In a new arXiv paper entitled “What are we missing in our search for quantum gravity?,” Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
summarizes various approaches to a theory of quantum gravity, lamenting that
Despite
enormous effort from thousands of dedicated researchers over a century, the
search for the quantum theory of gravity has not yet arrived at a satisfactory
conclusion.
At the end of the paper he seems to give up on
all of the current approaches.
In light
of these reflections we might consider novel strategies for searching for
quantum gravity. One is to stop asking for a specific model of quantum spacetime
but, instead, to search for general principles which might constrain the choice
of models to investigate. That is, following Einstein, we seek a principle theory, rather than
a constitutive theory.
Wrong, Lee! What you are missing is precisely a
“specific model of quantum spacetime.” I’ve been saying this for three years on
this blog, starting here. If you had that model, which,
by the way, is readily available, being the main subject of this blog, it would
be obvious that trying to merge quantum mechanics and general relativity is
impossible, as I explained here. Your fundamental problem is
that you don’t know that spacetime is a quantum field, and that gravity and the
other forces arise from quantum mechanical interactions among the quanta of
spacetime, which I call points. I’ve
submitted papers on this subject to journals (rejected) and I’ve made it known
to prominent physicists (ignored).
So good luck on your road to quantum gravity,
but watch out for a couple of stumbling blocks. The answers you’re looking for
don’t fit the current paradigm, which you would probably insist is the only paradigm. Although you can do the
physics without it, for a full understanding of points and their origin, you
have to accept that consciousness is fundamental, which is anathema to most
scientists. Just sayin’.
