Military devices either use GPS, star tracking, dead reckoning, or some combination. For submarines, detecting gravity variations could also be used, but it wouldn't rely on the quantization of gravity.

In many places on land, you can use terrain landmarks.

Since most things are already either covered, or have improvements in development, I don't really see investment for your idea.

The improvements might even use "quantum" or "gravity", but I don't think the use of "quantum gravity" is very likely.

Gravity drive?

> Now graviton chasers find themselves in a peculiar position. On the main facts, everyone is in agreement. One, detecting a quantum event sparked by a gravitational wave is — surprisingly — possible. And two, doing so would not explicitly prove that the gravitational wave is quantized. “Could you make a classical gravitational wave that would produce the same signal? The answer is yes,” said Carney, who along with two co-authors analyzed this type of experiment in Physical Review D(opens a new tab) in February.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_statistics#Sub-Poissoni...

Of course, our idea of how to reconcile quantum gravity with general relativity is much less developed than our understanding of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces.

String theory and loop quantum gravity fit into this picture by trying to replace the integral over something we can't handle with an integral that matches it at large scales, but turns into something more tractable at small scales. Maybe the fact that we still can't make sense of the integral is Nature's way of telling us that she does not do the integral either...

The disconnect seems to be unresolvable (I don't understand this part at all) and so efforts are being made to quantise gravity and incorporate it into the standard model.

The problem is that nobody has successfully combined these two views into a single unified theory, known as "quantum gravity". General Relativity and quantum mechanics don't naturally fit together, and that's why we don't yet fully understand gravity in a way that reconciles both the spacetime curvature and graviton perspectives.

The "geometry" comes from the fact that the way we measure distances (or, well, experience time) uses the metric tensor field to do it. But it is still ultimately just a value attached to every point like any other field.

Classically, it is. But most physicists believe that there is a quantum theory of gravity that underlies the classical theory, and that that quantum theory will include, at some level of description, a spin-2 gauge boson that mediates the quantum gravitational interaction, called the "graviton". Our classical theory of gravity, General Relativity, would then be the classical limit of that quantum theory, just as classical Maxwell electrodynamics is the classical limit of quantum electrodynamics.

So if you take the gravity curves spacetime view, then gravity is not a force and all that. But if you take the alternative view then gravity is a force. Now, I'll leave what the distortions are that gravity produces in flat spacetime for another time, or for the reader. But I'll say this: this view is both controversial (perhaps replies will show this) and not (see above -and many other- animations).

That's just part of the picture.

I always thought that Veritasium video did more harm than good.

Not just some dumbed down Discovery show - it pushes the limits of what a layperson can understand.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

It does not have to be either or. It can be both. Both models can be useful to understand the nature of gravity and make predictions about natural phenomenon.

That's the link bridging gravity as a particle (small-scale) and gravity as a feature of a manifold (large-scale). Physicists are trying to find a way to make spacetime emerge from quantum field theory, or make both emerge from some common framework.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER_=_EPR

It’s understandable that you don’t like the desensitization of war that comes from our over usage of the word. Perhaps it speaks to a defect in American culture but this is how we communicate in our language. I think Arabic has too much emphasis on allah related phrases. But that’s how they speak. Nothing I can do about it. I don’t think said usage implies anything about their writing abilities.

It's not a simile, is it? They aren't saying it's like a war.

My dictionary lists a bunch of definitions for war that fit this usage.

+1, normalizing "war" as a synonym of effort is pretty much orwellian.

I don't like your usage of word "Inshallah" as a mock up of the idea that something will never happen. Because it is a complete opposite meaning of when you suppose to use it. It is usually overused by arab moms (I know that people tends to mean that) but I use it frequently. Ironically I was in online meeting at CERN today and used inshallah (sometimes I use it because I am used to) to refer to potential interesting signal I am seeing. I used it to describe the hope that this will not turn out to be a statistical flactuation.

Also I would agree that this is messy at the time when Einstein published his work on quantization. He even got Nobel prize on his work on photon quantization not relativity. Of course he was not alone, Max plank was the first to suggest energy discritization.

On the "war" thing - the culture of many Americans has a martial bent to it, which is why things like "war" made its way into a lot of our idioms and phrases and way of thinking. It's not bad writing just because your cultural mode of thought doesn't consider "war" as an acceptable metaphor or idiom.

Martial cultures don't need to "get a grip" any more than scholarly or pastoral ones need to. Culture is self-preserving and so the martial aspects of ours aren't going away anytime soon, so I suggest you find a way to be more tolerant and understanding of it.

First things first, I didn't mean to stir up the discussion in this way. Also, I should have let go of the Caps Lock key. Also, I should've put all that stuff into a single comment or not write some of the things at all instead of creating multiple comments. Sorry.

As for the "inshallah", I probably used that word wrongly; I did not have any meaning of it in mind but used it—somewhat incomprehensibly so—as a moniker for "a standard to start any and all texts with", so "ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" if you will.

If there's some proof that they aren't black (AFAIK, the only thing we know empirically), I've missed it. All I see is a point that the current theory would be wrong.

that doesn't mean there was no time before the big bang, or no gravity, or that there wasn't another universe just like ours. But due to the singularity, for the sake of convenience, we simply _say_ that those things came into existence at the big bang.

cite: https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-o... , search for "may as well"