Model: Quantum wave collapse creates gravitational fields, may be testable

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 30, 2017

Cosmology, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Uniting quantum mechanics and gravity at last. From Anil Ananthaswamy at New Scientist

One approach towards reconciling gravity with quantum mechanics has been to show that gravity at its most fundamental comes in indivisible parcels called quanta, much like the electromagnetic force comes in quanta called photons. But this road to a theory of quantum gravity has so far proved impassable.

Now Antoine Tilloy at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, has attempted to get at gravity by tweaking standard quantum mechanics.

Odd that no one has thought of this before, given all the strenuous mental effort that has gone into the topic… But now,

Nonetheless, his model makes predictions that can be tested. For example, it predicts that gravity will behave differently at the scale of atoms from how it does on larger scales. Should those tests find that Tilloy’s model reflects reality and gravity does indeed originate from collapsing quantum fluctuations, it would be a big clue that the path to a theory of everything would involve semiclassical gravity. More.

The main thing is, it’s good that testability still matters somewhere.

See also: Physicist at Forbes; Is the inflationary universe not science any more?

and

Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal, if not evidence?

Comments

The Nobel Physics Prize 2017 has been awarded to three scientists for their discoveries in gravitational waves. Dionisio

J-Mac @30, Still don't understand what does the 'BTW' paragraph @28 have to do with our discussion or chat? Can you explain? Dionisio

@29 Dionisio, Read fist: The phrase alternate reality often serves as a synonym for a parallel universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_universe_(fiction) Then watch Back to the Future movie ;-) J-Mac

J-Mac, I don't understand what you wrote @28 after 'BTW:'. You may want to rephrase your comment to make it a little clearer? Dionisio

Dionisio, Thank you for your personal experiences...They were very interesting... BTW: Regarding alternate realities, it is just a paradox with QM, which has been explored by Hollywood in many movies that provide a pretty good entertainment. That's all. It's nothing to be serous about and there is on reason to drag Jesus into it, especially if the idea is definitely wrong...;-) Wyluzuj! J-Mac

J-Mac @24:
No offence Dionisio but the fundamentals of everything, the whole universe and life, including biology, are “hidden” in the world of subatomic particles which includes QM…
The ultimate reality is summarily defined thus:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know Him. He came to his own, and His own people did not receive Him. But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. [John 1:1-5, 9-13]
If you don't like it, that's a problem between you and your Creator. I have nothing to do with that. I just benefited from His amazing grace. You could too. I pray that it does happen, if it's according to the purpose of His own sovereign will and for His glory. Dionisio

J-Mac @22:
What does it REALLY mean to you?
Good question. The Creator of everything has graciously reconciled me with Himself through saving faith in the redemptive power of Christ's death and live-reassuring sign of His corporeal resurrection. God has revealed Himself to me, has allowed me to talk back to Him, has let me have self-awareness of who I am and better understanding of this world and the events in its history. The Lord has given me my best desires, has even allowed me to experience His power personally, even in this discussion forum, where God has used me to teach me and others important things that I've read in the Christian Scriptures that were inspired by Him. For example, as I have mentioned in other occasions, I have seen how He has used a nobody like me to humble academic scientists who know a lot more biology than I'll ever learn. It's happened on various occasions, but one very illustrative occurred around two years ago right here in this website. No satisfactory worldly explanation. None. However, for years I had been a strong atheist, educated in the capital of the Soviet Union. Firmly indoctrinated in materialist philosophy and Marxist principles. As an old song says, I once was spiritually lost, but now am found. Was spiritually blind, but now I see. How did that conversion happen? Amazing Grace. Totally undeserved. Completely through divine intervention, in a mysteriously unexplainable combination of my relatively free will subordinated to God's absolute sovereignty. Therefore now I want to see Christ magnified whatever happens. I want Christ to be my main reason for being. Far from severing my union with Christ, death will bring me into a deeper experience of that union. The apostle Paul expressed it better:
[...] it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. [Philippians 1:20-21 (ESV)]
Dionisio

News, I want to thank you for researching and posting OPs on quantum mechanics, consciousness, alternate realities etc. For those who don't get why some people are exited about QM , consciousness or alternate realities, I recommend a few movies to watch: Primer, Coherence, Source Code, Another Earth, I origins for starters...Enjoy! J-Mac

Dionisio, Biology is the current queen of science No offence Dionisio but the fundamentals of everything, the whole universe and life, including biology, are "hidden" in the world of subatomic particles which includes QM... J-Mac

J-Mac, Biology is the current queen of science, because it's the only branch of science that uses all the other branches of science (math, physics, chemistry, etc.) in the scientific attempt to understand at least a little more the complex functionally specified informational complexity present in the biological systems. Dionisio

Dionisio@19 What changed me forever was realizing that Christ is my Savior and my Lord. Good point! What does it REALLY mean to you? J-Mac

@19 fixed. Thanks ;-) J-Mac

Dionisio, No hay ningun problema! Todo se entiende... poco a poco... despacito ;-) J-Mac

J-Mac @17,
However, as Steven Weinberg once said: “After you learn quantum mechanics, you are really never the same again.’ I guess Weinberg meant when he said “learn” that after you realized what quantum mechanics is all about, your life is changes forever… It is so true…because it happened to me…
In the second sentence, did you mean "...life is changed forever..."? changed instead of changes? :) What changed me forever was realizing that Christ is my Savior and my Lord. BTW, FYI - Christ created Steven Weinberg and the rest of us. Dionisio

J-Mac @14, Please, note that the posts that are not explicitly addressed to you are not for you, but everyone interested in this subject. Teraz rozumiesz? :) Dionisio

Dionisio, As I stated before, this topic is above my pay grade and also is not as fascinating to me as biology is. That's fine because non one here claims to be an expert on everything... I certainly don't... As Richard Feynman once said: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." It is so true...The more I learn, to less it seems I understand QM... However, as Steven Weinberg once said: "After you learn quantum mechanics, you are really never the same again.' I guess Weinberg meant when he said "learn" that after you realized what quantum mechanics is all about, your life is changed forever... (your life of science to be clear) It is so true...because it happened to me... I love biology, biochemistry, physics, cosmology but there is no comparison to quantum mechanics...It is just so fascinating beyond anything else in science for me personally... I got interested in it only, because Einstein was wrong about it...lol J-Mac

Here are other interesting papers by other authors: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Angel_Gonzalez-Prieto/publication/319901908_A_lax_monoidal_Topological_Quantum_Field_Theory_for_representation_varieties/links/59ca3b940f7e9bbfdc36777f/A-lax-monoidal-Topological-Quantum-Field-Theory-for-representation-varieties.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Giulio_Gasbarri/publication/315383497_General_Galilei_Covariant_Gaussian_Maps/links/59baa350a6fdcca8e55dc9ca/General-Galilei-Covariant-Gaussian-Maps.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexander_Schenkel/publication/320055232_Operads_for_algebraic_quantum_field_theory/links/59cc27b0a6fdcc451d5cedaa/Operads-for-algebraic-quantum-field-theory.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexandre_Vinogradov/publication/318411047_Particle-like_Structure_of_Lie_algebras/links/596a25a8aca2728ca681dbd7/Particle-like-Structure-of-Lie-algebras.pdf Dionisio

J-Mac, As I stated before, this topic is above my pay grade and also is not as fascinating to me as biology is. Hence take this as an entertainment (pasatiempo). Please, note that @4 & @6 you stated that you've explained something or quoted some text @3 instead of @2. That's what I referred to as poor attention to details. Now you know the rest of the story. :) Dionisio

Dionisio, If you want to continue the conversation, please answer my questions, instead of flooding me with links that are not related... More speculations without answering the fundamentals doesn't resolve the issue, does it? Rozumisz? J-Mac

Here's another interesting paper by other authors: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tatiana_Vulfs/publication/319501829_Superstrings_with_the_Galileon_Measure/links/59ba1fa3458515bb9c48ce15/Superstrings-with-the-Galileon-Measure.pdf Dionisio

Here's more on the research papers by Dr. Antoine Tilloy at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319913433_Time-local_unraveling_of_non-Markovian_stochastic_Schrodinger_equations https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2017-09-19-29/pdf/ ------------------ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319662775_Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber_model_with_massive_flashes https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antoine_Tilloy/publication/319662775_Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber_model_with_massive_flashes/links/59c932aa45851556e97a63c3/Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber-model-with-massive-flashes.pdf -------------------- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317377943_Principle_of_least_decoherence_for_Newtonian_semi-classical_gravity https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antoine_Tilloy/publication/317377943_Principle_of_least_decoherence_for_Newtonian_semi-classical_gravity/links/59c932b70f7e9bbfdc32e684/Principle-of-least-decoherence-for-Newtonian-semi-classical-gravity.pdf ---------------- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313879284_Interacting_quantum_field_theories_as_relativistic_statistical_field_theories_of_local_beables https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antoine_Tilloy/publication/313879284_Interacting_quantum_field_theories_as_relativistic_statistical_field_theories_of_local_beables/links/58db9adaa6fdcc7c9f08e794/Interacting-quantum-field-theories-as-relativistic-statistical-field-theories-of-local-beables.pdf Dionisio

Dionisio, The video says "space is emergent"... Where, or out of what, does the space emerge from? J-Mac

Dionisio, Think for a moment; Lets say that QM & GRAVITY have been unified but, as article mentioned, some math has to be worked out... Now, what if the unification math is never worked out, which means the unification theory only remains a theory, how could be true? Einstein died while working out the math, not the unification theory... J-Mac

J-Mac, Here's additional information on the research papers by Dr. Antoine Tilloy at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antoine_Tilloy Again, keep in mind that this topic is above my pay grade. Also, I prefer biology, because it's less speculative. WYSIWYG. Dionisio

J-Mac @6, I respect your opinion, but keep in mind that it's just that: your interpretation of the text you read. Both the OP title and first sentence seem to be in line with the tone of comments on the model developed by Dr. Antoine Tilloy at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany. Dionisio

J-Mac @6,
The article confirms that which I quoted @3.
There you go again. Attention to details? :) Dionisio

Dionisio, The first sentence says: "Uniting quantum mechanics and gravity at last. From Anil Ananthaswamy at New Scientist" The unifying of QM and gravity can't work because the math is still wrong and can't be right unless one theory gives in... The article confirms that which I quoted @3. Writing at last is deceptive unless it meant to be sarcastic... "...unifying all the fundamental forces underpinning the laws of physics on scales large and small. For example, Tilloy’s model can be used to get gravity as described by Newton’s theory, but the maths still has to be worked out to see if it is effective in describing gravity as governed by Einstein’s general relativity.” Which one is your first language? J-Mac

J-Mac @4:
The first sentence issue I explained above @3.
Huh? :) Dionisio

Hi Dionisio, :-) Have you had a chance to watch the video too? If not, please pay close attention at 30 min mark... The first sentence issue I explained above @3. Math is wrong in the unification process of QM and gravity... BTW: How do you determine which language is your first? I have gone though the few language "transformation" where one became dominant because of where I lived or what language was spoken at home... I can't really tell which one is my first or second, though I already know which one is my third, forth and so on... J-Mac

J-Mac @2:
[...] I can say with certainty that the title and the first sentence of the OP is wrong [...]
What exactly is wrong about the title and the first sentence of the OP? Here's the title of this OP:
Model: Quantum wave collapse creates gravitational fields, may be testable
Here's the first sentence of this OP:
Uniting quantum mechanics and gravity at last.
In the article I read:
"In his model, when a flash collapses a wave function and causes a particle to be in one place, it creates a gravitational field at that instant in space-time." [...] This approach to unifying gravity with quantum mechanics [...] [...] [...] gravity arises from quantum processes [...] [...] [...] his model makes predictions that can be tested. [...] [...] gravity does indeed originate from collapsing quantum fluctuations [...] [...] This article appeared in print under the headline “Quantum collapse spawns gravity?”
Emphasis added. Please, note that this subject is above my pay grade and English is not my first language and my reading comprehension is rather poor in any language. Thanks in advance for any help with this. Dionisio

Without reading the article and watching the video I can say with certainty that the title and the first sentence of the OP is wrong for 2 reasons...lets see... I would love to be found wrong about this... Just finished reading: "unifying all the fundamental forces underpinning the laws of physics on scales large and small. For example, Tilloy’s model can be used to get gravity as described by Newton’s theory, but the maths still has to be worked out to see if it is effective in describing gravity as governed by Einstein’s general relativity." The math doesn't add up... One theory has to be wrong... Most likely relativity... J-Mac

Odd that no one has thought of this before, given all the strenuous mental effort that has gone into the topic… But now, Really. The phrase before the comma by itself would seem like a dig at the New Scientist writer. The 'sentence' as a whole (single quotes given its composition with ellipses) and the sarcasm would seem like sticking out the neck by non-scientist composer, given the serious scientific effort over the decades. Or maybe not. groovamos

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply