3 ms·
By "QM" and "GM", physicists mean our current mathematical models of these theories. They just don't line up -- QM doesn't have anytging in it which would crea
by CJefferson 6y ago
By "QM" and "GM", physicists mean our current mathematical models of these theories.
They just don't line up -- QM doesn't have anytging in it which would create relativistic gravity, and GM doesn't contain any weird quantum effects.
Previous attempts to just "glue them together" have always failed, as the maths ends up falling apart and you get stupid results, which clearly don't align with the real world.
- ry454 6y agoI've seen somewhere a clever trick that derives some QM with a small tweak in GR. I can't judge whether the trick makes sense, though. So the trick was to modify the ds2=c2dt2-dx2-dy2-dz2 equation to exp(a cos(wt))ds2=... That extra exp(...) modulation, when combined with Lorentz transforms, produced some basic QM formula. With more wizardry, the author derived the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. Someone who knows GR well could probably tell if GR has "room" for the exp(...) modulation, i.e. that something in GR doesn't fall apart after this addition.