Re: Are either GR or QFT more fundamental than the other?
- From: baez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John Baez)
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:22:46 +0000 (UTC)
In article <1144640507.697351.267050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<Starbles@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why does everybody assume that the gravitational field must be
quantized in some sense?
How do you want to couple the spacetime curvature to the matter
fields when the former is classical and the latter (we know) is
quantum? You can couple the curvature to the *expectation value*
of the stress-energy tensor of the matter fields, but this has
been studied and is known to lead to problems: a rock in a superposition
of two position states would have a gravitational field like that of
two smaller rocks.
Why not simply derive a spacetime independent
version of the Schrodinger equation, and derive an indeterministic
gravitational field based on the indeterminism of other quantum fields?
Wouldn't that be much simpler?
Go for it!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Are either GR or QFT more fundamental than the other?
- From: markwh04
- Re: Are either GR or QFT more fundamental than the other?
- From: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
- Re: Are either GR or QFT more fundamental than the other?
- From: tryggth
- Re: Are either GR or QFT more fundamental than the other?
- Prev by Date: Re: Distribution of slope in a terrain sample
- Next by Date: Re: Anomalous movement resistance in a spinning gyroscope
- Previous by thread: Re: Anomalous movement resistance in a spinning gyroscope
- Next by thread: Re: Are either GR or QFT more fundamental than the other?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
