Is quantizing acceleration equivalent to quantizing gravity?












6














It's been said that gravity is locally equivalent to acceleration. It is also been said, that we need to quantize gravity. But doesn't that imply that this would have to be equivalent to quantizing acceleration?










share|cite|improve this question





























    6














    It's been said that gravity is locally equivalent to acceleration. It is also been said, that we need to quantize gravity. But doesn't that imply that this would have to be equivalent to quantizing acceleration?










    share|cite|improve this question



























      6












      6








      6


      1





      It's been said that gravity is locally equivalent to acceleration. It is also been said, that we need to quantize gravity. But doesn't that imply that this would have to be equivalent to quantizing acceleration?










      share|cite|improve this question















      It's been said that gravity is locally equivalent to acceleration. It is also been said, that we need to quantize gravity. But doesn't that imply that this would have to be equivalent to quantizing acceleration?







      reference-frames acceleration quantum-gravity equivalence-principle






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 19 at 22:40









      Qmechanic

      101k121821140




      101k121821140










      asked Dec 19 at 21:09









      asmaier

      3,9633174




      3,9633174






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          10














          No, that betrays a misunderstanding of what "quantizing" means.



          The usual definition of quantization is the conversion of continuous values to discrete values, but that's not what it means in physics. In physics, quantization is the process of turning a classical theory into a quantum one, which is a far more subtle process. And once you do have a quantum theory, not everything in that theory needs to be discrete. For example, electric charge is discrete, but mass isn't; the energy of an electron bound to a proton is discrete, but the energy of a free electron isn't. Saying that quantum mechanics is just classical mechanics with discrete values is like saying coding is just writing in English with a monospaced font.



          The problem with quantizing gravity is more specific. It has nothing to do with quantizing particles in a classical gravitational field, which might be what you mean by quantizing acceleration; we already know how to do that perfectly well. (It also does not lead to discrete values of acceleration.) The problem is giving the gravitational field itself quantum dynamics.



          You might think this is unnecessary because gravitational fields are "fictitious", as they are "actually" just accelerations by the equivalence principle. But that's getting the equivalence principle backwards. The point is that a gravitational field is only locally equivalent to an acceleration, but a position-dependent gravitational field isn't. These tidal effects are described in terms of the curvature of spacetime in general relativity, which is physical and cannot be regarded as fictitious.



          One might also think that we could treat spacetime classically while quantizing everything else. But Einstein's equations relate the stress-energy tensor (of quantum matter) to the curvature. If the stress-energy tensor can be in superposition, and the curvature can't, how can this make sense?



          Once we do give the gravitational field quantum dynamics, the problem is that gravitational interactions grow stronger at high energies. In order to correctly describe the behavior of gravitons, we have to allow additional terms in Einstein's equations as the energy goes up. When the energy reaches the Planck energy, infinitely many terms become important simultaneously. Since we don't know how big these terms are, we can't make any predictions at this scale. We need an ultraviolet completion, a larger theory that determines all of these terms at once. That's the kind of thing a quantum gravity theorist is looking for.






          share|cite|improve this answer



















          • 2




            @knzhou, please let me know if you have written any books on physics- if so I would like to read them -NN
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 19 at 23:02






          • 1




            @nielsnielsen I'm flattered, but I'm just a master's student with no authority to write a book! I do have ~1200 pages of notes on my website though they're rather terse. They also list all the books I've read, if you want to get the same background.
            – knzhou
            Dec 19 at 23:28










          • I commend you on the clarity of your exposition. Please consider writing up your perspectives and thoughts in book form. -NN
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 20 at 1:25










          • So, if I understand you correctly, we do expect quantum gravity to only give corrections to tidal forces. But locally even a theory of quantum gravity will be equivalent to acceleration. So locally we won‘t see any quantum corrections, right?
            – asmaier
            Dec 20 at 8:18










          • @knzhou Okay, it's much clearer now, I've removed those comments now.
            – opa
            Dec 20 at 14:16













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f449400%2fis-quantizing-acceleration-equivalent-to-quantizing-gravity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          10














          No, that betrays a misunderstanding of what "quantizing" means.



          The usual definition of quantization is the conversion of continuous values to discrete values, but that's not what it means in physics. In physics, quantization is the process of turning a classical theory into a quantum one, which is a far more subtle process. And once you do have a quantum theory, not everything in that theory needs to be discrete. For example, electric charge is discrete, but mass isn't; the energy of an electron bound to a proton is discrete, but the energy of a free electron isn't. Saying that quantum mechanics is just classical mechanics with discrete values is like saying coding is just writing in English with a monospaced font.



          The problem with quantizing gravity is more specific. It has nothing to do with quantizing particles in a classical gravitational field, which might be what you mean by quantizing acceleration; we already know how to do that perfectly well. (It also does not lead to discrete values of acceleration.) The problem is giving the gravitational field itself quantum dynamics.



          You might think this is unnecessary because gravitational fields are "fictitious", as they are "actually" just accelerations by the equivalence principle. But that's getting the equivalence principle backwards. The point is that a gravitational field is only locally equivalent to an acceleration, but a position-dependent gravitational field isn't. These tidal effects are described in terms of the curvature of spacetime in general relativity, which is physical and cannot be regarded as fictitious.



          One might also think that we could treat spacetime classically while quantizing everything else. But Einstein's equations relate the stress-energy tensor (of quantum matter) to the curvature. If the stress-energy tensor can be in superposition, and the curvature can't, how can this make sense?



          Once we do give the gravitational field quantum dynamics, the problem is that gravitational interactions grow stronger at high energies. In order to correctly describe the behavior of gravitons, we have to allow additional terms in Einstein's equations as the energy goes up. When the energy reaches the Planck energy, infinitely many terms become important simultaneously. Since we don't know how big these terms are, we can't make any predictions at this scale. We need an ultraviolet completion, a larger theory that determines all of these terms at once. That's the kind of thing a quantum gravity theorist is looking for.






          share|cite|improve this answer



















          • 2




            @knzhou, please let me know if you have written any books on physics- if so I would like to read them -NN
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 19 at 23:02






          • 1




            @nielsnielsen I'm flattered, but I'm just a master's student with no authority to write a book! I do have ~1200 pages of notes on my website though they're rather terse. They also list all the books I've read, if you want to get the same background.
            – knzhou
            Dec 19 at 23:28










          • I commend you on the clarity of your exposition. Please consider writing up your perspectives and thoughts in book form. -NN
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 20 at 1:25










          • So, if I understand you correctly, we do expect quantum gravity to only give corrections to tidal forces. But locally even a theory of quantum gravity will be equivalent to acceleration. So locally we won‘t see any quantum corrections, right?
            – asmaier
            Dec 20 at 8:18










          • @knzhou Okay, it's much clearer now, I've removed those comments now.
            – opa
            Dec 20 at 14:16


















          10














          No, that betrays a misunderstanding of what "quantizing" means.



          The usual definition of quantization is the conversion of continuous values to discrete values, but that's not what it means in physics. In physics, quantization is the process of turning a classical theory into a quantum one, which is a far more subtle process. And once you do have a quantum theory, not everything in that theory needs to be discrete. For example, electric charge is discrete, but mass isn't; the energy of an electron bound to a proton is discrete, but the energy of a free electron isn't. Saying that quantum mechanics is just classical mechanics with discrete values is like saying coding is just writing in English with a monospaced font.



          The problem with quantizing gravity is more specific. It has nothing to do with quantizing particles in a classical gravitational field, which might be what you mean by quantizing acceleration; we already know how to do that perfectly well. (It also does not lead to discrete values of acceleration.) The problem is giving the gravitational field itself quantum dynamics.



          You might think this is unnecessary because gravitational fields are "fictitious", as they are "actually" just accelerations by the equivalence principle. But that's getting the equivalence principle backwards. The point is that a gravitational field is only locally equivalent to an acceleration, but a position-dependent gravitational field isn't. These tidal effects are described in terms of the curvature of spacetime in general relativity, which is physical and cannot be regarded as fictitious.



          One might also think that we could treat spacetime classically while quantizing everything else. But Einstein's equations relate the stress-energy tensor (of quantum matter) to the curvature. If the stress-energy tensor can be in superposition, and the curvature can't, how can this make sense?



          Once we do give the gravitational field quantum dynamics, the problem is that gravitational interactions grow stronger at high energies. In order to correctly describe the behavior of gravitons, we have to allow additional terms in Einstein's equations as the energy goes up. When the energy reaches the Planck energy, infinitely many terms become important simultaneously. Since we don't know how big these terms are, we can't make any predictions at this scale. We need an ultraviolet completion, a larger theory that determines all of these terms at once. That's the kind of thing a quantum gravity theorist is looking for.






          share|cite|improve this answer



















          • 2




            @knzhou, please let me know if you have written any books on physics- if so I would like to read them -NN
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 19 at 23:02






          • 1




            @nielsnielsen I'm flattered, but I'm just a master's student with no authority to write a book! I do have ~1200 pages of notes on my website though they're rather terse. They also list all the books I've read, if you want to get the same background.
            – knzhou
            Dec 19 at 23:28










          • I commend you on the clarity of your exposition. Please consider writing up your perspectives and thoughts in book form. -NN
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 20 at 1:25










          • So, if I understand you correctly, we do expect quantum gravity to only give corrections to tidal forces. But locally even a theory of quantum gravity will be equivalent to acceleration. So locally we won‘t see any quantum corrections, right?
            – asmaier
            Dec 20 at 8:18










          • @knzhou Okay, it's much clearer now, I've removed those comments now.
            – opa
            Dec 20 at 14:16
















          10












          10








          10






          No, that betrays a misunderstanding of what "quantizing" means.



          The usual definition of quantization is the conversion of continuous values to discrete values, but that's not what it means in physics. In physics, quantization is the process of turning a classical theory into a quantum one, which is a far more subtle process. And once you do have a quantum theory, not everything in that theory needs to be discrete. For example, electric charge is discrete, but mass isn't; the energy of an electron bound to a proton is discrete, but the energy of a free electron isn't. Saying that quantum mechanics is just classical mechanics with discrete values is like saying coding is just writing in English with a monospaced font.



          The problem with quantizing gravity is more specific. It has nothing to do with quantizing particles in a classical gravitational field, which might be what you mean by quantizing acceleration; we already know how to do that perfectly well. (It also does not lead to discrete values of acceleration.) The problem is giving the gravitational field itself quantum dynamics.



          You might think this is unnecessary because gravitational fields are "fictitious", as they are "actually" just accelerations by the equivalence principle. But that's getting the equivalence principle backwards. The point is that a gravitational field is only locally equivalent to an acceleration, but a position-dependent gravitational field isn't. These tidal effects are described in terms of the curvature of spacetime in general relativity, which is physical and cannot be regarded as fictitious.



          One might also think that we could treat spacetime classically while quantizing everything else. But Einstein's equations relate the stress-energy tensor (of quantum matter) to the curvature. If the stress-energy tensor can be in superposition, and the curvature can't, how can this make sense?



          Once we do give the gravitational field quantum dynamics, the problem is that gravitational interactions grow stronger at high energies. In order to correctly describe the behavior of gravitons, we have to allow additional terms in Einstein's equations as the energy goes up. When the energy reaches the Planck energy, infinitely many terms become important simultaneously. Since we don't know how big these terms are, we can't make any predictions at this scale. We need an ultraviolet completion, a larger theory that determines all of these terms at once. That's the kind of thing a quantum gravity theorist is looking for.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          No, that betrays a misunderstanding of what "quantizing" means.



          The usual definition of quantization is the conversion of continuous values to discrete values, but that's not what it means in physics. In physics, quantization is the process of turning a classical theory into a quantum one, which is a far more subtle process. And once you do have a quantum theory, not everything in that theory needs to be discrete. For example, electric charge is discrete, but mass isn't; the energy of an electron bound to a proton is discrete, but the energy of a free electron isn't. Saying that quantum mechanics is just classical mechanics with discrete values is like saying coding is just writing in English with a monospaced font.



          The problem with quantizing gravity is more specific. It has nothing to do with quantizing particles in a classical gravitational field, which might be what you mean by quantizing acceleration; we already know how to do that perfectly well. (It also does not lead to discrete values of acceleration.) The problem is giving the gravitational field itself quantum dynamics.



          You might think this is unnecessary because gravitational fields are "fictitious", as they are "actually" just accelerations by the equivalence principle. But that's getting the equivalence principle backwards. The point is that a gravitational field is only locally equivalent to an acceleration, but a position-dependent gravitational field isn't. These tidal effects are described in terms of the curvature of spacetime in general relativity, which is physical and cannot be regarded as fictitious.



          One might also think that we could treat spacetime classically while quantizing everything else. But Einstein's equations relate the stress-energy tensor (of quantum matter) to the curvature. If the stress-energy tensor can be in superposition, and the curvature can't, how can this make sense?



          Once we do give the gravitational field quantum dynamics, the problem is that gravitational interactions grow stronger at high energies. In order to correctly describe the behavior of gravitons, we have to allow additional terms in Einstein's equations as the energy goes up. When the energy reaches the Planck energy, infinitely many terms become important simultaneously. Since we don't know how big these terms are, we can't make any predictions at this scale. We need an ultraviolet completion, a larger theory that determines all of these terms at once. That's the kind of thing a quantum gravity theorist is looking for.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 19 at 23:23

























          answered Dec 19 at 21:42









          knzhou

          40.9k11114198




          40.9k11114198








          • 2




            @knzhou, please let me know if you have written any books on physics- if so I would like to read them -NN
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 19 at 23:02






          • 1




            @nielsnielsen I'm flattered, but I'm just a master's student with no authority to write a book! I do have ~1200 pages of notes on my website though they're rather terse. They also list all the books I've read, if you want to get the same background.
            – knzhou
            Dec 19 at 23:28










          • I commend you on the clarity of your exposition. Please consider writing up your perspectives and thoughts in book form. -NN
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 20 at 1:25










          • So, if I understand you correctly, we do expect quantum gravity to only give corrections to tidal forces. But locally even a theory of quantum gravity will be equivalent to acceleration. So locally we won‘t see any quantum corrections, right?
            – asmaier
            Dec 20 at 8:18










          • @knzhou Okay, it's much clearer now, I've removed those comments now.
            – opa
            Dec 20 at 14:16
















          • 2




            @knzhou, please let me know if you have written any books on physics- if so I would like to read them -NN
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 19 at 23:02






          • 1




            @nielsnielsen I'm flattered, but I'm just a master's student with no authority to write a book! I do have ~1200 pages of notes on my website though they're rather terse. They also list all the books I've read, if you want to get the same background.
            – knzhou
            Dec 19 at 23:28










          • I commend you on the clarity of your exposition. Please consider writing up your perspectives and thoughts in book form. -NN
            – niels nielsen
            Dec 20 at 1:25










          • So, if I understand you correctly, we do expect quantum gravity to only give corrections to tidal forces. But locally even a theory of quantum gravity will be equivalent to acceleration. So locally we won‘t see any quantum corrections, right?
            – asmaier
            Dec 20 at 8:18










          • @knzhou Okay, it's much clearer now, I've removed those comments now.
            – opa
            Dec 20 at 14:16










          2




          2




          @knzhou, please let me know if you have written any books on physics- if so I would like to read them -NN
          – niels nielsen
          Dec 19 at 23:02




          @knzhou, please let me know if you have written any books on physics- if so I would like to read them -NN
          – niels nielsen
          Dec 19 at 23:02




          1




          1




          @nielsnielsen I'm flattered, but I'm just a master's student with no authority to write a book! I do have ~1200 pages of notes on my website though they're rather terse. They also list all the books I've read, if you want to get the same background.
          – knzhou
          Dec 19 at 23:28




          @nielsnielsen I'm flattered, but I'm just a master's student with no authority to write a book! I do have ~1200 pages of notes on my website though they're rather terse. They also list all the books I've read, if you want to get the same background.
          – knzhou
          Dec 19 at 23:28












          I commend you on the clarity of your exposition. Please consider writing up your perspectives and thoughts in book form. -NN
          – niels nielsen
          Dec 20 at 1:25




          I commend you on the clarity of your exposition. Please consider writing up your perspectives and thoughts in book form. -NN
          – niels nielsen
          Dec 20 at 1:25












          So, if I understand you correctly, we do expect quantum gravity to only give corrections to tidal forces. But locally even a theory of quantum gravity will be equivalent to acceleration. So locally we won‘t see any quantum corrections, right?
          – asmaier
          Dec 20 at 8:18




          So, if I understand you correctly, we do expect quantum gravity to only give corrections to tidal forces. But locally even a theory of quantum gravity will be equivalent to acceleration. So locally we won‘t see any quantum corrections, right?
          – asmaier
          Dec 20 at 8:18












          @knzhou Okay, it's much clearer now, I've removed those comments now.
          – opa
          Dec 20 at 14:16






          @knzhou Okay, it's much clearer now, I've removed those comments now.
          – opa
          Dec 20 at 14:16




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f449400%2fis-quantizing-acceleration-equivalent-to-quantizing-gravity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

          Alcedinidae

          RAC Tourist Trophy