Royal Holloway University of London's  Joseph Aziz and Richard Howl, have reported a conclusion that have some people interested:

Classical gravity may entangle matter, new study claims

Quote:Gravity might be able to quantum-entangle particles even if the gravitational field itself is classical. That is the conclusion of a new study by Joseph Aziz and Richard Howl at Royal Holloway University of London. This challenges a popular view that such entanglement would necessarily imply that gravity must be quantized. This could be important in the ongoing attempt to develop a theory of quantum gravity that unites quantum mechanics with Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

“When you try to quantize the gravitational interaction in exactly the same way we tried to mathematically quantize the other forces, you end up with mathematically inconsistent results – you end up with infinities in your calculations that you can’t do anything about,” Howl tells Physics World.

With "quantum gravity" and "quantized gravity" as the grand prize... this is not good news.

Or am I wrong?

(11-16-2025, 08:54 PM)Maxmars Wrote: With "quantum gravity" and "quantized gravity" as the grand prize... this is not good news.

Why?

(11-16-2025, 08:54 PM)Maxmars Wrote: Royal Holloway University of London's  Joseph Aziz and Richard Howl, have reported a conclusion that has some people interested:

Classical gravity may entangle matter, new study claims

With "quantum gravity" and "quantized gravity" as the grand prize... this is not good news.

Or am I wrong?

Is the math really mathing?

AI:

"Relationship with Empirical Sciences
While mathematics provides the language and tools necessary for formulating scientific theories and models, it does not engage in empirical validation like the natural sciences do. Natural sciences, such as physics and biology, rely on observation, experimentation, and the formulation of testable hypotheses to understand the physical world. In contrast, mathematics can exist independently of physical phenomena, allowing for the exploration of abstract concepts without direct empirical evidence."

(11-17-2025, 07:17 AM)ArMaP Wrote: Why?

Because there are entire career paths competing to successfully complete a "quantum gravity" that satisfies all models...

But if Quantum gravity was not the "magic" element of the theory after all, they may as well have asked an LLM to generate it.

Classic gravity might not be the answer to all. 
This effort to make our definitions meet a theoretical model are great and all,
but the myopia in the minutiae is daunting.

At least this idea seeks harmony with the model... not DEMANDS 'quantum' mechanical theory as a "delineates reality" function, unmeasured but certain, because of someone's mathematical finesse.

Measure twice, cut once.
Obtuse? Yes... but I love the topic anyway. 

Clearly, I am no scientist.

(11-17-2025, 07:29 AM)quintessentone Wrote: Is the math really mathing?

AI:

"Relationship with Empirical Sciences
While mathematics provides the language and tools necessary for formulating scientific theories and models, it does not engage in empirical validation like the natural sciences do. Natural sciences, such as physics and biology, rely on observation, experimentation, and the formulation of testable hypotheses to understand the physical world. In contrast, mathematics can exist independently of physical phenomena, allowing for the exploration of abstract concepts without direct empirical evidence."

I'm not as well-gifted when it comes to these matters, but I would offer that it appears the "math" is not "mathing."

Re-visiting the natural observational efforts, and the new applications of materials appearing to conform to 
the model, must at some point be carried out.   

We can theorize anything.

But I get it... this is a matter of mathematical 'beauty."

The main issue with any of these theories is that they are based on a whole lot of unproven models and assumptions. The models could be wrong. Einsteins theories, whilst elegant and apparently accurate have led to a lot of dead ends. It’s that because he was right, or because he was wrong. We don’t actually know enough to know. 

it’s like Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Both solutions to explain problems arising from models, assumptions and mathematics. All likely wrong, as it appears neither DM or DE actually exist.  We could very well be hobbled by fanatic adherence to models and concepts that are just wrong.

I agree. I never really believed in the dark matter concept, it seems like they just invented it to make the equations work.

If you consider that the so-called 'virtual flux' has actually been recorded, I.E. particles just 'appear' and 'disappear' out of nowhere, and then consider the humungous amount of energy that the mass of each particle represents, it seems obvious to me that this is nature's way of keeping the whole universe in balance.

Too much energy in this sector? Just convert it into particles, and vice-versa.
This seems to me like a perfectly logical manner of keeping the whole energy / mass system in equilibrium.

In my gravity research i have found that, given a hefty enough electrostatic push, a nucleus can be forced to move in a given direction.
This is not an acceleration, it is instant.

The process is also reversible. Dielectric stress = gravity wave and a gravity wave = dielectric stress.

(11-16-2025, 08:54 PM)Maxmars Wrote: Royal Holloway University of London's  Joseph Aziz and Richard Howl, have reported a conclusion that has some people interested:

Classical gravity may entangle matter, new study claims

With "quantum gravity" and "quantized gravity" as the grand prize... this is not good news.

Or am I wrong?

Or is the math wrong or misguided? What's with that Neil de Grasse back then calling everyone stupid. LOL Let's hope he has mellowed out somewhat today.

"“Are you chasing a ghost or is the collection of you just too stupid to figure this out?” as Neil deGrasse Tyson quipped back in 2011. This new model is an attempt to skip all that.
 Going forward, there’s a lot of work to be done before we know if the budding theory bears fruit.
“Given the current pace of theoretical and observational advancements, it could take a few decades to make the first experimental breakthroughs that give us direct evidence of quantum gravity effects,” Mikko Partanen, the study’s other author told Live Science. “Indirect evidence through advanced observations could be obtained earlier.”
 
Still, it offers physicists a bold new trail to blaze in the long-running search to unite quantum physics with the theory of gravity — the possibility of unraveling the tangled secrets of the known universe."

Physicists Say We Were Completely Wrong About How Gravity Works

(01-18-2026, 10:06 AM)quintessentone Wrote: What's with that Neil de Grasse back then calling everyone stupid. LOL Let's hope he has mellowed out somewhat today.

Is "nerdissist" a word?

(01-18-2026, 10:10 AM)UltraBudgie Wrote: Is "nerdissist" a word?

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...186e40.png]

LOL Only on the lips? Now who is hyper-focused on one thing Neil? That was in 2013, let's hope he has seen the mirror's many dimensions.