You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

The_Duck comments on A new derivation of the Born rule - Less Wrong Discussion

15 Post author: MrMind 25 June 2014 03:07PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (19)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: The_Duck 25 June 2014 08:17:45PM 3 points [-]

This is essentially the standard argument for why we have to quantize gravity. If the sources of the gravitational field can be in superposition, then it must be possible to superpose two different gravitational fields. But (as I think you acknowledge) this doesn't mean that quantum mechanical deviations from GR have to be detectable at low energies.

Comment author: shminux 25 June 2014 09:05:59PM *  1 point [-]

This is essentially the standard argument for why we have to quantize gravity.

Sort of. The problem first appears because the LHS of the EFE is a classical tensor, while the RHS is an operator, two different beasts. And using expectation value of the stress energy tensor does not work that well. The cosmological constant problem does not help, either. The MWI ontology just makes the issues starker. That's why I am surprised that Carroll completely avoids discussing it even though GR is his specialty.