Why are general relativity and quantum mechanics incompatible? Why can't they both be valid?

>conflating validity and soundness without a hint of irony
>calls someone else a moron
I don't even

Maybe you simply can't do that,though. Maybe a "theory of everything" doesn't exist, because the microcosmos simply follows a different set of rules, than the macro one.

The problem with TOEs isn't non-existence, its that the very act of generalizing makes it more difficult to pick our particular universe out of the set of universes described by the TOE. Which means that if we ever devise a TOE that is correct we will be unable to prove it is correct.

A pedagogical explanation for the non-renormalizability of gravity: arxiv.org/abs/0709.3555

What? It would be correct if it correctly predicts the behaviour of both microcosmos and macrocosmos. No reason to overthink things.

because it's all a bunch of made-up shit

How edgy.

how would that make them incompatible? if everything was made up it would be super easy to combine them

idk you probably can i was just memeing you

i was just memeing i actually think u can, i think qm and relativity are incompatible because einsteins "gravity cant be renormalized"

PHYSICS BTFO!

lol pretty much

so in other words you have no idea what theories are

they are both valid, just not in the same distance scales
very small scales QM is valid and GR breaks down
very large scales GR is valid and QM has nothing to say because it ignores gravity which can only be safely ignored on small scales

No, it's impossible for them both to be valid.

you can call them approximations of something deeper, but they can still be valid just like newton's mechanics is still valid for small speeds and small spacetime curvature

>safely ignored
>"""""safely"""""

you come up with a theory that better predicts subatomic processes than QM, the thing has been tested billions or more times by now in accelerators

>tested billions or more times by now
Actually it gets tested 600 million times every second the LHC is running, ignoring all other particle accelerators, and scientists are fucking hoping to find any indication QM is wrong because they know stuff is missing from the picture

they are both valid,
its just that General relativity breaks down on microscopic scales

So then it's not completely valid.

It all makes sense if you just drop materialism and accept that reality is a wave that doesn't exist until observed and consciousness is more fundamental to existence than matter/energy.

Both are valid. What makes them not?

Only if particles have zero size.

Particles of zero size collapse into black holes and shit hits the fan, because event horizon is impossible (infinity). That's why planck length - it's schwarzschild radius of a particle.

All models are wrong but some are useful.

They are both useful.

Because the models don't work at certain scales. So they're not accurate descriptions of the universe.

they are extremely accurate descriptions, QM for small scales, GR for bigger than microscopic scales

they are different models that describe different phenomena, both are incomplete because we are not gods, I don't accept this is a hard thing to understand.

non classical models assume there is a limit to energy variation, classical models do not and therefore they do not predict the same things. Even in very simple cases.

That's still false, QM allows for a continuous spectrum of energies; think about a free particle, it can have any momentum, and hence any energy.

No, which is why string theory (the only working theory of quantum gravity) predicts corrections to the Einstein field equations.

It's a nice mathematical theory, but lacks any empirical evidence. I do not despise it, though.

They can both be valid, and probably are both valid, given how thoroughly testable both are. Both are, effectively, real, with devices that depend on them working correct being used each day.

Trick is finding the mechanism that allows for translation between the two and provide a GUT/TOE. Current paths being attempted towards said include String Theory and Quantum Gravity, among others.

>they are extremely accurate
And yet somehow not *completely* accurate.

No, they are as accurate as anything we have can possibly be, within their scales - sixteen decimal places or better, making them the most accurate physical formula currently in the human toolbox. More accurate than Newtonian physics, within its limits.

It's much like how classical Newtonian physics works just fine, until you start measuring large distances or high speeds. Shit's not wrong - it just doesn't explain everything. Same with these two, they explain the shit they do explain with amazing accuracy, but get outside of that comfort zone and you gotta shift gears or stuff stops adding up.

Why can't we define a point where the collective interactions of particles start to limit certainties to 1. Then state any certainty at 1 is GR, and any certainty below that is QM.

The existence of correlations in nature stronger than those that could be accounted for in any classical theory that takes local-causality as a metaphysical assumption places quantum mechanics in tension with relativity. Quantum Field Theory is our best attempt to reconcile the two at the moment, but Haag's Theorem shows that its mathematical foundations are bunk despite the experimental success.

>Why are general relativity and quantum mechanics incompatible?

because general relativity is mathematical bullshit.

Because qauntum is instant a super position relativity is light and magentics

nah, there are people here who think planck length is somehow physically meaningful as the smallest unit of distance

But wouldn't you cut your mouth every time you put a bladed fork or spoon in it?

This is why only the spork is logical

there are both field theories, but one is probabilistic and the other is deterministic