Slashdot Mirror


Relativity Finally Meets Quantum Theory?

prion86 writes "Physisist Fotini Markopoulou Kalamara (try saying that 3 times fast) believes she has found a way to blend relativity with quantum theory. The article can be found on the Scientific American site."

7 of 420 comments (clear)

  1. The real challenge... by Da+Fokka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The physicists who can make stuff like this comprehensible to laymen like me (like Stephen Hawkings) are the ones that really deserve a Nobel prize.

    1. Re:The real challenge... by packeteer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Essentially quantum mechanics and relativity only work if certain things are true about the universe. Those certain things conflict with each other so they cant both be correct.

      All this is really about is loop quantum gravity (LQG) vs. string theory (M-Theory). String theory has been getting closer to making the world make more sense but in this article its just another competing theory.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
  2. Metaphysical physics.... by foniksonik · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "It's a beautiful thought: we each have our own universe. But there's a lot of overlap. "We mostly see the same thing," Markopoulou Kalamara explains, and that is why we see a smooth universe despite a quantized spacetime."

    Personally I like this version of unified relativity but I'm very certain that there will be many nay-sayers concerning her metaphysical POV of light cones and spin networks as personal and individual interpretations of the universe... though it is really nice to hear a published physicist speak about overlapping collective conciousness and the impact on perceived physics of the universe.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  3. Perhaps related... by Naerbnic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This reminds me of a theory put forth by Stephen Wolfram in "A New Kind of Science" (or, possibly from someone else earlier). Imagine that the universe was actually a huge cellular automota, where every concievable location in space-time is a cell. If you start drawing lines between these cells, you get a network which is perhaps similar to the system described by the article.

    What is interesting is that this can explain the "light cone" phenomenon as well. If we are given that a cell can only be affected by those cells adjacent to it in the network, there is a theoretical fastest response of a system, depending how often the "steps" of the automota occur, and how far reaching are these network edges. For example, if we had two nodes 3 edges away from each other in this great graph, it would take at least 3 "ticks" for either cell to affect the other. Perhaps this is the concept she's using, but with actual physical concepts instead of some abstract idea of cells?

    --


    So there I was, juggling apples and small animals, when I accidentally bit into the wrong one...
  4. Re: Noether , Mitner by guybarr · · Score: 4, Interesting


    If it turns out she's right, a whole new generation of scientist will grow up thinking that women are only good with kitchen-related things

    only ignorant people think so even today.

    STW for Emma Noether's and Lisa Mitner's stories.

    (Lisa Mitner was like an underdog^2 : both a jewish and a woman
    in the pre-Nazi regime. So off the Nobel went to who was very
    probably the less-deserving coleague)

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
  5. Re:Uhm, maybe I'm being silly, but... by sunnytzu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Such a mentalistic approach to quantum mechanics is a fairly odd approach to take. For starters, it seems to be much more anthropocentric than we would usually like physics to be, indeed when Wigner first suggested a mentalistic theory of wave function collapse in the 1950s, people thought he had gone mad. The other problem is identifying exactly what kind of mind counts as an observer; does a rabbit observe? Maybe we want something more intelligent than that? How about a chimpanzee? If we start at this point, then we simply ask ourselves, how about if we made the chimpanzee a tiny bit less intelligent, an infinitessimally small amount less. Do we still want to allow him to be an observer? Of course we do. Now, let's repeat the process a near infinite number of times. What do we have? Something much less intelligent being an observer that we didn't initially want to be one. The same argument applies if we start from a human also. We have to define some threshold of intelligence, therefore. But this is hideously arbitrary and not the kind of pattern that we want to see in nature or in our scientific theories. The term observer is difficult to define, and does not, therefore, lend itself to inclusion in a well defined theory of physics. See my post on quantum observers for further complaints.

  6. Good story. by 1s44c · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd like to see more stories like this on slashdot. It would be nice if we could spend more time contemplating real science and less time bashing microsoft.

    I for one spend to much time being bitter at microsoft and not enough doing interesting things.