Quantum theory and gravity

[pioneer]

I often wondered why quantum theory has a problem integrating gravity. I would like to propose something for discussion, which is another way to look at this lack of interface. This suggestions reflects, not a problem with quantum theory, but a problem with a fundamental assumption.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but relativistic mass is not affected by gravity. It is a SR affect and not a GR affect. The particle data we achieve in particle accelerators is a combination of GR mass and SR mass, such that gravity can only affect the GR aspect. Does the lack of interface between quantum theory and gravity a result of the particle states created in the accelerators partially due to the acceleration process and the influence of SR mass? In other words, the particle spectrums and substructure created is more than what is inside the GR mass of stationary particles and therefore will never interface with gravity, because it represents extra SR mass that is not part of gravity, but is added by the experiment.

 

Quantum theory also appears to show that even if we add extra SR mass to make synthetic states, these states still follow the principls of the other three forces, but being synthetic due to SR, will never directly interface gravity. Is it possible to reverse engineer this and define a reasonable gravity interface to determine percentage synthetic? In other words, maybe the interface for gravity can only reach a given percentage based on how much SR mass and synthetic added.

[Tsadi]

Don't worry about it. More and more physicists are starting to already believe there is something wrong with the fundamental side of gravity.

[swansont]

What is a synthetic state?

[pioneer]

What is a synthetic state?

 

Let us start with a proton. We call the rest proton X. We accelerate the proton to near C and give it relativistic mass Y. The entire system going into the collision is X+Y. This composite gives off particles. We then say these particles are what are inside X. The reality is these particles are what are inside X+Y.

 

If we are concerned with gravity only the particles or particles fragments associated with X are of any value. But since we say, what is in X+Y equals what is in X, we have extra synthetic stuff that will have little to do with gravity. We can't equate it because we added extra particles that would not be found in just X.

 

I am not saying the particles or aspects of particles made from Y are not of interest. It shows quantum theory is useful under X and X+Y conditions for the other three forces. Just maybe gravity doesn't work with Y.

[swansont]

Let us start with a proton. We call the rest proton X. We accelerate the proton to near C and give it relativistic mass Y. The entire system going into the collision is X+Y. This composite gives off particles. We then say these particles are what are inside X. The reality is these particles are what are inside X+Y.

 

That's not the reality. When particles collide they can create particles by converting their kinetic energy into mass energy. The e.g. shower of mesons you get when colliding protons are not particles that were inside the protons.

[Quartile]

So is mass stored, potential energy? Other than antiparticle collision, are there any natural examples of conversion from mass to kinetic energy?

[npts2020]

So is mass stored, potential energy? Other than antiparticle collision, are there any natural examples of conversion from mass to kinetic energy?

 

Some mass is potential energy (e=mc2), particularly unstable isotopes. Every time an atom undergoes radioactive decay, the particles emitted have kinetic energy equal to the change in mass.

[Sovereign]

That's not the reality. When particles collide they can create particles by converting their kinetic energy into mass energy. The e.g. shower of mesons you get when colliding protons are not particles that were inside the protons.

 

Particles are created by converting energy?

To create a particle it would have to gain length, width, and height. How is this possible?

[Mr Skeptic]

Sovereign, at the small level, the size of an object is not well defined. All objects have a wavelength, which is larger for objects with less momentum. Photons have wavelength, electrons have wavelength, molecules have wavelength.

[swansont]

Particles are created by converting energy?

To create a particle it would have to gain length, width, and height. How is this possible?

 

Those are not conserved quantities. "How is this possible?" is an ill-formed question. It is not forbidden, i.e. not impossible, so it happens.