It unifies General Relativity and Particle physics. It eliminates singularities and infinities, gets rid of dark matter and dark energy, and accounts for Hubble inflation. It predicts the fundamental particles and their masses and interactions and eliminates the extra dimensions associated with string theories.

It's not just a quantum theory of gravity, it's a true unified theory. Something physics has been looking for for 100 years.

 

[para bellum]

The title is enough to pique anyone's interest if they know what the major physics problems are!

I once spent the better part of a year wading through Penrose and came away more confused than when I started.

I did not expect to get up this morning and see this!

I need to let it simmer for a while and read it again. At the moment I am completely blown away. I've been hoping for something like this for 40 years...

 

[Oddball]

QM and General Relativity may have finally been merged​

The title is enough to pique anyone's interest if they know what the major physics problems are!

I piqued mine....But, as I mentioned, when you start expressing the timeless in terms of time, you may as well be trying to claim that you've merged baseball and SCUBA diving.

Quantum physics is bizarre enough...The whole abstract looked to me like a long-winded confusing way to put a square peg in a round hole.

 

[Wuwei]

I once spent the better part of a year wading through Penrose and came away more confused than when I started.

I did not expect to get up this morning and see this!

I need to let it simmer for a while and read it again. At the moment I am completely blown away. I've been hoping for something like this for 40 years...

Loc., cit.

"As the universe expands, the charge and mass of electrons decreases, resulting in less interaction in the aging universe. The electron charge and mass are no longer constant. They depended on the radius of the universe at the time."​

Now that is pretty wild. You can't tinker with mass without screwing up the rest of physics. It wasn't clear if he addressed that.

He also addresses dark matter at paragraph;
18.3 Increasing velocity of objects far away from a galaxy

I recognize a lot of the equations, but I am way too rusty at understanding them now. I took a GR class around 1966 and haven't kept up at all.

It seems that the theory rests on a reciprocity between mass and curved space, which is novel to me. I am not going to get excited about that until the theory is verified and approved by those who understand it.

 

[para bellum]

Loc., cit.

"As the universe expands, the charge and mass of electrons decreases, resulting in less interaction in the aging universe. The electron charge and mass are no longer constant. They depended on the radius of the universe at the time."​

Now that is pretty wild. You can't tinker with mass without screwing up the rest of physics. It wasn't clear if he addressed that.

The universe is already so flat and the electron mass so tiny that it may be changing and we just don't notice. (or the rate is too small for us to measure)

This does not disagree with the value, it just says it's not quite a constant. (I agree, that is a fundamentally different way of viewing it.)

But the ability to derive the rest mass of the electron from a quantum theory of gravity and match up with QED is very powerful.

He also addresses dark matter at paragraph;
18.3 Increasing velocity of objects far away from a galaxy

I recognize a lot of the equations, but I am way too rusty at understanding them now. I took a GR class around 1966 and haven't kept up at all.

It seems that the theory rests on a reciprocity between mass and curved space, which is novel to me. I am not going to get excited about that until the theory is verified and approved by those who understand it.

Reciprocity already exists in relativity- Mass and energy are interchangeable, space can exchange mass (energy) with matter in both directions and conservation only happens if you include gravitational energy in your calculation. Red shift is a loss of energy- the number of photons are not growing but the space is expanding. Likewise "dark energy" is an increase in total energy- the energy density does not change while the volume is increasing.

The beauty of this is it a function of the geometry and does not require a new force or particle, it just says it is an interchange that is governed by the curvature itself. The space is flattening out, and the energy is given to the matter.

To me that is intuitive and much more elegant than some mysterious unknown force or arrangement of quarks that is not predicted by QM.

This paper is the teaser, not the proofs, so it will take time to flesh all this out by people who are a lot better at it than us old guys, haha. They published enough to say "we have made the connection in a way that can't be casually discarded." The rest of the fundamental particles have to match up, the relative strengths of the forces have to match up, etc.

Any fundamental constants that can't be reconciled will be a problem. QM is too good to claim it's just wrong about the fundamentals.

Absent any disagreements in that regard, this smells good to me. Simplicity is elegance and convoluted explanations are always defective. I am happy today.

I will read it again tonight and then let it percolate in my subconscious for a while. It's a really dramatic paper, it will take me time to digest the implications.

 

[Wuwei]

The universe is already so flat and the electron mass so tiny that it may be changing and we just don't notice. (or the rate is too small for us to measure)

This does not disagree with the value, it just says it's not quite a constant. (I agree, that is a fundamentally different way of viewing it.)

But the ability to derive the rest mass of the electron from a quantum theory of gravity and match up with QED is very powerful.

If electron charge and mass are changing as a function of expansion, we can already see there is no effect on the laws of physics simply by looking at past galaxies. The stars seem to be no different.

If electron properties change change at a different rate than nuclei, the spectra would not be the same. And the red shift wouldn't be an accurate measure of distance.

Reciprocity already exists in relativity- Mass and energy are interchangeable, space can exchange mass (energy) with matter in both directions and conservation only happens if you include gravitational energy in your calculation. Red shift is a loss of energy- the number of photons are not growing but the space is expanding. Likewise "dark energy" is an increase in total energy- the energy density does not change while the volume is increasing.

Paragraph 18.3 says outright that dark matter is not needed to explain galaxy rotation. If that holds up, good riddance.

The beauty of this is it a function of the geometry and does not require a new force or particle, it just says it is an interchange that is governed by the curvature itself. The space is flattening out, and the energy is given to the matter.

To me that is intuitive and much more elegant than some mysterious unknown force or arrangement of quarks that is not predicted by QM.

Yes, Occam's razor strikes.

This paper is the teaser, not the proofs, so it will take time to flesh all this out by people who are a lot better at it than us old guys, haha. They published enough to say "we have made the connection in a way that can't be casually discarded." The rest of the fundamental particles have to match up, the relative strengths of the forces have to match up, etc.

Any fundamental constants that can't be reconciled will be a problem. QM is too good to claim it's just wrong about the fundamentals.

Absent any disagreements in that regard, this smells good to me. Simplicity is elegance and convoluted explanations are always defective. I am happy today.

I will read it again tonight and then let it percolate in my subconscious for a while. It's a really dramatic paper, it will take me time to digest the implications.

I still haven't wrapped my head around the circumstances behind the relaxation of the Ricci tensor.
This certainly is a milestone, and will probably even appear in the New York Times. I didn't think it would happen in my lifetime.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're right. My apologies. I originally hit the article on my phone and had some difficulty getting it to my pc. Let's see if this works:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927650524001130

This link came from the latest issue of "Astroparticle Physics" at Redirecting

Both these links now work for me

Nobody has time to read through all that without some idea of what the content is. How about summarizing it in a paragraph or two and note the pertinent parts of the article so we can know whether we want to spend that much time or effort?

 

[para bellum]

If electron properties change change at a different rate than nuclei, the spectra would not be the same. And the red shift wouldn't be an accurate measure of distance.

The authors derive the mass and charges of the up and down quarks proportional to the electron, so the treatment provides the nuclei and electrons are changing at the same rate.

The relevant para (bolded part mine):
"As the universe expands, the charge and mass of electrons decreases, resulting in less interaction in the aging universe. The electron charge and mass are no longer constant. They depended on the radius of the universe at the time.
We can consider the mass of the quark in terms of the mass of the electron in the same way, considering the charge. For the up and down quarks, the charges were 2/3e and -1/3e respectively. Because a quark is equivalent to a confined electron in the fractal dimension of space–time, it results in a larger interaction energy.
The mass of the down quark, md should be proportional to (3e)2
because we divide the electron into 1/3 fractal dimensions. Hence,
md = 9e2 = 9me = 4.5 MeV, (SM value 4.8 MeV)
the same reason for up quark is for fractal dimension ½. Therefore, its
mass
mu = (2e)2 = 4e2 = 4me = 2 MeV (SM value 2.2 MeV)."

 

[scruffy]

From the article:

"Therefore, the constants of the universe can be reduced to only two quantities: Planck length and Planck time".

That's what I've been saying for ages.

Furthermore - I said on this very forum that information transfer can be reduced to a Planck scale primitive called "next".

In this case defined by a form of Planck scale irreversibility.

FURTHERMORE - the evolution of our brains shows a temporal attractor that tends toward the Planck scale. Right now it's at about one millionth of a femtosecond in human beings.

I already posted the math in another thread somewhere.

 

[ding]

You're right. My apologies. I originally hit the article on my phone and had some difficulty getting it to my pc. Let's see if this works:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927650524001130

This link came from the latest issue of "Astroparticle Physics" at Redirecting

Both these links now work for me

What produced the radiation (i.e. CMB) in the two possible cases for the evolution of the universe?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is what keeps me up at nights