4 ms·

Well, depends on if you mean it was important exactly around the big bang, or if you say gravitational waves are crucial now. I don't think the statement that

Well, depends on if you mean it was important exactly around the big bang, or if you say gravitational waves are crucial now. I don't think the statement that quantum gravity was important at the big bang is controversial in general, it would depend on the precise claim.

soulofmischief 7y ago
I feign no hypothesis; I am only stating curiosities yet to be explored. Almost every system down to our organelles depends on gravity in some direct or indirect way. We still don't understand the relationship between quantum and classical mechanics. We don't have the answers to test any hypothesis about the relationship between quantum gravitational fluctuations and classical physical systems. But that hardly makes the curiosity absurd; in fact it will one day be the subject of many experiments.
- petschge 7y ago
  Stop spouting this "even organelles need gravity" non-sense. Also: Going from quantum mechanics to classical mechanics is well understood as the limit ħ -> 0. What we don't have a good handle on right now is the connection between gravity (as described by general relativity) and quantum mechanics.
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    Dawg you ought to read a bit more before denouncing that observation. Here's what I shared with another commenter: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2015/863075/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2015/863075/ But there is plenty of literature on this. > What we don't have a good handle on right now is the connection between gravity (as described by general relativity) and quantum mechanics. So we are in agreement? The whole point of my post was just to highlight a particular curiosity of mine regarding the fact that we don't know how gravity and QM integrate. And sorry but we don't understand the full connection between QM and classical mechanics, or we wouldn't still be searching for a Grand Unified Theory. Kill the venom and see this for what it is: a simple scientific musing well within possibility which makes no claims toward any particular hypothesis. Instead of exploring the idea you brought your ego to the table and killed any chance at a useful dialogue between us.
    - petschge 7y ago
      No useful thing can come from engaging the pointless rambling of somebody scientifically illiterate who doesn't understand that the connection between classical mechanics and QM is proven in every undergrad course on the subject and who thinks that his amateur blabbering using scientific words is the same thing as an interesting thought.
      - soulofmischief 7y ago
        That was extremely toxic. You don't know anything about my scientific prowess but you are revealing yourself to be quite the Negative Nancy. At no point was I blabbering about anything; I was musing from the start.
- eesmith 7y ago
  You write: "Almost every system down to our organelles depends on gravity in some direct or indirect way." Do you have any evidence of that? The equivalence principle says that force from gravity cannot be distinguished from the force due to an accelerated frame of reference. For example, a spinning multi-generational star ship could have a 1 g pseudo-gravitational force on the inner surface, but no actual gravity - in the sense the requires quantum gravity - other than the weak gravitational force from distant stars. If as you imply quantum gravity were essential to life, and such that life could not use a force like from rotating or accelerating, then it would disprove the equivalence principle and be worthy of a Nobel Prize.
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    Do I have any evidence towards my intentionally vague and open-ended assertation? Yes, for the individual systems which are dependent on gravity in some way which we have studied. There are already examples in this thread. I don't understand how the equivalence principle matters here. If you placed a system within another system which perfectly mimicked the gravity created from mass via just acceleration, then the system never knows the difference. That is the equivalence principle, and it doesn't have much to do with what I'm discussing here. What I'm discussing is the yet unstudied emergent effects of massive, far-reaching gravitational perturbations in... stirring the pot, so to speak.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      If acceleration sufficiently mimics gravity such that living systems cannot tell the difference then it's 1) not really true that life requires gravity, and 2) it certainly doesn't require quantum gravity. You still haven't demonstrated where "chemical reactions in our organelles" are meaningfully affected by gravity. All the references you've given are for much larger systems.
      - soulofmischief 7y ago
        How can you reference the equivalence principle and then deny it in the very next post? Looking back, I would have chosen my words a little more carefully to reference organelles without referencing chemical reactions specifically.

soulofmischief 7y ago

I feign no hypothesis; I am only stating curiosities yet to be explored. Almost every system down to our organelles depends on gravity in some direct or indirect way. We still don't understand the relationship between quantum and classical mechanics. We don't have the answers to test any hypothesis about the relationship between quantum gravitational fluctuations and classical physical systems. But that hardly makes the curiosity absurd; in fact it will one day be the subject of many experiments.

petschge 7y ago
Stop spouting this "even organelles need gravity" non-sense. Also: Going from quantum mechanics to classical mechanics is well understood as the limit ħ -> 0. What we don't have a good handle on right now is the connection between gravity (as described by general relativity) and quantum mechanics.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  Dawg you ought to read a bit more before denouncing that observation. Here's what I shared with another commenter: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2015/863075/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2015/863075/ But there is plenty of literature on this. > What we don't have a good handle on right now is the connection between gravity (as described by general relativity) and quantum mechanics. So we are in agreement? The whole point of my post was just to highlight a particular curiosity of mine regarding the fact that we don't know how gravity and QM integrate. And sorry but we don't understand the full connection between QM and classical mechanics, or we wouldn't still be searching for a Grand Unified Theory. Kill the venom and see this for what it is: a simple scientific musing well within possibility which makes no claims toward any particular hypothesis. Instead of exploring the idea you brought your ego to the table and killed any chance at a useful dialogue between us.
  - petschge 7y ago
    No useful thing can come from engaging the pointless rambling of somebody scientifically illiterate who doesn't understand that the connection between classical mechanics and QM is proven in every undergrad course on the subject and who thinks that his amateur blabbering using scientific words is the same thing as an interesting thought.
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      That was extremely toxic. You don't know anything about my scientific prowess but you are revealing yourself to be quite the Negative Nancy. At no point was I blabbering about anything; I was musing from the start.
eesmith 7y ago
You write: "Almost every system down to our organelles depends on gravity in some direct or indirect way." Do you have any evidence of that? The equivalence principle says that force from gravity cannot be distinguished from the force due to an accelerated frame of reference. For example, a spinning multi-generational star ship could have a 1 g pseudo-gravitational force on the inner surface, but no actual gravity - in the sense the requires quantum gravity - other than the weak gravitational force from distant stars. If as you imply quantum gravity were essential to life, and such that life could not use a force like from rotating or accelerating, then it would disprove the equivalence principle and be worthy of a Nobel Prize.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  Do I have any evidence towards my intentionally vague and open-ended assertation? Yes, for the individual systems which are dependent on gravity in some way which we have studied. There are already examples in this thread. I don't understand how the equivalence principle matters here. If you placed a system within another system which perfectly mimicked the gravity created from mass via just acceleration, then the system never knows the difference. That is the equivalence principle, and it doesn't have much to do with what I'm discussing here. What I'm discussing is the yet unstudied emergent effects of massive, far-reaching gravitational perturbations in... stirring the pot, so to speak.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    If acceleration sufficiently mimics gravity such that living systems cannot tell the difference then it's 1) not really true that life requires gravity, and 2) it certainly doesn't require quantum gravity. You still haven't demonstrated where "chemical reactions in our organelles" are meaningfully affected by gravity. All the references you've given are for much larger systems.
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      How can you reference the equivalence principle and then deny it in the very next post? Looking back, I would have chosen my words a little more carefully to reference organelles without referencing chemical reactions specifically.