Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Penrose to test QM versus GR

Sir Roger Penrose has joined forces with Bouwmeester to try and proove QM has limits :-)

Fresh from its victory over Hawkings ... QM comes in undefeated and fresh for the fight lets check out the form of the challenger

http://www.news.leiden.edu/news-2011/roger-penrose.html



I am betting Boumeester will live to see that reality ... the GR camp is betting the reverse.

Place your bets people ... This is the main event GR versus QM!!!!

Will QM claim yet another high profile physics scalp or has it finally met it's match.

With the name "Penrose", Sir Roger must be of Cornish origin, so I shall have to bet on his angle!

Let 'them' fight it out. Whoever loses, 'a good riddance', I will say. However, the fight will continue, and in the end both will be out.

Irrespective of the lineage of any contestant, I would have to say that my money (if I had any) would be on QM.

As long as we believe that reality is defined within any number of finite dimensions, I think it has to be possible for humans to exist in “in different states at the same time”.
We may never be in a position to make a direct observation of that, but I think the time will come when indirect evidence will be found that will leave little doubt about it.

My best guess (belief) is that:

GR is true. QM is true. Reality is the canvas that they both occupy.

Therefore GR must be compatible with QM.

Any inability to reconcile these two structures must be a flaw in the framework or understanding of GR, QM (or both).

BTW, Pleased to meet you Orac.

By postulating that bodies can remain in different states (now, of course, in the quantum world only), the QM is fundamentally wrong, I think. The reality is what we observe in the normal world: No bodies can remain in two different states at any given time. The so-called proofs, regarding the observation of such a phenomenon in the quantum world, contain enough loop holes that eventually, I believe, the QM will lose its sheen. Anyway, the fight is interesting, and Orac always comes up with the right topic. The GR being a lesser evil, I hope, for the time being, that GR wins.

The 'inability to reconcile' existed from the very beginning that I think both are fundamentally wrong.

Welcome back KG, only a few days ago I was wondering what had become of you.



Of course, this is our reality, but the reality that each of us observes is just our individual interpretation of data received and processed by our brain. Without getting into “silly” solipsism, we would be conceited if we assumed that our reality, even that which we construct communally, by consensus, constituted the entirety of the cosmos.

Naturally, to make any progress with science, we have to work within what we have, but the fact that you have ideas of your own suggests that you appreciate that we have to try to look outside the restrictions of our immediate visual range in order to broaden our understanding.

The world is not spherical, if it were, the people on the bottom would fall off!

Perhaps that last post was not quite fair comment. Please don't take it as a slight on your ideas, or the amount of work you have obviously put into developing them.

What I had in mind was the fact that many intelligent people spent a lot of time, effort and money trying to prove that the Earth was flat, because that was their perception of reality.

Apparently, you believe that superposition is not possible; I respect that. However, I suspect that what we might interpret as superposition could be an indication that there is more to reality than we have as yet discovered.

“Welcome back KG, only a few days ago I was wondering what had become of you.”

I never really left. I’ve been keeping up with the reading but I’ve been too busy to sustain any lengthy intertwines. It would be frustrating to only half participate.

“The 'inability to reconcile' existed from the very beginning that I think both are fundamentally wrong.”


I think that GR may not be perfect but stands on solid footing and can’t be discarded outright. QM is due (eventually) for a massive overhaul but still…the concept is correct i.e. The smallest happening in the shortest amount of time.

Pleased to meet you finiter.

Kirby, Glad to hear you have been keeping an eye on what we have been up to. I'd hate to think you had missed all our silly doggerel.

Square bananas perhaps...but I found the "bossanova" experiment quite interesting.

Thank you, KG. We will have some good time discussing.

The space-time makes GR appear to be out side the domain of physics. Similarly, the concept that 'bodies can remain in two forms at the same instant' makes QM also a metaphysical concept. So I am for Newtonian concepts. In my opinion, we have to dump QM and GR, and have to try to incorporate 'the new findings' in the Newtonian concepts, and overhaul it.

I will change your words a little: "Many intelligent people spend a lot of time, effort and money trying to prove that 'the QM is right', because that is their perception of reality". In my opinion, they are likely to fail like the Alchemists.

In my opinion, we evolved(are born)here, we are not 'created' to exist here. It is the laws of physics that decided our evolution. And, it is again the laws of physics that decide how we observe. Our sense organs and brains are designed to understand the reality. So our basic interpretations of the world are not 'individual dependent', it represents the general truth. So, space, time and matter, (as these appears to us) are real.

Isn't it easy to let words like "designed" slip into scientific explanations?

Of course our interpretations are influenced by our history, almost certainly by our "common history", but I would argue with any denial that our interpretations, at a personal level, are "individual".

Let's maintain a distinction between phylosophy and science.

'Designed by evolution' is what I meant, or maybe it is more proper to state it as 'determined by evolution' (I view the laws of physics to be deterministic). Our primary interpretations are regarding mass, space and time (the size of the object, the distance from us and the time required to reach there), and these have something common with other animals. These(though relative)are rather 'individual independent'.

I think what you have said is about secondary interpretations (due to our consciousness). These, of course, are individual dependent and will be influenced by our history.

Good luck trying to dump GR and QM :-)

You can sort of patch around newtonian physics with MOND (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics) which initially sort of held out some hope but recent observations cause it problems

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/relativity-and-dark-matter-survive-a-redshif-test.ars => DOI: 10.1038/nature10445 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7366/full/nature10445.html)

Will give you the observational problem for MOND.


I am not sure how you would put QM into such an enviroment?

MOND is an attempt to explain some observed phenomenon. Whether it is now out or not, I am not sure. But as an attempt to modify Newtonian mechanics, I regard it as a worthwhile step. I was wondering whether the absence of a central mass in a galaxy could explain that phenomenon, but I could not arrive at any conclusion.

The drawback of SR/GR (in my opinion)is that it takes space-time as a physical concept. Take space and time as absolute, and space-time as a mathematical concept to describe the time varying space. The equations of SR/GR will still remain the same.

Similarly, the drawback of QM is that it puts forth the 'instant-duality'. Remove this, and the probability equations of QM, I think, will remain the same.

Same is the case with Newtons laws. The laws are now being used as physical laws. So a change in approach, ie, regard Newtons laws, SR/GR and QM as mathematical laws, and we will get a Physics which is Newtonian, but of course with some modifications. This may eventually lead to the theory of everything.