Do all of our problems uniting QM with GR have to do with what the quantum field is capable of?

Dec 23, 2019
I think it can do more than the wave only events we know of (superposition, entanglement, and tunneling).

If the quantum field doesn't care about spatial distance, does that mean every unobserved quantum wave is already everywhere throughout the quantum field? Does it explain spooky action at a distance and the delayed choice quantum eraser?
I think we are going to find the Quantum Field is a bit like the internet cloud. All Quantum waves have access to it.

Does a quantum wave, that is destined to decohere, behave differently than one that isn't?

Decay of Coherence is something that can happen to decoherent particles. Coherent matter-waves do not decay.

The reason decoherence can be predestined is because the quantum field is everywhere and already knows of the decoherece events.

Quantum waves are not physical, they are not using anything spatial. The quantum field can influence the trajectory, but it can't make it tunnel or be in superposition. Unobserved waves do not travel in spatial dimensions.

The delayed choice quantum eraser demonstrates a particle of a pair landing on its final panel first, knowing if it's entangled brother will decohere in its path.
Unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity requires reconciling their absolute and relative notions of time. Recently, a promising burst of research on quantum gravity has provided an outline of what the reconciliation might look like — as well as insights on the true nature of time.

General relativity also works perfectly well as a low-energy effective quantum field theory. For questions like the low-energy scattering of photons and gravitons, for instance, the Standard Model coupled to general relativity is a perfectly good theory. It only breaks down when you ask questions involving invariants of order the Planck scale, (named after Max Planck) is an energy scale around 1.22 × 10 19 GeV (the Planck energy), corresponding to the mass-energy equivalence of the Planck mass, 2.17645 × 10 −8 kg) at which quantum effects of gravity become strong, where it fails to be predictive; this is the problem of "nonrenormalizability."

Nonrenormalizability itself is no big deal; the Fermi theory of weak interactions was nonrenormalizable at first, but now we know how to complete it into a quantum theory involving W and Z bosons that is consistent at higher energies. So nonrenormalizability doesn't necessarily point to a contradiction in the theory; it merely means the theory in question is incomplete.

Gravity is more subtle, though: the real problem is not so much nonrenormalizability as high-energy behavior inconsistent with local quantum field theory. In quantum mechanics, if you want to probe physics at short distances, you can scatter particles at high energies. (You can think of this as being due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, if you like, or just about properties of Fourier transforms where making localized wave packets requires the use of high frequencies.) By doing ever-higher-energy scattering experiments, you learn about physics at ever-shorter-length scales. (This is why we build the LHC to study physics at the attometer length scale.)