The Inconsistencies Between Relativity and Quantum Therory

 

The challenges to our current understandings:

Relativity tells us that if we were to capture a cube of matter exactly one Planck length to a side, the matter inside that cube will the as dense as any heart of any black hole. Quantum theory tells us that the same cube can only contain a single quanta of energy. Each statement is inconsistent with the other.

Gravity is another problem.  Neither theory can describe the mechanics of gravity in any satisfactory way. We know what it does; we can approximate its effects well enough to throw a probe past several planets without missing (think of the error rate of the width of the tip of a pin held by someone at the other end of a football oval from your eye to understand how good the ‘guesses were for the voyager missions).

Information preservation.  Information, in physics, is the distinction between things. Being able to describe one thing as distinct from another is information. In the extremes of a black hole, relativity and quantum are at odds again.  Relativity tells us that the components of everything that falls into a black hole should amalgamate into a singular, non-differentiated lump of matter, super clumps of protons, neutrons and all the other fermions in one chaotic mass. Quantum tells us that information can never be lost, otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

There are a few other things which also rub each theory, or both, the wrong way, but these are probably the biggest, or at least most notable, inconsistencies to date. I say, “to date” because as you get smaller and better models, the error rate inherent in any part of the theorem multiplies in effect. A bit like if I ask you to measure the length of a field.  About 250 meters might be a good enough answer, or even 250, 345mm for a better answer.

The problem is if you need better accuracy yet, now you have to factor in a lot of other variables to get a really accurate measurement.  The finer the accuracy required, the greater the potential for errors to profoundly affect the ultimate accuracy.

Our modern answer to measure our field is to use light and a stop-watch (well not quite a stop-watch, but you get the idea) and bounce a pulse of laser light from A to B (being the other end of the field) and back, measuring how much time it took and inferring a very accurate distance as a result, assuming good sensors and electronics.

Here is where we get to another problem, time.  Basically, time goes slower as gravity gets stronger. These are accounted for in the Lorentz Contractions which describes time dilation and contraction, depending on proximity of mass (and its resultant gravity). Satellites orbiting earth experience time faster than we do, but we still share a common ‘now’. This has to be programmed and offset continuously for the GPS satellites to stay accurate here on earth, and it is measured in seconds per earth day.

Why this happens is still argued about, but that it happens is well identified. These challenges are where QTD, I hope, will effectively fill in the gaps.

QTD aims to offer a workable hypothesis for the mechanism of gravity, information retention and the integrate reasons for the Lorentz effects, plus a little more. Before we get into this, for the non-physicist reader, I suggest the next section, parallel topics is the best next step. 

© 2012 Quantum Temporal Dynamics | Linear Time as a Force | Gravity as a Temporal Effect Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha