3 ms·

I disagree with this basically completely. In quantum physics labs around the world we put things in superpositions of being in different positions all the time

I disagree with this basically completely. In quantum physics labs around the world we put things in superpositions of being in different positions all the time, mainly we do it with photons and electrons, but people are doing it with larger objects as well. We essentially have absolutely no fucking clue what is happening to the gravitational field when an object is in a super position of being in to different places. It definitely does something when an electron is in a superposition of different places and no one in the world can tell you what. That is the point of unification - not some wild mathematical goosechase - we know quantum effects can do stuff to gravity (and vice-versa) and no one knows what is going on. The last sentence of comment is reasonably true, but a lot of very, very smart people are working on all of those fields, its not like they're gonna stop because other people are working on quantum gravity.

ncmncm 5y ago
Fine, you have told us about something we already knew about. How do you propose to detect the gravitational field of a superposed electron? Or even a proton, 1836 times more massive? Or even a U nucleus, 4.4M times more massive? The number of positions for post-docs in physics departments is capped by department budgets. Each seat given to a pure mathematician masquerading as a physicist is a seat not available to one who would rather do, you know, physics. If, someday, it became possible to make progress on the topic, actual physicists would jump at the chance. Without possibility of an experiment, it is just maths. Maths departments welcome that, but don't get physics department budgets. For reasons.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ncmncm 5y ago
Which part of the first paragraph do you take issue with? You admit the third. So, "basically completely" here appears to mean just the second paragraph. Do you disagree that gravitation of protons is so many orders of magnitude away from measurement? How many orders of magnitude away is it, then? What you seem to be saying is that you wish all three paragraphs were not correct. (I wish that myself.) We already know people who have no expectation of ever being checked against experimental data are squatting Physics Department appointments, and will in time make gating decisions about grants, publications, and further appointments.

ncmncm 5y ago

Fine, you have told us about something we already knew about. How do you propose to detect the gravitational field of a superposed electron? Or even a proton, 1836 times more massive? Or even a U nucleus, 4.4M times more massive? The number of positions for post-docs in physics departments is capped by department budgets. Each seat given to a pure mathematician masquerading as a physicist is a seat not available to one who would rather do, you know, physics. If, someday, it became possible to make progress on the topic, actual physicists would jump at the chance. Without possibility of an experiment, it is just maths. Maths departments welcome that, but don't get physics department budgets. For reasons.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ncmncm 5y ago

Which part of the first paragraph do you take issue with? You admit the third. So, "basically completely" here appears to mean just the second paragraph. Do you disagree that gravitation of protons is so many orders of magnitude away from measurement? How many orders of magnitude away is it, then? What you seem to be saying is that you wish all three paragraphs were not correct. (I wish that myself.) We already know people who have no expectation of ever being checked against experimental data are squatting Physics Department appointments, and will in time make gating decisions about grants, publications, and further appointments.