0

We know that GR and QM are both valid and verified and yet for some reason they just don't want to go together. We say QM describes the microscopic while GR describes the macroscopic. I was thinking it might be simpler than that. Perhaps the reason these to do get along is because they truely are disparate phenomena.

You can't have a particle or event with out a point in spacetime in which it occurs, but you could have a point in spacetime where nothing exists, and no event happens (beyond observing that there is nothing there).

Then GR describes where things happen and how spacetime is affected once an event does occur, while QM describes the particle's composition and behaviour. To put it another way. Spacetime which GR describes provides the frame of reference for paticles and force carriers described in QM.

Then it would seem that the reason both are correct and yet seemingly incompatible is that, despite the interplay between the two theories, they really do discribe two disparate (though interacting) "phenomena" .

Sounds like a nice theory but I have to admit it lacks coroboration.

Is there literature into Space Time soley as an independant yet interacting frame of reference for Quantum phenomena rather than trying.to explain spacetime as a quantum phenomena?

Ba'lroc Demos
  • 121
  • 2
    The problem with reconsiling quantum mechanics and gravity isn't trying to have them live simultaneously in the same theory (quantum mechanics in curved spacetimes is pretty well understood). The problem is that we need a description of spacetime geometry which is itself inherently quantum mechanical. That is a much more difficult task. – Bob Knighton Mar 28 '19 at 10:50
  • So then "we" are trying to describe space time at the Plank level? The "fabric" as it were? – Ba'lroc Demos Mar 28 '19 at 11:15
  • 1
  • The word unification has a reserved technical meaning in physics. If you just want to ask about QM in curved space, you shouldn't use the word unification. 2. Tip: Edit question to enter review queue for a second opinion.
    • – Qmechanic Mar 28 '19 at 15:29
  • @Qmechanic I have changed the title and revised the body to better reflect my point / question. Thanks for the input. Hope this is satisfactory now. – Ba'lroc Demos Mar 29 '19 at 03:19
  • I don't really see a question here. Something to think about: forget particles for a minute (say you're in a universe with no matter). How do you write down the quantum state of the gravitational field? – d_b Mar 29 '19 at 03:39
  • Thats just it. I don't think the gravitational field is anything more than 4 d geometry. A 3d "depression" in a 4d Frame. What is the composition of the "fabric" being depressed I don't know, but it makes sense that gravity. Would be an effect not a carrier or a force. . – Ba'lroc Demos Mar 29 '19 at 12:05
  • 2
    It shouldn't be closed as a duplicate now, but it will still be closed as "primarily opinion based". Note that physics.stackexchange is not the right place to initiate discussions, it is meant to be for non-open questions which have answers. – Martin Mar 29 '19 at 14:29
  • @ Martin I have edited.the conclusion to provide an answerable question. Hopefully this reopens the question. – Ba'lroc Demos Mar 29 '19 at 16:26