3 ms·

> In my opinion it’s easier to keep GR As far as I've read, most physicists have the opposite impression: that QM is much closer to the truth, and that it's al

> In my opinion it’s easier to keep GR As far as I've read, most physicists have the opposite impression: that QM is much closer to the truth, and that it's almost impossible to add explain the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in GR. As some others have shown in the comments here, there are even models of QM that actually predict various GR phenomena for relatively flat space times (i.e. anything that's not very close to the event horizon of a black hole). > Fundamentally, GR predicts that even an individual electron curves spacetime, and not just at “interstellar” distances. That's exactly the problem. Since the electron is not localized in space-time according to all QM observations, it's very hard to define how it can then bend space-time. This is not an interpretation problem (so MWI vs CI has nothing to do with it), it's a problem with the math itself. The problem with MWI on the other hand is that there is no satisfactory way to arrive at the observed measurement outcome probabilities, especially in these continuous splitting scenarios. These become an extra postulate just like in the CI interpretation. > The really hard part for any TOE is not QM! The brutally difficult aspect is explaining the three particle generations. Well, that's hardly a real problem. That there are multiple kinds of particles may very well just be a fundamental aspect of nature, one that doesn't require any explanation, any more than the value of c or pi does. If we had a theory that unifies QM and GR, that could be the final theory of how the universe works (well, assuming it also somehow explained what dark matter and dark energy are, to be fair).

jiggawatts 3y ago
My personal goal has always been a TOE that allows aspects like particle generations and their various properties to be derived ab-initio from axioms with only simple constants such as integers or pi. So particle generations ought to be an output, or an essential aspect of the geometry of the thing. In any event, the theory must model the generations, not just layer fields on top of fields like layers of pancake, or... epicycles on top of epicycles. > most physicists have the opposite impression: that QM is much closer to the truth This is the crux of the problem: QFT is newer than GR, and people often assume that newer is better. It had one huge numeric prediction success, and that has cemented the theory as more successful than all others in the minds of researchers. Never mind that they've sprinted up a valley to stare at a dead end, a proverbial insurmountable cliff up ahead. > the electron is not localized in space-time QM theorists would like to have things both ways at the same time, and then they make the surprised Pikachu face when things turn into nonsense. You can't have point particles smeared in space or even space-time. Pick one. Or... use a model that allows a point in 3D space but treats it as a higher-dimensional object (surface/volume) in a higher dimensional space, such as the parallel worlds of MWI. There are other options also. But throwing up one's hands is not the right path to a TOE, in my opinion...

jiggawatts 3y ago

My personal goal has always been a TOE that allows aspects like particle generations and their various properties to be derived ab-initio from axioms with only simple constants such as integers or pi. So particle generations ought to be an output, or an essential aspect of the geometry of the thing. In any event, the theory must model the generations, not just layer fields on top of fields like layers of pancake, or... epicycles on top of epicycles. > most physicists have the opposite impression: that QM is much closer to the truth This is the crux of the problem: QFT is newer than GR, and people often assume that newer is better. It had one huge numeric prediction success, and that has cemented the theory as more successful than all others in the minds of researchers. Never mind that they've sprinted up a valley to stare at a dead end, a proverbial insurmountable cliff up ahead. > the electron is not localized in space-time QM theorists would like to have things both ways at the same time, and then they make the surprised Pikachu face when things turn into nonsense. You can't have point particles smeared in space or even space-time. Pick one. Or... use a model that allows a point in 3D space but treats it as a higher-dimensional object (surface/volume) in a higher dimensional space, such as the parallel worlds of MWI. There are other options also. But throwing up one's hands is not the right path to a TOE, in my opinion...