Maybe Getting Closer to a Quantum Theory of Gravity?

[brockrwood]

https://www.inverse.com/science/gravity-tabletop-experiment

 

[Charles_McG]

 

[Titan II]

Old news.............

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/behold-we-now-have-quantum-gravity.184947/

 

[Marc_G]

If we get to quantum gravity, can I then say the moon has fewer gravity than Earth, instead of less gravity?

 

[brockrwood]

If we get to quantum gravity, can I then say the moon has fewer gravity than Earth, instead of less gravity?

If we get a quantum theory of gravity it completes the standard model. We have a quantum theory of the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism. A quantum theory of gravity would make it complete.

 

[Charles_McG]

If we get a quantum theory of gravity it completes the standard model. We have a quantum theory of the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism. A quantum theory of gravity would make it complete.

If gravity were a force - which it isn't.

General relativity and quantum field theory are mathematically incompatible. GR is non-linear and can exhibit chaos. It has singularities, and dividing by zero makes physicists edgy. QFT is linear and non-chaotic - but what counts as an observer is an outstanding problem. One of the basic questions at their intersection is 'how do particles in a superimposed state bend spacetime'. I think the hope is that answering that will extend the standard model, and get rid of the #DIV/0 error at the same time.

 

[jqavins]

Also, "complete the standard model" should not be confused with "complete physics" or even "complete quantum physics". If the standard model is no longer incomplete, it will no doubt be insufficient, for something, not that I know what. In other words, reconciling QFT and GR, and getting rid of the #DIV/0 errors will not mean "OK, ladies and germs, we're done."