B Is gravitized quanta the solution rather than quantum gravity?

bbbl67
Messages
216
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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.
 
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
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Thread 'Lesser Green's function'
The lesser Green's function is defined as: $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\langle C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(t')C_{\nu}(t)\rangle=i\bra{n}C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(t')C_{\nu}(t)\ket{n}$$ where ##\ket{n}## is the many particle ground state. $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\bra{n}e^{iHt'}C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(0)e^{-iHt'}e^{iHt}C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt}\ket{n}$$ First consider the case t <t' Define, $$\ket{\alpha}=e^{-iH(t'-t)}C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt}\ket{n}$$ $$\ket{\beta}=C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt'}\ket{n}$$ $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\bra{\beta}\ket{\alpha}$$ ##\ket{\alpha}##...
Back
Top