Is gravitized quanta the solution rather than quantum gravity?

In summary, the conversation discusses the relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics. The participants consider the possibility that gravity may be responsible for limiting the behavior of quantum objects. However, it is then pointed out that quantum decoherence has already provided an explanation for this phenomenon. The conversation also mentions resources for further understanding of this topic.
  • #1
bbbl67
217
21
TL;DR Summary
Is micro-gravity what is keeping quantum mechanics in check, rather than quantum mechanics keeping gravity in check?
Usually we hear about people working on a theory of quantum gravity, in order to avoid the singularity in the center of a black hole for example. But what if it's the other way around to some extent as well? What if it's gravity keeping quantum objects from doing their greatest reality-defying tricks? For example, the theory behind quantum wave functions suggest that there is a non-zero chance that a particle that you think is near you, could be on the other side of the galaxy or anywhere really, just not where you'd expect it to be. In reality we can just ignore these nonsensical results, because the particles never get that far, and we find that even the chances of being just a few millimeters away from expectation is nearly non-existent. For example, quantum tunneling seems to only occur within short distances, never in large distances. At some point quantum mechanics gives way to classical physics, throwing all magical results away. Currently we just say that the chances of these things happening are just cut off by their own probability functions making them such low-chance occurrences, and nothing more than that. So the question is what's cutting off the quantum behaviour, and leading to the classical behaviour? I'm proposing it's gravity. And it doesn't even have to be huge planet-mass amounts of gravity, just the micro-gravity of everyday objects towards each other.

So do you think this is likely? Also do you think researchers should switch over from looking for quantum gravity and instead looking for gravitized quanta theories?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
bbbl67 said:
Currently we just say that the chances of these things happening are just cut off by their own probability functions making them such low-chance occurrences, and nothing more than that.
There's nothing more to say. Certain quantum effects, like quantum tunneling through a potential barrier, are so dependent on distance that they have a near-zero chance of occurring at distances above the nanometer scale. That's it. There's nothing more complicated to it than that. Nothing cuts off quantum effects, they just have an increasingly small chance of happening as your distances and scale increases.
 
  • #3
Drakkith said:
There's nothing more to say. Certain quantum effects, like quantum tunneling through a potential barrier, are so dependent on distance that they have a near-zero chance of occurring at distances above the nanometer scale. That's it. There's nothing more complicated to it than that. Nothing cuts off quantum effects, they just have an increasingly small chance of happening as your distances and scale increases.
Yes, that's what I said in my original message, right now it's just assumed that that's the way it is, and there's nothing else to it. But why is it that way? I'm suggesting it's due to the effects of micro-gravity. Not even suggesting quantum gravitons, but relativistic micro curvature in spacetime.
 
  • #4
bbbl67 said:
So the question is what's cutting off the quantum behaviour, and leading to the classical behaviour?
That question was answered some decades ago with the discovery of quantum decoherence. Googling for that will bring up a number of good references, but the math involved may be fairly daunting. For a more layman-friendly explanation, you might try David Lindley's book "Where does the weirdness go?" or some of our many threads on the subject.

As the question in this post is based on a misunderstanding (and is also pushing pretty hard on the limits of our rule about personal theories) this thread is closed.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes physicsworks, vanhees71, PeroK and 1 other person

Similar threads

Back
Top