Despite the success of general relativity, one of the most important remaining dilemmas in modern physics is finding a grand theory of quantum relativity that will align gravitational field theory with quantum mechanics. A Lawrence Labs scientist believes he has such a theory
Will a controversial model devised by a Czech string theorist replace Einstein's theory of relativity? Scientists from the University of Texas in the US stood up to this question, and examined a number of implications and adaptations of the model to the theory of relativity.
The sentence "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", definitely sums up the view of scientists when it comes to Einstein's theory of general relativity. The theory developed by Einstein at the beginning of the 20th century holds that matter bends space-time, and it is this curvature that determines the orbits of bodies in space - this is how gravitation works. The general theory of relativity stood the tests with great accuracy, without it the cumulative error of the satellites would have increased by approx. 10 km daily.
Despite the success of general relativity, one of the most important remaining dilemmas in modern physics is finding a grand theory of quantum relativity that will align gravitational field theory with quantum mechanics. Recently, Peter Horaba of Lawrence Berkeley Labs proposed such a model, which has gained a lot of interest in the scientific community, especially because it is one of the only empirically testable models of quantum gravity. In Horava's model, the Lorentz symmetry, which says that physics should be uniform for every reference point, is broken on a small scale, but repeated and held on a larger scale.
The team of researchers from Texas, Hong Lu, Jianwei Mai and Christopher Pope, examined the adaptations offered by Horaba's theory to general relativity. One of the findings they discovered was that Horava's model represents general relativity only on an invisible scale, larger than the size of the universe.
However, the research of the Texas scientists is a major contribution to the examination of Horaba's model and shows that there is still much work to be done to understand its implications.
The study was published in the journal Physical Review Letters.
54 תגובות
Noam:
I don't *know* about a contradiction either, but I find it appropriate to emphasize the fact that there are well-known physicists who actually think there is a contradiction.
Michael,
To the best of my knowledge there is no contradiction between special relativity and quantum theory - on the contrary - the combination of the two is called "quantum electrodynamics" and is the most accurate theory that exists today.
sympathetic:
I don't know if there is a contradiction between special relativity and quantum theory. I haven't delved into the matter enough to determine my own opinion but I know there are claims here and there and I brought David Albert's words as an example of a claim here.
Regarding quantum particles - what you say is true, but again, in my opinion, this is not what the question was aimed at.
The way I interpret Gal's intention (and that of anyone who uses the expression "quantum particles"), I call this expression an intention for particles in which the effects of quantum theory are evident (not at every moment, not in every situation, but in principle).
And yes - I know that in principle a cat is also a quantum particle in this sense, but again, I try to understand what the questioner meant and answer him according to his intention.
Michael
It is true that anything that contradicts special relativity will necessarily contradict general relativity as well
But once again quantum theory does not contradict special relativity.
The theoretical problem is in unifying quantum theory with general relativity. There is no problem in connecting quantum theory with special relativity: quantum field theory is
Inorinite Lorenz!!! The problem is with quantum gravity theory. Gravitation ie general relativity.
Regarding particles in which the effects of quantum theory are evident, even elementary particles do not have to behave quantumly, it depends on the system we are talking about.
For example, electrons in a metal do not behave quantumly.
sympathetic:
I assume you know that when they say the theory of relativity, they mean the whole - including the individual.
In general, the general is an extension of the particular and everything that contradicts the particular contradicts the general.
When I answered Gal - I answered what he asked. I don't think there was any room for mincing the terms, what's more, the terms he used are widely used when the term "quantum particles" refers to particles in which the effects of quantum theory are evident.
In general, also regarding the disappearance of the particle in point A and its appearance in point B, Gal asked questions in his own language and you are trying to impose another language on his words and therefore answer the questions he did not ask.
rationalize
First of all, it is clear that hbar is a constant that is a benchmark. I apologize if you misunderstood me. This is simply a form of expression as you can say that a system in which the speed of light c is small is the relativistic system and a system in which the speed of light c is large is a Newtonian system. This is despite the fact that c is a fixed quantity that does not change. Again it is a form of expression instead of saying a system in which all the speeds
Small or large in relation to c can be expressed in a similar way for the defining hbar
Typical sizes in the system with respect to which the typical sizes should be compared
of the system to determine whether the system is of classical character soon is good or quantum mechanics must be used to describe it.
There is no problem to include the uncertainty principle in quantum theory, not even in the relativistic case, one simply has to switch to a description using field theory. Quantum field theory
is a Lorentz invariant and there is no problem with it. The discussion that has been conducted so far is over
Regarding a theory that would unify general relativity with quantum theory (and not private) the above two theories should not be confused. Regarding general relativity and its unification with quantum theory
There are problems only in the Planck scales of energy and distance, these scales are not accessible to us today and therefore there are no experimental problems that require an explanation. The unification of quantum theory and general relativity is a purely academic matter that has consequences
For tiny second particles after the big bang there were conditions that required a quantum grotation theory.
Michael
The links you sent me are irrelevant. The first one discusses in general private and not general relations, which the discussion revolves around. In addition, it was written by David Albert, who is admittedly in his training
A physicist but he is a philosopher and the questions he raises are philosophical and not experimental. The second link discusses theoretical questions regarding the unification of general and quantum relativity and does point out that string theory overcomes the singularity problem but runs into other problems.
In addition, several comments regarding your answers to Gal:
There is no such thing as a quantum particle, this is an unfortunate expression. There are particles
elementary like the electron, the quark, and the photon, and there are complex particles
from elementary particles such as the nucleus of the atom. As mentioned, there are no quantum particles, there are only quantum systems in which the particles can be in a quantum state. For example, when an atom or other particle is in superposition, it behaves quantumly.
Regarding the appearance or disappearance of a particle according to quantum theory, all quantum particles are the same particle, unlike in classical mechanics, it is impossible to assign a label to it
i.e. this part. A particle is defined by the state it is in, i.e. the quantum numbers that characterize it. Therefore, first of all, there is the possibility of sending a quantum state to a long distance, this process is known as teleportation (predicted, among other things, by the late Prof.
from the Technion). Second, entangled quantum particles can be in a superposition of two spatial states so that a measurement will cause it to collapse at a certain point. In practice the wave function that described it collapses into a localized wave function and the non-zero probability of finding it at a great distance disappears.
sympathetic,
First, HBAR is fixed and does not change. It cannot be "big" or "small" - hence its name "Planck's constant".
Second, if you try to apply the laws of relativity to the wave function, especially in light of the implications of the uncertainty principle in momentum and position, you will see that something there is distorted and you get an unrealistic answer.
As I said, it cannot be that you have different laws for the motion of the stars (macro) and you have different laws for the motion or rather the probability of the elementary particles.
The problem with quantum gravitation is theoretical and empirical and it requires new equations, and a new model that will contain laws dealing with all forces and all scales.
to destination:
It is very indirectly related.
This presents one of the strangest questions of quantum theory but it says nothing about the relationship between it and relativity.
It is true that most of quantum theory can be deduced from this single experiment (including the problems it has with relativity) but quantum theory is not such a new theory.
There is also an exaggeration in the reference to the viewer and his influence.
The exaggeration is in two ways:
One is that they try to imply that a human observer is needed. They don't say it explicitly, but the term "observer" implies that when all that is needed is a measuring device.
The second is that they try to create the impression that the observer is a passive thing when it is clear that in order for the measurement to take place some interaction is necessary between the measuring device and the object being measured and it makes sense that this interaction would also have consequences for the measured and not only for the measurer.
wave:
Of course there are different types of quantum particles and I assume you have heard of them (eg electron and neutrino).
They are even divided into groups according to different categories (like, for example, fermions and bosons) so the question is not really clear.
If a particle disappears in place A and at the same time a particle appears in place B - what would make you say that it is the same particle?
Are there different types of quantum particles?
Can a quantum particle disappear and at the same time appear for example 100 light years away?
I hope I am related to the matter, I guess you have already heard about the 2 slots experiment
In the next section, a difficulty is presented that somehow expresses the conflict between the two theories.
Here is a link to a segment that explains the difficulty on YouTube, I would appreciate it if someone could enlighten me on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
sympathetic:
As you quoted, things should be simplified as much as possible, but not beyond that.
Therefore, I suggest that you read, for example, the following links:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/str115.html
: )
Yael
I do not intend to argue or defy, but to try to clarify the issue. Unfortunately, I believe that things should not be oversimplified because that way the accuracy is impaired.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler
A. Einstein
First, there are no experimental phenomena related to both quantum theory and relativity
Generally we don't know how to explain them (I will explain the reason later).
Second, when quantum theory moves from discussing microscopic bodies to macroscopic bodies, it reaches the classical limit, that is, to the state where the laws of classical mechanics apply. In this transition, there are no problems except the manner in which it occurs.
This problem is called the measurement problem. Mathematically the transition is characterized by the size
The characteristic of the quantum theory hbar when this size is smaller than the laws of classical mechanics
are valid and when it is large the system is described in a good quantum way.
Grotation is characterized by another scale G Newton's gravitation constant
which determines when Houghton's laws apply and when objects must be described by relations
In general.
The problem in creating a quantum theory of gravity is revealed in a field where both quantum theory and general relativity are valid. The energy scale in question is enormous
and is not accessible to us today even with the biggest boosters. The characteristic length scale
Where we expect to get quantum gravity phenomena is the Planck length scale
Consisting of the constants hbar and G, this is a tiny length scale that we do not have access to
The nucleus of the atom is huge compared to it...
Therefore, the problem with quantum gravitation is only theoretical.
The problems are solved by string theory, but there are problems in string theory
Others.
point:
The thought crossed my mind, but I don't think this is the case, mainly because of the following reasons:
1. The understanding of physics that Yehuda demonstrates is higher than that of Alon
2. The experiment described in the video, even though it talks about pushing gravitation, leads to the conclusion that Yehuda would also judge as delusional (Cavendish's weights actually move in the direction of the smaller mass - only because the larger mass is separated into two parts. A conclusion that "stems" from the mistake the video editor made In the animation by flowing the particles only along one straight line and by completely ignoring the law of conservation of mass and energy. Yehuda did indeed make mistakes in calculating the consequences of the model, but not such gross mistakes).
Michael, is Shalon a messenger of Yehuda or Yehuda himself?
questionnaire:
The truth is that Le Sage's idea of "pushing" gravitation - if his predictions are analyzed correctly - gives a different result than the one described in the experiment.
I don't want to go into all the details because I have already done so before in my discussion with Yehuda Sabdarmish and I don't think that is exactly what interests you right now.
My general message to you is - as mentioned - before you start trying to find mistakes in the accepted scientific theories, you should study them and the experiments and considerations that led to them.
questionnaire:
I wonder why you bother to remind me not to express my opinion about you.
Did I do this in any response?
The experiment described in the video you sent does not seem to me like an experiment that has ever been carried out (with such results).
He's trying to sell us again Le Sage's theory of gravitation which has been refuted in countless ways.
I would appreciate it if you could direct me to a reliable link and not a sales video.
Besides, this is one of the most important experiments conducted in physics and its consequences
Far-reaching. Therefore, the discussion about it can also be interesting and constructive.
Mr. Rothschild,
If I already sent me to see the CAVENDISH test (which is an interesting test
very much), I expected to at least hear your opinion on the reliability of the test or on variations
He could have made a difference.
For example, the same experiment with a different variation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lzd86ZYf_o&feature=PlayList&p=1281AC646A53DF9C&index=3
But in my opinion it is possible to use different materials with different properties
In order to make sure that we are really measuring the force of attraction between two objects, cf
Newton's law.
I would love to hear your opinion about the experiment (and not about me).
Thanks
First of all, I ask everyone to maintain the level of discussion. We are all here to share information and discuss the wonderful phenomena of our world. There is no room for defiance and arguments here and everyone is welcome to express their opinion and share their information as much as they want.
Regarding the contradiction between relativity and quantum theory, to simplify the complicated, relativity discusses the behavior of macroscopic bodies (eg stars), and quantum theory discusses the behavior of microscopic bodies (particles). Somewhere along the way between the micro and the macro there must be consistency. And it is not provided by the standard model.
It is not that there is only one problem in combining them, but there are many theoretical and experimental problems and difficulties.
rationalize
Regarding the bridging difference between quantum theory and general relativity according to you:
"It cannot be that when you look at a quantum particle it behaves in one way, and when you look at the same quantum particle when it is connected to a large group of other particles, then the laws change."
The laws that apply to a quantum particle do not change when looking at a collection of particles. This problem
It is called the quantum measurement problem and it is related to the interpretation of the quantum theory and when it is permissible to start containing the laws of Newtonian mechanics. This topic has nothing to do with general relativity.
The problem with combining the two theories (quantum and general relativity) is only theoretical and related to the attempt to contain the laws of quantum theory regarding time and space. That is, execution
Quantization of time and space. Trying to quantize in the usual way leads to nonsense. Entertainments of the theory
-When trying to calculate a small correction, you get infinity as a result. Also in quantum electrodynamics infinities were obtained but for it Feynman Tomanga and Schwinger found a way to get rid of the infinities in the result by a theoretical process called regularization.
I did not address the last part of the question:
What is "in the opposite direction"? Do you expect them to reject each other?
In the experiment, all known natural phenomena are taken into account, including the rotation of the earth.
In general, you are asking questions here to which the correct answer is "go study" because it is impossible to transfer material of years of study in talkbacks.
questionnaire:
There is no value in nature that is precisely known.
The value of G is not different from any other value.
The values are determined experimentally, the experiment is carried out using instruments, the instruments have a built-in inaccuracy (even due to the fact that there is a known gap between their years and if the result is between two years - and it's always like that - then you don't know what it is exactly).
This is even before I took into account the effect of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics.
One can ask what would have happened if about all kinds of things.
In every experiment they try to neutralize irrelevant factors and it is clear that in the Cavendish experiment they made sure that no electromagnetic force would operate between the bodies.
You can of course ask if they took care of it well enough just as you can ask if it doesn't depend on the color of the balls and that's why I return you for example the phone.
thank you mr Rothschild for your response (regarding the force of attraction associated with a magnetic field).
I read about the Cavendish experiment and the modern experiments which try to find
the exact value of the G. What turned out is that it still does not have an exact value,
You can read about it in http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/experiments/bigG/bigG.html
(Hope the link works).
I'm interested in whether they would discharge the static electricity from those lead balls or
Metal (in the modern experiments) during everything is an experiment - if indeed they would accept the
the same results? Static electricity can be created in many forms during this experiment
or in the room where it was held, and of course influence the results.
Another thing I'm not sure about is whether the movement of the Earth might be involved
in an experiment? Therefore, it might be worth seeing if it is carried out in the southern part of
Earth, will the balls be attracted to each other in the opposite direction.
What do you think ?
A quantum particle is a quantum particle "it's not matter"
Therefore, the laws of relativity do not apply to it.
When it is attached to a large group of particles
It is assimilated into the group "in substance"
and loses his self-worth.
asd:
The link does not work and a Google search does not find Eli Toussaint.
Nimrod:
Tomorrow, exactly at seven o'clock in the evening, there will be someone who will understand this.
He would be wrong, of course.
Nimrod:
Throwing out some nonsensical comment that has nothing to do with anything, hoping that it will cause a riot - that's a worn-out antique that was used in the Stone Age. Try another method...
Nimrod Moyes,
One of the proofs of the reliability of the quantum theory (and perhaps the most important proof...), is the fact that you can chatter with your computer in this respectable forum.
Without quantum theory, you would have had to look for a newspaper or magazine that would agree to publish your insights, and the chance of that would have been extremely small (quantum-sized).
For many years, Dr. Eli Tusan (Physics - Ben-Gurion University Be'er Sheva) researched the subject and published several articles on the subject
The article A NEW DESCRIPTION OF NATURE - THE WAY TO UNIFICATION
Famous were located at:
http:// members.1stnetusa.com/etousson
A groundbreaking, high-level and very innovative article for your perusal, serious professionals Avraham
When will someone realize that all quantum is complete nonsense.
What cannot be seen does not exist
On another thought - the link that Higgs and I talked about is the source from which the article was translated, but not the researchers' message, so there is probably still room to correct the link.
Reading the source confirms the concern I had when reading the translation, and that is that the Texan team actually discovered (if they were not mistaken) that the new theory contradicts the theory of relativity and therefore, probably, reality as well.
Originally the word caveat was also used to describe this feeling.
Thanks, Higgs.
Here is a direct link for those interested:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090824115758.htm
Michael Rothschild
Source in ScienceDaily Physics section
Rewriting General Relativity? Putting A New Model Of Quantum Gravity Under The Microscope
Questionnaire master:
Your first question makes a wrong assumption.
It is not true that only bodies with a magnetic field have a force of attraction.
By the way - even if this were the case, it would not indicate a connection between the phenomena - it is roughly like asking "if telephony is an electromagnetic phenomenon, then how is it that all phones have plastic components?".
Regarding your second question (the answer to which is of course an example of the mistake in the first) - yes - such an experiment was carried out.
See for example here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
I see that Higgs referred to the source so that the link to it probably worked at one point but now the link doesn't work and should be fixed.
I too (like Chan T) do not understand the meaning of the paragraphs discussing the conclusions of the team of researchers from Texas and that was the main reason why I looked for the source.
With regard to the need to correct the theory of relativity - this need arises both from the contradictions between it and quantum theory and from the fact that its formulas yield infinite magnitudes at zero distance - this while there is no mechanism preventing the existence of such a distance.
Thank you Yael for the article and the interesting comments.
I have a complete question: according to general relativity (if I'm not mistaken), every body should
to attract another body according to their solution. So why only bodies with a magnetic field (moons,
Do planets, suns, galaxies, etc.) happen to also have independent gravity?
And the second question: Has it been proven in an experiment that two bodies do attract each other
According to their mass (I don't mean the quantum level, but an object over 1 kg, for example)?
Thanks
I had the chance to read a lovely book that was translated this year "Einstein, please", it is also recommended for those for whom physics is not defined as lofty in purpose and yet is interesting in all its various aspects.
Michael Gottlieb,
Thank you, I'm happy too.
Regarding string theory, there is a fundamental difference that distinguishes string theory and mother theory from relativity and quantum theories.
Relativity and quanta can be measured empirically - for example, you can send a photon as in the two-slit experiment and see that it engages with itself, and you can also see the shift of stars caused by gravitational repulsion, you can even witness the phenomena of time dilation as predicted by relativity.
But all the new ideas and theories that came after that - string theory, mother theory, supersymmetry, theories of parallel dimensions, the idea of directed consciousness, etc. - although they are all elegant and mathematically correct, they cannot be empirically proven with the tools we have today.
These are theories that deal with the processes that occur at the Planac length, it is the smallest unit of space that exists, or more precisely, the smallest separation between 2 events, according to the standard model. Theoretically nothing in the universe is smaller than this length.) The Planck length is twenty orders of magnitude smaller than the size of the atomic nucleus, so it will take some more time before we can get close to proving these beautiful theories.
I didn't see how a theory that can only be relevant for "invisible scales, larger than the size of the universe" changes anything to our reference to quantum theory or Einstein's. After all, when is it necessary to use data of this magnitude? And what could be bigger than the universe that would be used as a datum in that theory?
1. Yael — happy to read your articles again. "welcome back"!
2. Avi Blizovsky — you are absolutely right!
3. To the article itself (which fascinated me) - did we not forget to mention here the string theory (including mother theory) which is supposed to provide the long-awaited connection between relativity and quantum theory? And I am aware of the fact that there are no shortage of opponents of string theory, but, in my opinion, it is important to mention.
To Mohav Biel, OK, you've said what you have, now let people respond to the topic of the article.
In honor of "someone":
On the contrary, in email it becomes harassment and disrespect of privacy.
Translation error in the original:
satellite global positioning system would be off by about 10 km per day.
The correct translation:
The cumulative error of the GPS satellites was 10 km per day
Beautiful article
Thanks to all the responders.
white blood,
This is what the theory of relativity claims - that the bed of space-time warps near large masses, therefore the celestial objects are attracted to each other. And really if an object passes some threshold distance and has a certain speed it can crash into the star. This phenomenon of the curvature of space and time was "proved" during a solar eclipse when they saw that the movement of light coming from distant stars is curved, that is, the light does not move in a straight line but is curved when it passes near a large mass - and this is called gravitational attenuation.
sympathetic,
Quantum theory and relativity are not perfect theories, although their predictions are remarkably accurate in the narrow niche they discuss.
Just as Newtonian mechanics makes accurate predictions for stationary frames of reference. Here, too, the theory gives accurate predictions in a narrow niche, but it was necessary to change not only the theory, but the entire concept behind it in order for it to fit reality. The problem was not to add some other constant or plus sign to Newtonian mechanics. They simply turned it over, trampled it, and built a new theory in its place.
It cannot be that when you look at a quantum particle it behaves in one way, and when you look at the same quantum particle when it is connected to a large group of other particles, then the laws change.
To all the romantic commenters, how about moving these questions to private channels (email) instead of in public? This is not the place, please concentrate on the article itself.
Sorry to ruin the romantic atmosphere with a petty comment but the sentence:
"One of the most important remaining dilemmas in modern physics is finding a grand theory of quantum relativity that will align one line between gravitational field theory and quantum mechanics." He is problematic.
This is not a dilemma but rather finding a unifying theory, since both the predictions of general relativity as well as quantum theory have been found to be accurate
In the thousands of attempts made since then they have been written.
A side note: the problem of combining the above two theories is
A theoretical problem because at their core they cannot be reconciled with each other and not in a problem of adaptation to experience.
Yael, make me a quark
White blood, this is the first time I hear that a knowledgeable reader hears for the first time about general relativity. start reading
This is the first time I've heard that this is the cause of gravity. I read in many places that the cause of it is unknown.
Question: If the curvature is what causes attraction then, as I understand it, the bodies (moons, asteroids, etc.) were supposed to "fall" towards the stars. But in practice they move around them. What did I miss?
No
she is married ?