<p>Quantum gravity could be the reason protons overcome the coulomb force and bond at the nucleus of an atom (strong force).  If you extrapolate the mass energy of the plank units that fill up the volume of the proton nucleus it could satisfy the Schwarzschild condition, which is indeed, relatively quite a bit of gravity.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-31T18:04:47.963Z
(Using 1 standard deviation of the 2012 measurement of the proton charge radius)
Dave
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-31T18:14:25.837Z
Well, the reason protons stay together is the [strong nuclear force](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction).
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-31T18:15:38.943Z
I'm saying the strong force can be explained by quantum gravity: http://www.sciencedomain.org/download.php?f=1367405491-Haramein342013PRRI3363.pdf&aid=1298
Dave
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-31T18:18:13.320Z
Where does it say that in the PDF? I skimmed it, and I don't think that's the conclusion the author reached.
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-31T18:38:16.117Z
I've heard the author explain the applications of his findings since then.  Also note that this math uses the 2010 CODATA and in 2012 an even smaller charger radius was measured which led to several science magazines stating there is a problem in the standard model with the new more accurate size measurement of the proton being much smaller than the standard model's proton size.
Dave
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-31T18:38:34.157Z
Anyway, I am still learning, but the simple explanation I can convey from hearing him talk about this paper is that the mass energy of the plank spherical units that can be contained in the volume of a proton just happens to be about the same amount of gravitational force needed to overcome the coulomb force repelling the two positive charges away from each other.  It is intriguing.
Dave
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-31T18:39:07.087Z
But it will take time for peers to review and debate because it is a change to the standard model.  However, he predicted and copyrighted the size of a proton before the new measurement in 2012, and the new muonic measurement matched very much more close to his prediction (1 standard deviation away) than the standard model size.
Dave
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-31T18:02:44.737Z
2014-10-31T18:02:44.737Z
Dave
<p>I'm not sure what you mean by saying that quantum gravity "doesn't exist". But because this is the Astronomy SE, I will interpret your question as primarily asking why astronomy hasn't found evidence of quantum gravity. This is a reasonable question; after all, nineteenth-century astronomers have found evidence of funny business in the perihelion precession of Mercury, which in the twentieth century was understood as the relativistic corrections to the Newtonian orbits. Then astronomy one-upped that and found more evidence for general relativity.</p>

<p>So why not now? Because gravity is <em>weak</em>. Very weak. Weakness <em>per se</em> isn't a big problem theoretically; it makes it possible to calculate quantum gravity corrections when they aren't too large, which can be interpreted as a running Newton's constant:
$$G(r) = G\left[1 - \frac{167}{30\pi}\frac{G\hbar}{r^2c^2} + \ldots\right]\text{.}$$
For example, for the Sun's gravitational field near the Sun's surface (mass $M_\odot\sim 2\times 10^{30}\,\mathrm{kg}$, radius $R_\odot\sim 7\times 10^8\,\mathrm{m}$), the relativistic corrections are of order $GM_\odot/rc^2\sim 10^{-6}$, a few parts per million, while the quantum gravity corrections are on the order of $G\hbar/r^2c^3\sim 10^{-88}$, which is so much smaller as to be completely hopeless.</p>

<p>Making the Sun a black hole would not improve things by much, since in that case $r = 2GM_\odot/c^2$ means while the relativistic corrections become appreciable, the quantum gravity corrections are on the order of $10^{-76}$. Note that larger black holes are actually <em>worse</em>, which is sensible because large-scale quantum gravity must agree with general relativity.</p>

<p>An interesting overview by Cliff P. Burgess can be found <em>Living Rev. Relativity</em> <strong>7</strong> (2004) 5, <a href="http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-5/">here</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-08T15:33:07.273Z
2014-10-08T15:33:07.273Z
Stan Liou
<p>I am not an astrophysicist and not its student.All my knowledge about astronomy comes from you tube videos and discovery channel.From them i knew that to solve the mysteries of black hole both relativity and quantum theories should be combined as quantum gravity.But it does not exist.What is the problem in quantum gravity concept?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-08T14:59:50.873Z
Possibly better for Physics because there might be related questions there. But I will say that only a *theory* of quantum gravity does not exist.
HDE 226868
<black-hole><general-relativity><quantum-field-theory>
why quantum gravity doesnot exist?
guru karthik
# why quantum gravity doesnot exist?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-10-08)

I am not an astrophysicist and not its student.All my knowledge about astronomy comes from you tube videos and discovery channel.From them i knew that to solve the mysteries of black hole both relativity and quantum theories should be combined as quantum gravity.But it does not exist.What is the problem in quantum gravity concept?

**Tags:** black-hole, general-relativity, quantum-field-theory
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Possibly better for Physics because there might be related questions there. But I will say that only a *theory* of quantum gravity does not exist.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-10-08. Score: 8 | Accepted answer

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that quantum gravity "doesn't exist". But because this is the Astronomy SE, I will interpret your question as primarily asking why astronomy hasn't found evidence of quantum gravity. This is a reasonable question; after all, nineteenth-century astronomers have found evidence of funny business in the perihelion precession of Mercury, which in the twentieth century was understood as the relativistic corrections to the Newtonian orbits. Then astronomy one-upped that and found more evidence for general relativity.

So why not now? Because gravity is *weak*. Very weak. Weakness *per se* isn't a big problem theoretically; it makes it possible to calculate quantum gravity corrections when they aren't too large, which can be interpreted as a running Newton's constant:
$$G(r) = G\left[1 - \frac{167}{30\pi}\frac{G\hbar}{r^2c^2} + \ldots\right]\text{.}$$
For example, for the Sun's gravitational field near the Sun's surface (mass $M\_\odot\sim 2\times 10^{30}\,\mathrm{kg}$, radius $R\_\odot\sim 7\times 10^8\,\mathrm{m}$), the relativistic corrections are of order $GM\_\odot/rc^2\sim 10^{-6}$, a few parts per million, while the quantum gravity corrections are on the order of $G\hbar/r^2c^3\sim 10^{-88}$, which is so much smaller as to be completely hopeless.

Making the Sun a black hole would not improve things by much, since in that case $r = 2GM\_\odot/c^2$ means while the relativistic corrections become appreciable, the quantum gravity corrections are on the order of $10^{-76}$. Note that larger black holes are actually *worse*, which is sensible because large-scale quantum gravity must agree with general relativity.

An interesting overview by Cliff P. Burgess can be found *Living Rev. Relativity* **7** (2004) 5, [here](http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-5/).


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-10-31. Score: 1

Quantum gravity could be the reason protons overcome the coulomb force and bond at the nucleus of an atom (strong force). If you extrapolate the mass energy of the plank units that fill up the volume of the proton nucleus it could satisfy the Schwarzschild condition, which is indeed, relatively quite a bit of gravity.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: (Using 1 standard deviation of the 2012 measurement of the proton charge radius)  
> **username_1**: Well, the reason protons stay together is the [strong nuclear force](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction).  
> **username_2**: I'm saying the strong force can be explained by quantum gravity: http://www.sciencedomain.org/download.php?f=1367405491-Haramein342013PRRI3363.pdf&aid=1298  
> **username_1**: Where does it say that in the PDF? I skimmed it, and I don't think that's the conclusion the author reached.  
> **username_2**: I've heard the author explain the applications of his findings since then.  Also note that this math uses the 2010 CODATA and in 2012 an even smaller charger radius was measured which led to several science magazines stating there is a problem in the standard model with the new more accurate size measurement of the proton being much smaller than the standard model's proton size.  
> **username_2**: Anyway, I am still learning, but the simple explanation I can convey from hearing him talk about this paper is that the mass energy of the plank spherical units that can be contained in the volume of a proton just happens to be about the same amount of gravitational force needed to overcome the coulomb force repelling the two positive charges away from each other.  It is intriguing.  
> **username_2**: But it will take time for peers to review and debate because it is a change to the standard model.  However, he predicted and copyrighted the size of a proton before the new measurement in 2012, and the new muonic measurement matched very much more close to his prediction (1 standard deviation away) than the standard model size.  

---

