-6
$\begingroup$

This is my question Why do some people claim that quantum physics and General relativity theory will never get along?

This is what it called duplicate: A list of inconveniences between quantum mechanics and (general) relativity?

Can anyone show me any mathematical equation in duplicate!?


this is an example of how this site suppress certain users for some unknown reasons (But probably for political reasons) As far as I can see my question have been censored

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ To turn your question around, where in your question does it say you want an equation? Why do you assume all mathematical arguments have equations? Emilio posted a follow-up comment that asks you to clarify why you don't find "mathematically" satisfying about the duplicate. Edit that into your question, and maybe it will be reopened. $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 May 18 '17 at 18:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ And, you say political reasons. What political reasons? How can you verify that it is political? $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 May 18 '17 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ @tpg2114 Because the case is Obviously some people are sitting to attack any of my questions $\endgroup$ – Achmed May 18 '17 at 18:45
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ But how is that political? Are you talking about like, real life politics? Or "physics.SE" politics? Why do you assume people are attacking your politics and not just, say, GR questions? Or people who have less than 500 rep? Or literally anything else they could be attacking? I'm really struggling to see what kind of "political" anything could be going on here. $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 May 18 '17 at 18:47
11
$\begingroup$

The most-upvoted answer to that question is a great example of discussing mathematics as opposed to doing mathematics. The meat of the answer is

[T]he real problem is not so much nonrenormalizability as high-energy behavior inconsistent with local quantum field theory. ... With gravity, this high-energy/short-distance correspondence breaks down. ... This tells us that quantum gravity, at very high energies, is not a quantum field theory in the traditional sense.

The problem with demanding "an equation" is that each sentence in this brief summary concerns concepts that require years of study to answer in a mathematically rigorous way. What's meant by "a quantum field theory in the traditional sense?" by "nonrenormalizability"? by "high-energy/short-distance correspondence"? The existing answer does a nice job of explaining these, but much more depth is really beyond the scope of what this site can do in a single post.

Now, if you have a question about one of those specific issues, you might edit your question to clarify which one. But as it is, I think the other answer addresses your question.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Also, Tim Goodman answer links to a paper that contains several dozens of equations, if OP really wants maths. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform May 18 '17 at 21:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AccidentalFourierTransform Which if it takes dozens of equations to explain, it may fall under the "too broad" closure anyway, even if it were unique. But, we'd have to see it to know -- and it's not my area, so I probably wouldn't even know it then. $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 May 18 '17 at 22:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .