Re: High-level question about the relationship relativity and quantum mechanics
- From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREMOVE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:14:50 +0000 (UTC)
squarooticus wrote on Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:47:52 -0700:
I have been interested in relativity since high school, and years ago in
college read much about it during the short period in which I was a
physics major. One thing that has always bugged me is the notion that
the major goal of theoretical high-energy physics is to unify quantum
mechanics and relativity:
One of the goals. Another important goal is to unify mechanics and
thermodynamics.
I simply don't understand what this means at a
high level, and nothing I've read really addresses this in any more
detail.
Unification means to find a single theory. To unify quantum
mechanics and relativity mean to find a relativistic quantum mechanics.
This relativistic quantum mechanics would add relativistic corrections
to quantum mechanics and quantum corrections to relativistic classical
theory.
There is not known *consistent* relativistic quantum mechanics. All early
attempts to develop it failed and particle physicists developed the
relativistic quantum field theory: but neither this is a mechanics, nor
it is free of difficulties and limitations.
There is a very recent thread in sci.physics.research where this topic
is being debated.
I've had a thought recently, and I wanted to run it by some actual
physicists to see whether I'm on the right track. Just as general
relativity replaces the notion of a gravitational field generated by
masses (something the presence of which not all observers will agree on)
with one of masses warping spacetime such that geodesics are curved (in
a way that all observers *can* agree on), is a goal of unification of
the weak/strong/electromagnetic forces with general relativity an
attempt to describe a geometry of spacetime whose geodesics would be
affected by the presence of charged particles, quarks, etc.?
No. Classical spacetime is already affected by the presence of
charged particles...
The goal is to explain all interactions (this term is better than forces)
using a single theory. This can be done just when one understand that
the geometric framework of general relativity is approximated.
The geodesics of general relativity have only limited validity and now we
start to understand why 50+ years trying to quantize geometry were a fiasco.
After all,
without this, one is still left with the mess of fields that depend on
one's frame of reference (e.g., I'm guessing an electron moving in one
frame has a magnetic field, but in the electron's frame of reference it
would not have one).
Whenever I think about this, I run up against the (probably
metaphysical) question of what force-carrying particles are and how they
Force-carrying particles only make sense in approximated models of
interaction as those used in HEP. Already Feynman understood this and worked
a theory without force carriers, but he failed to develop it because
complexities he and Wheeler could not solve then.
Today the more modern theories of interactions do not use force carriers.
can possibly exist since they would have to have different fluxes in
different frames of reference, or if they are simply test-altering
phenomena that don't really exist in the conventional sense of normal
matter.
After all that, does anyone have a reference to a good readable physics
text that goes slightly deeper than the typical mass-market read, but
does not require me to learn anything about tensor products? ;-)
I do not know your level but since you do not want math, try
http://www.amazon.com/Elegant-Universe-Superstrings-Dimensions-Ultimate/dp/0375708111
for some aspects of the problem of unification of quantum field theory
and General relativity. This is rather outdated (but gives an excellent
HEP viewpoint)
Try
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Failure-Physical/dp/0465092764/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253527684&sr=1-1
and specially
http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/061891868X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
to understand why the HEP and all the superstring hype have failed in their goal
A good introduction to the problem of unification of mechanics and thermodynamics
(cited above) is given in
http://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0679776311/ref=pd_sim_b_3
and more deeply in
http://www.amazon.com/End-Certainty-Ilya-Prigogine/dp/0684837056/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253527942&sr=1-1
If you want to know some latests advanced perspectives in the subject of
unification (beyond all of above) try
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20083.html
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
.
- References:
- High-level question about the relationship relativity and quantum mechanics
- From: squarooticus
- High-level question about the relationship relativity and quantum mechanics
- Prev by Date: Re: Wilson's Theory Of BaTh and WaSh.
- Next by Date: Re: The Sagnac Effect revisited
- Previous by thread: Re: High-level question about the relationship relativity and quantum mechanics
- Next by thread: Re: High-level question about the relationship relativity and quantum mechanics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
