Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive biology, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
I made a big mistake. I have been falsely saying that the June 2024 USSC decision in Snyder v US legalized bribery in the federal government by calling after-the-fact payoffs "gratuities." It turns out that the decision applies only to bribery of state and local governments. Once I realized that there are two different federal laws, one for states and one for the US government, I looked a lot deeper.
My mistake was relying on mainstream media reporting and not digging deeper. I slapped Perplexity and by question 4 I finally got confirmation of my suspicion for the basis for my mistake. In response to my Q2, Perplexity falsely or misleadingly asserted this: Clarity on Applicability: Most media outlets have explicitly noted that the decision limits the federal prosecution of state and local officials for accepting gratuities, leaving such regulation primarily to the states1234567891011121314151617. ....
Here's how I ferreted out my error:
Q3: Based on citations 1-17 relied on, I conclude that most of the mainstream media reporting on the Snyder decision did not make clear that the decision applied only to states, not the federal government. Just because there are 17 obscure citations of exceptions, that does not come close to widespread mainstream media reporting.
A3: Based on the provided search results, it appears that most media reports on the Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. United States have not explicitly clarified that the decision applies only to state and local officials, not to the federal government. .... In summary, while some media outlets have touched on the decision's implications for state and local officials, the majority of reports have not made it clear that the decision does not apply to the federal government. This lack of explicit clarification might lead to confusion about the decision's scope.
Q4: You assert that the lack of explicit clarification might lead to confusion about the decision's scope. That is nonsense. It absolutely caused a hell of a lot of confusion and false beliefs. You don't understand politics or humans.
A4: You are correct in pointing out that the lack of explicit clarification in media reports about the Snyder v. United States decision has indeed led to significant confusion and false beliefs. .... In summary, the lack of explicit clarification in media reports has indeed caused considerable confusion and false beliefs about the Snyder v. United States decision ....
Here's the basis for my mistake. I looked at the two laws and found a subtle difference. The federal bribery law that applies to the state and localities is 18 U.S.C. § 666. It is silent about after the fact payoffs the USSC called gratuities in Snyder. On the other hand, 18 U.S.C. § 201 applies to the federal government. Here is the critical difference between the two laws.
§ 201 covers bribes or payoffs given "for or because of" a specific official act. Specifically, § 201(c) addresses after the fact payoffs without using the term gratuity. Instead, it prohibits the giving or receiving of anything of value "for or because of" an official act performed or to be performed by a public official. The difference is the three words "or because of."
§ 666 only covers bribes given "for" a specific official act.
See the difference? The phrase in § 201 "because of" includes after the fact payoffs, i.e., after the fact gratuities. Thus the Republicans on the USSC held that § 666 does not cover after the fact payoffs. The USSC legalized and softened payoffs by calling them "gratuities."
A $10 billion loss be a significant blow to CBS. The AP reports:
CBS’ “60 Minutes” posted online Wednesday the unedited transcripts of its October interview with Kamala Harris that sparked a lawsuit by Donald Trump, saying that they proved its broadcast was not “doctored or deceitful.”
That’s what Trump contended in a $10 billion lawsuit he filed against the network in November, reportedly the subject of ongoing settlement talks.
In his lawsuit, filed before Trump won election to his second term, the Republican contended the editing was done to give advantage to Harris, his Democratic opponent.
Yet CBS said that the material it was releasing on Wednesday show “consistent with ”60 Minutes’” repeated assurances to the public, that the “60 Minutes” broadcast was not doctored or deceitful,” CBS said in a statement.
I asked Perplexity to analyze the situation:
Q: Locate and analyze the unedited CBS transcript of the Kamala Harris interview that Trump is suing CBS over, as described in this article https://apnews.com/article/trump-60-minutes-harris-lawsuit-514b0ccbc4a4f120e4db810c6a00e259 . Did CBS alter the aired interview to favor Harris?
A:Conclusion:
Based on the analysis of the unedited transcript and the statements from CBS News: CBS did not alter the aired interview to favor Harris in a misleading manner. The network edited the interview for time constraints, which is a common practice in broadcast journalism. The aired segments, while different, were both from the same response to the same question, and they did not change the substance of Harris's answers 124.
The controversy seems to stem from the choice of which parts of Harris's response were aired, rather than any manipulation of the content itself. Critics, including Trump, argued that the editing was done to shield Harris from criticism, but CBS has consistently denied these allegations, asserting that the editing was done in line with journalistic standards 124.
The release of the unedited transcript and video by both CBS and the FCC has provided transparency, allowing the public to assess the interview's content and the network's editing practices.
DJT's vicious attacks on the MSM are grounded in hate and revenge, not on any solid legal basis. Nonetheless, CBS probably stands to win far more by losing in a settlement and paying DJT, than in winning in court and facing the relentless, lawless wrath of DJT, MAGA and the US Department of Justice.
I think that for the MSM, this is the new normal. We're royally screwed.
A torrent of info is coming out about tempers flaring and death threats. I do not know how much truth is in it, but I get a really bad feeling from what I have seen so far this morning. r/WhitePeopleTwitter has been shut down for death threats. Even Perplexity is perplexed:
Q: Was there a call on r/WhitePeopleTwitter for the public execution of DOGE software developers?
A: There is no evidence from the provided search results that there was a call on r/WhitePeopleTwitter for the public execution of DOGE software developers. The search results do not mention any such call or related discussions.
Q2: How has the community on r/WhitePeopleTwitter responded to the DOGE software developers controversy?
A2: The community on r/WhitePeopleTwitter has responded to the DOGE software developers controversy with significant backlash and calls for violence against the developers. Here are the key points of their response:
Violent Threats: Users on r/WhitePeopleTwitter have posted comments calling for the public execution of the DOGE software developers. Comments included phrases like "Drag their f**kin bodies, cuz," "This Nazi stooge needs to be shot," and "Pink mist them all," referring to the act of obliterating someone with a rocket or an IED 157.
Doxing: There were discussions where users revealed the identities of Musk's DOGE employees, which led to accusations of doxing 24.
Reddit's Response: Following these posts, Reddit temporarily banned r/WhitePeopleTwitter for 72 hours due to the "prevalence of violent content" and for violating platform-wide rules against inciting violence and doxing 234589111415.
Legal Implications: Elon Musk responded to these threats by stating that those responsible had "broken the law," and interim US Attorney Ed Martin warned that the Department of Justice would hold individuals accountable for such threats 15.
Public Reaction: The situation has sparked a broader debate about content moderation, free speech, and the influence of high-profile individuals like Elon Musk on online platforms 89.
This response from the r/WhitePeopleTwitter community has led to significant controversy, legal warnings, and platform actions, highlighting the tension between online discourse, privacy, and the safety of individuals involved in public projects.
TNR is reporting that Democrats on the House Oversight Committee attempted to subpoena Elon Musk on Wednesday (today). The Republicans flew into a rage. "Musk has brought in young and inexperienced software engineers from his own companies with questionable security clearances to not only take control of sensitive government systems but even make substantial changes that aren’t easily tracked or alterable. These actions break the law and even violate the Constitution."
Axios: Democrats' phones bombarded with calls to "fight harder"
One peanut's response:
Democrats warn about the absolute chaos and corruption that Republicans will cause
Voters heavily vote for republicans, so many democrats lose their elections
The republicans cause chaos and corruption
Voters call on democrats to do something to stop it
God it’s annoying.
Another peanut comments:
Lawsuits won't change anything. Voting won't change anything. Peaceful protesting won't do anything. Bills won't do anything. Appeasing Trump won't do anything.
You either fight for your rights or surrender them to Trump. This is what people have been begging you to do for decades, instead you relied on voting and got angry and started blaming everyone that didn't vote. Doesn't matter how many might not have had the chance because they got purged from the voter rolls, they don't exist in many people's mind and they simply just didn't vote.
You have to fight and fight hard. Republicans have told you EXACTLY what they're going to do. They control Congress, the courts, the executive branch, and you bet they'll try and control state militias and national guards and cops (mostly already on their side) and every inch of the military.
You cannot play the legal game anymore. There is no law in Trump land, and if the case is important enough Trump will put his finger on the scale and everyone falls in line.
I am starting to think that the likelihood of significant violence is becoming less improbable, i.e., more probable. The situation feels very sour, unstable and degenerating. People are getting really pissed off.
As Washington reels from Trump’s first actions, his voters like what they see
Most were in favor of his efforts to scale back the federal workforce, to stand by controversial Cabinet nominees and to slash foreign aid
Despite the chaos and confusion some of Trump’s early actions have caused in Washington, there was a collective shrug among his supporters here in northeast Pennsylvania, several of whom argued that no actual damage had been done by the new orders to freeze spending. In interviews with nearly 20 people in the region in recent days, most Trump supporters were in favor of his efforts to scale back the federal workforce, to stand by controversial Cabinet nominees and to slash foreign aid.
“I trust him. Is he going to do everything right in the next four years? Probably not,” [DJT supporter] Tammy Malloy said. “Is he going to do everything I agree with? Probably not — but he’s going to do most of what I agree with, and I’ll take it.” .... “To get rid of the DEI,” a favorite conservative punching bag “There’s two genders. I don’t care if you identify as a monkey, you’re still either a male or female. The last four years shoved it down our throats.”
[DJT supporter] Dan DeMellier said he wasn’t fazed by the Trump administration calling for a pause of federal loans and grants, saying he didn’t “pay too much attention to it,” but that “media just blows it all out of proportion.” .... DeMellier dismissed the scrutiny surrounding Hegseth’s past conduct. Hegseth had paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of sexual assault in 2017, according to information he provided to the Senate, and he acknowledged engaging in extramarital affairs. Former colleagues also had reported that he was a heavy drinker. “Who cares if he had three wives? Who cares if he drinks? Everybody drinks,” DeMellier said.
Chris Chermak, a Lackawanna County commissioner and the county’s lone Republican official, said he couldn’t believe just how much ground the GOP gained across the state this election, including ousting the state’s senior Democratic senator, Bob Casey, and an incumbent congressman in the area. But in hindsight, the high cost of living paired with scarce quality job opportunities in the region, Chermak said, made voters want someone in office who would make “drastic, drastic decisions.”
“I don’t have a problem with what he’s doing, and most of the people I’m talking to, I believe, feel the same way,” Chermak said of Trump’s first days in office. “Just some difficult decisions that had to be made.”
“I like the fact that they’re trying to cut stuff, that they had, what was it, DOGE, and was it MLB or DOB, or whatever?” Brian Williams said, trailing off, trying to remember the acronym “OMB” for the agency that administers the federal budget. He wasn’t the only local resident who struggled to recall the specifics of the Office of Management and Budget’s order to freeze federal loan and grant programs in an effort to weed out diversity and equity. But in conversations here, that kind of initiative was well received.
The article quotes other DJT supporters, giving reasons for rejecting the Democrats or supporting DJT. In many of those comments, one can clearly see MAGA's dark free speech talking points, nearly all of which are lies or irrational. That is not an assertion that those people are stupid. But it is an assertion that they are deceived. Look at the reasoning, i.e., irrational rationalizations, they cite, (i) uh, Hedgseth is OK because he had 3 wives and everybody drinks, (ii) "just some difficult decisions that had to be made", (iii) "you’re still either a male or female", and (iv) "I like the fact that they’re trying to cut stuff." That is incoherent. For the most part, those people do not know what they are talking about, usually either ignorant of key facts or accepting of false MAGA propaganda. That is what MAGA is counting on.[1]
Once again, the following quote I've cited many times here is spot on in its relevance to how people are thinking about what they think they see:
“. . . . the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. . . . cherished ideas and judgments we bring to politics are stereotypes and simplifications with little room for adjustment as the facts change. . . . . the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. Although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it.”
Again, I am not saying that DJT supporters are stupid. I am arguing that most are significantly ignorant and nearly all are deceived and their reasoning poisoned by decades of MAGA demagoguery. This mass state of mind did not arise just from DJT. It was decades in the making.
Q: Is there sufficient evidence to reasonably and rationally argue that, assuming those sentiments and that kind of are reasoning common, most DJT supporters have been seriously deceived, are seriously uninformed, and/or are applying flawed reasoning to what is happening?
Footnote:
1. I did some searching:
Q: In the 2024 election, to what extent did voters based their votes for Trump on false beliefs and/or clearly flawed reasoning? Comments from Trump supporters are dominated by a combination of MAGA lies, irrationality and ignorance.
A: The 2024 U.S. presidential election saw a significant influence of misinformation, false beliefs, and flawed reasoning among Trump supporters, shaping their voting decisions in several key ways:
Misinformation and False Beliefs:
Election Fraud Claims: Despite evidence to the contrary, a substantial number of Trump voters believed in widespread election fraud in the 2020 election, with Trump himself continuing to assert these claims into the 2024 election cycle 1528. This belief was not only a product of misinformation but also contributed to a broader narrative of distrust in the electoral system.
Economic Misconceptions: Many Trump supporters prioritized economic issues, particularly inflation and price increases, attributing these problems solely to Democratic policies. However, this view was flawed as both parties had supported the policies leading to these economic conditions. Moreover, there was a widespread belief among Trump voters that his policies would reduce prices, despite evidence suggesting his proposed tariffs and immigration restrictions would likely increase them 24.
Immigration Myths: False claims about immigrants causing crime, taking jobs, and being a burden on taxpayers were pervasive among Trump supporters. These claims were not only false but were also instrumental in shaping negative perceptions of immigration, influencing voter preferences 25.
Irrationality and ignorance: Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation: Trump voters scored higher on scales measuring authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation, indicating a preference for hierarchy and strong leadership, which might not align with rational decision-making based on policy analysis or factual information 3.
Misology: The term "misology" was used to describe Trump supporters' rejection of rational discourse, often dismissing facts and evidence that contradicted their beliefs. This mindset was characterized by a deep-seated mistrust of media and institutions, further fueled by Trump's own rhetoric 633.
Cultural and Identity Politics: Trump's appeal was also rooted in cultural and identity politics, where voters felt their values, traditions, and economic future were under threat. This perception was not necessarily based on factual analysis but on a sense of cultural loss and fear of change 3 ["Almost nine out of ten voters who supported Donald Trump for US President believe that America’s values, traditions and future economic prosperity are under threat"].
Impact on Voting Decisions:
Reinforcement of Narratives: Disinformation, while not necessarily changing votes directly, reinforced existing narratives among Trump supporters, creating a sense of solidarity and energy on the conservative right 232.
Voter Turnout and Support: The spread of misinformation and the cultivation of a culture of fear and distrust likely played a role in mobilizing Trump's base, contributing to his competitive edge in the election 16 ["Inspiring people with fear and anger and violent imagery is a way to manipulate people without getting them to think about the issue"].
Post-Election Perception: Interestingly, after Trump's victory, there was a noticeable shift in how his supporters viewed election integrity, with fewer believing fraud was a significant issue, suggesting that their beliefs were somewhat contingent on the election outcome 26 [
"Heading into Election Day, nearly 9 in 10 Trump voters said fraud was a serious issue. Afterward, just a bit over one-third said so."].
In summary, while not all Trump voters were driven by misinformation or irrationality, a significant portion of his support base was influenced by these factors. The combination of false beliefs about election integrity, economic policies, and immigration, coupled with a predisposition towards authoritarianism and a rejection of rational discourse, played a crucial role in shaping the voting decisions of many Trump supporters in the 2024 election. This phenomenon highlights the complex interplay between misinformation, cultural identity, and political polarization in modern American politics. (emphasis added)
Q2: What role did misology play in people voting for Trump in the 2024 elections?
A2: Misology, defined as the hatred or distrust of reason, argument, or knowledge, played a nuanced role in influencing voter behavior in the 2024 presidential elections, particularly among those who supported Donald Trump.
3. Economic and Social Factors
Economic Disillusionment: Economic factors, particularly concerns about inflation and the state of the economy, were pivotal in Trump's voter base. Misology here played a role in how voters processed economic information. Trump's narrative of economic revitalization and criticism of the Biden-Harris administration's economic policies appealed to those who felt neglected by the political establishment and were skeptical of economic forecasts or analyses from traditional sources733.
Conclusion: Misology, while not the sole determinant, was a significant undercurrent in the 2024 elections, particularly among Trump voters. It influenced how voters perceived and processed information, leading to a preference for narratives that aligned with their pre-existing beliefs and skepticism towards traditional sources of knowledge and expertise. This distrust facilitated Trump's ability to connect with voters through direct communication, bypassing traditional media, and leveraging economic and social anxieties to consolidate his voter base. The interplay of misology with other factors like economic concerns, identity politics, and demographic shifts underscores its complex role in shaping electoral outcomes.
If what people who still support DJT haven't been rattled a wee bit yet, maybe this will jostle the feng shui a smidge. This bit of joy comes from our new US attorney general and rabid loyalist MAGA Ed Martin, a brand new DoJ prosecutor in Washington, DC:
Martin threatened to prosecute anyone who tries to interfere with Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). He's the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin was appointed as the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia by DJT on January 20, 2025, just minutes after he was sworn in as president. Martin publicly shared a letter he wrote to Musk on Monday, February 3, 2025, where he stated, "Any threats, confrontations, or other actions in any way that impact their work may break numerous laws," and assured Musk that his office would "pursue any and all legal action against anyone who impedes your work or threatens your people."
So, as Musk and DOGE blithely break laws and commit kleptocracy and dictatorship, people who try to stop the illegality will be prosecuted. This is the new normal for federal law enforcement. And anyone in the executive branch who objects WILL BE IMMEDIATELTY FIRED!
☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️
Everyone is reporting that just after her swearing in, our brand new US Attorney General Pam Bondi promised directly to DJT, "I will make you proud and I will make this country proud." She did not promise to uphold the rule of law or the constitution. Bondi breaks laws for DJT. The IRS determined that her donation to DJT violated laws against political contributions from nonprofit organizations. DJT was ordered to pay a fine and reimburse the foundation, but neither Bondi nor her PAC were criminally charged. DJT also breaks laws and gets away with it.
New Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday ordered a review of the federal prosecution of Donald Trump as she unveiled a series of directives designed to overhaul a Justice Department the president claims is biased against conservatives.
Hours after she was sworn in at the White House, Bondi called for the creation of “weaponization working group” that will examine the work of special counsel Jack Smith, who charged Trump in two criminal cases. The group will also review the “pursuit of improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions” stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, among other things, according to the memo.
Bondi has said that politics will play no role in her decision-making, but she also refused at her confirmation hearing last month to rule potential investigations into Trump’s adversaries. She also has repeated Trump’s claims that the prosecutions against him amounted to political persecution, telling senators that the Justice Department “had been weaponized for years and years and years, and it’s got to stop.”
Unethical prosecutions? Seriously?? Bondi whining about ethics is the height of hypocrisy. Her track record makes it clear that ethics is not a concern for how she is going to do business. For example, she falsely claimed that DJT had won Pennsylvania despite the fact that nearly 1 million absentee ballots had yet to be counted, and she continued to support that lie even after it was clear Trump had lost the state. She would not even acknowledge that she made that false claim, commenting "I will not be bullied." Also, she defended Trump's baseless claims of "massive fraud" in the 2020 election. She even suggested that DJT's comments were taken out of context when asked about his call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" 11,780 votes.
Ya' gotta hand it to her. She's a shameless liar and hyper-partisan hypocrite without one shred of moral qualm. Not one shred.
This is the new normal for federal law enforcement. Prosecutions will be partisan persecutions and all DJT and MAGA crimes will be ignored. But if the DOJ is pressed too hard for answers after a really whopper MAGA crime, it will be denied, downplayed or otherwise dismissed as inconsequential partisan whining and hypocrisy. Crimes falsely alleged against DJT's hit list will be persecuted. Crimes committed by most of the rest of us will probably mostly be handled more or less as usual. The fair and balanced conclusion:
FOR DJT AND MAGA, THE RULE OF LAW IS DEAD!! GET OVER IT.
☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️
Disappearing Palestine
The state of Israel was founded on May 14, 1948. The end game in the 77 year Israel-Palestine war is coming into focus. The NYT writes (not paywalled):
Trump’s Gaza Plan Reflects Broader Push for Annexation of Palestinian Land
Right-wing officials in Israel, evangelical Christians in the United States and Trump appointees have become increasingly outspoken in calling for Israel to take more territory
President Trump’s statements on Tuesday about an American takeover of the Gaza Strip and displacing millions of Palestinians were immediately dismissed by many as reckless and half-baked pronouncements, a provocative threat that Mr. Trump was unlikely to enforce.
At the same time, his comments are the latest example of how government officials on the right in both the United States and Israel now speak publicly about a shared goal: the takeover of Palestinian land.
The question of whether the West Bank and the Gaza Strip — territories captured and occupied by Israel in 1967 — might become the foundation of a future Palestinian state has been at the center of decades of failed diplomacy, bedeviling American presidents, Palestinian leaders and Israeli prime ministers.
Days after Mr. Trump’s election, Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister, whom Mr. Netanyahu has given broad authority over the West Bank, said Mr. Trump’s return to the White House meant that “the year 2025 will, with God’s help, be the year of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria,” using the biblical name for the territory that makes up the West Bank.
On his first day in office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s sanctions against a group of Israeli settlers responsible for violence and land grabs against Palestinians in the West Bank.
Israeli annexation of the West Bank is a goal shared by both ultranationalists in Israel and many evangelical Christians, including Mr. Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, who see the conflict in the Middle East — and the power struggle over the land itself — as a sign of the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Mr. Huckabee has said that “there’s no such thing as a West Bank.” He said that Israeli settlements in the territory, which are considered illegal under international law, are not settlements but “neighborhoods.”
“There’s no such thing as an occupation,” he said during a visit to the West Bank in 2017.
So there we have it foreign policy fans. Israel policy based on encouraging the second coming of Christ to pave the way for the rapture, or at least a huge war in the region. The idea of Palestinian statehood is dead. It arguably it has been dead at least since May 14, 1948. Or, maybe it died on November 2, 1917, day the British government issued The Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration sowed the seeds of the Arab-Israeli conflict by promising a national home for Jews. At the time, the population was majority Arab. Depending on how one defines war in this context, that would make it a 118 year war!! [1]
Note the population shift in 1947-1948. What do you think happened then? Lots of Arabs went on extended vacation?
Footnote:
1. Or, maybe the war started with Theodor Herzl's publication of "The Jewish State" in 1896, which provided a formal recognition and energized the Zionist cause. That would make it a 129 year war!!
For over a century, quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity have stood as the cornerstones of modern physics, yet their unification remains one of science’s greatest challenges.
Now, researchers at University College London (UCL) have introduced a groundbreaking theory that challenges conventional approaches to this problem.
Quantum gravity seeks to bridge the gap between the microscopic world, where quantum mechanics governs particle behavior, and the macroscopic realm, where gravity shapes spacetime.
Traditionally, physicists have assumed that Einstein’s theory must be modified to fit within the quantum framework. However, UCL researchers propose a striking alternative: a "postquantum theory of classical gravity" that reexamines the fundamental relationship between these two domains.
This latest proposal challenges conventional wisdom, suggesting that instead of forcing gravity into a quantum framework, researchers should explore a new perspective—one where classical gravity interacts with quantum systems in ways previously unexplored. The implications of this theory could reshape our understanding of the universe, offering a fresh path toward reconciling two of physics' most successful yet conflicting models.
Enter Professor Jonathan Oppenheim and his team at UCL, who have challenged the status quo with their groundbreaking theory. In two parallel papers published simultaneously, they propose a novel perspective that suggests spacetime may remain classical and unaffected by quantum mechanics.
This theory, as described in a paper published in Physical Review X (PRX), refrains from modifying spacetime itself and instead modifies quantum theory.
An experiment in which heavy "particles" (illustrated as the moon), cause an interference pattern (a quantum effect), while also bending spacetime. The hanging pendulums depict the measurement of spacetime
The core tenet of this theory is that spacetime remains classical, not subject to the constraints of quantum theory. Instead, quantum theory is tweaked to account for intrinsic unpredictability mediated by spacetime. The consequence? Spacetime experiences random and violent fluctuations that exceed the expectations set by quantum theory. These fluctuations, if measured precisely enough, render the apparent weight of objects unpredictable.
TRANSLETED INTO ENGLISH
Until now, physicists including Einstein tried to unify classical and quantum physics by trying to fit classical with quantum physics. That failed. This new theory reverses it. It proposes two possibilities. One is that classical physics (Einstein's relativity and spacetime) is not quantum at all, but instead quantum phenomena arise from properties inherent in spacetime. Here, quantum theory gets modified to account for a proposed intrinsic unpredictability in spacetime. The hypothesis is that spacetime is subject to random and "violent" fluctuations, which are more than quantum physics predicts.
Researchers propose testing this first theory by detecting changes in the mass of an object over time due to fluctuations in spacetime. The theory precisely predicts exact changes in mass that would be expected. If the measurements of a chosen mass are fluctuations less than those required for mathematical consistency with the new theory, that would contradict the new theory. But if the predicted changes in mass are observed, that would constitute strong evidence that this hypothesis is correct.
A second theory is a hybrid model that postulates that classical spacetime interacts with quantum fields. To test that possibility, researchers propose using gravity to see if it influences quantum entanglement of subatomic particles, atoms, or more likely large masses like 1 mg. If spacetime is classical, entanglement would behave in a quantum way, but if spacetime is quantum, entanglement would behave as it has been observed until now. The new variable here is looking for effects of gravity on quantum entanglement. That has never been done before.
Researchers estimate that it will take about 20 years to test these hypotheses. The reason is that new, far more accurate technology to measure time and gravity strength are needed. The most accurate atomic clock available now can measure increments of time in increments of 8.1 x 10-19 seconds, an accuracy level of 1 sec. in 30 billion years. That is not nearly accurate enough. Also, current devices to detect gravity fields are not sensitive enough. Gravity field detectors will require developing something like quantum gravity gradiometers using cold atom interferometry. That technology might potentially measure Earth's gravitational field with enough precision to do the experiment.
In addition, ways to prepare and maintain quantum states of heavy objects, like a milligram mass, in superposition or entanglement is necessary. This would require (i) cooling systems to near absolute zero to minimize thermal noise and decoherence, and (ii) isolating the instrument from environmental disturbances such as electromagnetic fields, thermal fluctuations, and mechanical vibrations. That probably would require ultra-high vacuum conditions and advanced vibration and radiation isolation techniques. Some of this might require doing experiments in a quiet place in space, like L2 where the James Webb Space Telescope is currently parked and doing its experiments.
