Warp wrote:
>   In this particular case, however, I have the feeling that an observed
> phenomenon (gravity) is tried to forcefully be fit into an existing theory
> (quantum mechanics) even though it's contradicting it.

The basic "faith" of science is that physical laws are consistent 
everywhere, everywhen, etc.  (Except perhaps for singularities like black 
holes or the big bang or whatever.)  The assumption, in other words, that 
the *true* theory of gravity is consistent with the *true* theory of QM is 
taken on faith.

Since QM is much, much easier to measure, we have much, much better evidence 
that it's correct at the energies well below LHC levels. Since QM seems very 
correct, the assumption is that at levels where we can't currently measure 
gravity, it's likely to act like QM does.

> the theory is that "everything must be quantized", and they are observing
> that "gravity doesn't seem to be quantized", and rather than revising the
> theory they are trying to forcefully make gravity quantized to fit the
> theory.

They *are* revising the theory. It's the theory of gravity they're revising.

I think there are also constant revisions of QM being proposed that 
harmonize it with gravity. I've seen people suggest that gravity is caused 
by the nearness of QM "multi-worlds", or that string theory predictions that 
relate the two, etc.

> and devising a new theory which does fit observed phenomena.

In what way is quantum gravity not devising a new theory? The problem you're 
seeing, I think, is that it's easier to measure QM effects than gravity 
effects, since gravity is many orders of magnitude weaker than the weakest 
QM interaction.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message