Quantum gravity, closer to TOE?

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-wild-new-papers-suggests-space-time-is-just-a-product-of-quantum-mechanics

@sonhouse said
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-wild-new-papers-suggests-space-time-is-just-a-product-of-quantum-mechanics

I wasn't impressed by the article. It was poorly explained and it has this quote:

"And that's not even mentioning the other strange phenomena that we now have evidence for but can't quite explain - such as quantum entanglement and quantum tunnelling, where information appears to travel faster than the speed of light. How do they fit in with general relativity?"

Why does information appear to travel faster than the speed of light if it does not? Doesn't make sense.

@metal-brain said
I wasn't impressed by the article. It was poorly explained and it has this quote:

"And that's not even mentioning the other strange phenomena that we now have evidence for but can't quite explain - such as quantum entanglement and quantum tunnelling, where information appears to travel faster than the speed of light. How do they fit in with general relativity?"

Why does information appear to travel faster than the speed of light if it does not? Doesn't make sense.

There you go again. It only "Doesn't make sense" to YOU because you don't understand the relevant science (quantum machanics in this case).
It has been often claimed that quantum tunneling doesn't violate relativity because the speed limit c in relativity doesn't apply to quantum tunneling. Just like so many laws of physics, there may be loopholes and exceptions to the law even if it still GENERALLY applies and is still GENERALLY correct.
There is currently a heated dispute among physicists on whether this apparent information travelling faster than c (in quantum tunneling) is 'real' or 'illusionary'; some claiming it really does go over c while others claim, for vary subtle reasons, it is illusionary and nothing goes over c and it is just a matter of correctly defining what is going on in the quantum system to see why so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling#Faster_than_light
"...Some physicists have claimed that it is possible for spin-zero particles to travel faster than the speed of light when tunnelling.[3] This apparently violates the principle of causality, since there will be a frame of reference in which it arrives before it has left. In 1998, Francis E. Low reviewed briefly the phenomenon of zero-time tunnelling.[31] More recently experimental tunnelling time data of phonons, photons, and electrons have been published by Günter Nimtz.[32]

Other physicists, such as Herbert Winful [33], have disputed these claims. Winful argues that the wavepacket of a tunnelling particle propagates locally, so a particle can't tunnel through the barrier non-locally. Winful also argues that the experiments that are purported to show non-local propagation have been misinterpreted. In particular, the group velocity of a wavepacket does not measure its speed, but is related to the amount of time the wavepacket is stored in the barrier. ..."

Although I have studied quantum physics at university, I personally still haven't formed an opinion on which side of this dispute is correct. You CERTAINLY shouldn't form such an opinion; not with your lack of understanding.
As I once said in another thread:

"If you are truly wise, you would always recognize that many other people know things you don't.
Better and much more intelligent to humbly admit ignorance and have no opinion on something than to arrogantly base one's opinion on something on ignorance.
No opinion due to insufficient data is a perfectly valid position and often the only right one. "

@humy said
There you go again. It only "Doesn't make sense" to YOU because you don't understand the relevant science (quantum machanics in this case).
It has been often claimed that quantum tunneling doesn't violate relativity because the speed limit c in relativity doesn't apply to quantum tunneling. Just like so many laws of physics, there may be loopholes and exceptions to the law even ...[text shortened]... .
No opinion due to insufficient data is a perfectly valid position and often the only right one. "

Nothing travels faster than light. Do you think you are smarter than Einstein? You don't make sense.

@metal-brain said
Nothing travels faster than light.

And I never said/implied I had the opinion that something could travel faster than light, MORON.
I just explicitly said that there is currently a heated debate among physicists on whether quantum tunneling is a special exception to the speed of light rule (by which I mean the rule that nothing can go over c) and I also explicitly said that I have NO PERSONAL OPINION on whether it is an exception.
Exactly which part of " I personally still haven't formed an opinion" (my previous comment on that) do you not comprehend?

And I see now you HAVE formed an opinion on that despite being ignorant of the physics that physicists understand and know much more about than you do, some but not all of who claim there IS something that can travel faster than c. That shows how truly arrogantly opinionated you are.
Do you accept the scientific fact that quantum tunneling exists and, if so, can you explain in your OWN words ONLY (else that would show you understood nothing you read about it) exactly HOW it isn't an exception to the speed of light rule?

Do you think you are smarter than Einstein?

No. And yet you believe you are smarter than people like Einstein that know a lot more about physics than you do. Einstein did NOT deny that quantum tunneling existed and, depending on how he interpreted it, he may well have accepted and believed that quantum tunneling is a special albeit trivial exception to the speed of light rule. Even if he didn't, so what? Where did I say I disagree with Einstein on that? As I said, I have no opinion on that.

@humy said
And I never said/implied I had the opinion that something could travel faster than light, MORON.
I just explicitly said that there is currently a heated debate among physicists on whether quantum tunneling is a special exception to the speed of light rule (by which I mean the rule that nothing can go over c) and I also explicitly said that I have NO PERSONAL OPINION on whether ...[text shortened]... 't, so what? Where did I say I disagree with Einstein on that? As I said, I have no opinion on that.

"And I never said/implied I had the opinion that something could travel faster than light, MORON"

Then you are nitpicking over nothing since you agree with me. MORON!

@metal-brain said
Then you are nitpicking over nothing since you agree with me.

I didn't agree with you about the speed of light law but rather said I had no opinion on it.
You said "You don't make sense." to me, and NOW you say "you agree with me" to me? Its you who is making no sense.

@humy said
I didn't agree with you about the speed of light law but rather said I had no opinion on it.
You said "You don't make sense." to me, and NOW you say "you agree with me" to me? Its you who is making no sense.

So you doubt Einstein is right. That is a bit arrogant.

I seem to recall you had a different opinion on this when discussing quantum entanglement in the past. Have you changed your opinion since learning about quantum tunneling?

@metal-brain said
So you doubt Einstein is right.

No. I don't even know what Einstein's opinion was on that (speed of light law and whether quantum tunneling is an exception) so how can I doubt that his opinion was right about that when I don't know what it was? You make no sense.

I seem to recall you had a different opinion on this when discussing quantum entanglement in the past.

What 'opinion' was that then?

Have you changed your opinion since learning about quantum tunneling?

No.
I learned about quantum tunneling at university decades ago and well before I did my first post at these forums.
Next stupid question...

ANYONE

Can anyone tell me, preferably with a weblink, what Einstein's opinion was on whether quantum tunneling is an exception (albeit a trivial one) to the law that things cannot go over the speed of light and whether quantum tunneling involves information traveling faster than c?
I repeatedly tried googling that but got nowhere.

@humy
Did you see this?

Not about tunneling directly but indicative of Einstein's POV.


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/einstein-and-the-quantum/

In his day, was there even thought about QT?

@sonhouse said
@humy
Did you see this?

Not about tunneling directly but indicative of Einstein's POV.


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/einstein-and-the-quantum/

In his day, was there even thought about QT?

Apparently the phenomenon was noticed in 1927.

@AThousandYoung
Could QT somehow be related to a particle leaving our dimension and going into another dimension and then back to our world?

@humy said
No. I don't even know what Einstein's opinion was on that (speed of light law and whether quantum tunneling is an exception) so how can I doubt that his opinion was right about that when I don't know what it was? You make no sense.

I seem to recall you had a different opinion on this when discussing quantum entanglement in the past.

What 'opinion' was that t ...[text shortened]... university decades ago and well before I did my first post at these forums.
Next stupid question...

Einstein never doubted his assertion that nothing travels faster than light.

@metal-brain said
Einstein never doubted his assertion that nothing travels faster than light.

He, just like I, never doubted it for the speed of particles and objects traveled through space WITHOUT quantum tunneling, NOT necessarily for particles traveled through space via quantum tunneling, which may or may not have been viewed by him (along with many but not all modern physicists) as a possible special albeit trivial exception to that. Even if he believed that wasn't a special (albeit trivial) exception, I never said/implied that there exists such an exception, because I have no opinion on that. Which part of "no opinion" to you not understand? I have yet to found out what his opinion on that was so how can I disagree with his opinion on that when I don't know what it was? -you make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Even if I knew his opinion on that, how could I disagree with or doubt it in particular when I have no opinion on that? -"no opinion" means just that, "NO OPINION". For all we know, just like me, he may have had no opinion on that (perfectly credible. Why not?), in which case there would be no possible point of contention there anyway.
I never said/implied once he was wrong and I assert and always have asserted he was much smarter than you and I.