A: If gravity is quantum, then (B) there must be some particle-like think that we call a graviton that mediates the interactions, and then seeing a rubidium atom fall must have been an interaction with this particle.
not A: If gravity is not quantum, then they are making no claims about a graviton.
If you think gravity is not quantum, then you go to the "not A" branch, and they make no claims about that branch - so there is no contradiction with their IF.
However, for me to claim that quantum Gravity is only emergent without a particle like graviton's mediation, I would need to present evidence. Just like this claim - quantum gravity is only possible from gravitons.
Ohh, yes, I had not at all understood that this was what you were referring to, especially as I had already suggested this is a real, though to my mind implausible, possibility.
Now, as to how plausible this is, we'll actually get into semantics. To me, saying that "gravity is quantum" would mean that it is a real force/interaction, and that this force obeys the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So, I wouldn't say "gravity is quantum" if it turns out that the Entropic gravity theory is true, as in that theory gravity is only an apparent interaction. However, I admit that this may only be my perception of what these terms mean together, and that others may use "gravity is quantum" to refer to any theory that explains the macroscopic effects we call gravity in a way that matches quantum theories.
So, basically Gravity is quantum if Gravity is fundamental (not emergent)?
If I am understanding your counterpoint correctly, then this argument can only be concluded satisfactorily if either Graviton is observed (proving is existence) or something more fundamental and deeper is observed (proving that quantum gravity can emerge without graviton).
Comments
Their statement has two possibilities:
A: If gravity is quantum, then (B) there must be some particle-like think that we call a graviton that mediates the interactions, and then seeing a rubidium atom fall must have been an interaction with this particle.
not A: If gravity is not quantum, then they are making no claims about a graviton.
If you think gravity is not quantum, then you go to the "not A" branch, and they make no claims about that branch - so there is no contradiction with their IF.
Maybe I should have been clearer! There is also a possibility for Gravity to be quantum without gravitons https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
However, for me to claim that quantum Gravity is only emergent without a particle like graviton's mediation, I would need to present evidence. Just like this claim - quantum gravity is only possible from gravitons.
Ohh, yes, I had not at all understood that this was what you were referring to, especially as I had already suggested this is a real, though to my mind implausible, possibility.
Now, as to how plausible this is, we'll actually get into semantics. To me, saying that "gravity is quantum" would mean that it is a real force/interaction, and that this force obeys the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So, I wouldn't say "gravity is quantum" if it turns out that the Entropic gravity theory is true, as in that theory gravity is only an apparent interaction. However, I admit that this may only be my perception of what these terms mean together, and that others may use "gravity is quantum" to refer to any theory that explains the macroscopic effects we call gravity in a way that matches quantum theories.
So, basically Gravity is quantum if Gravity is fundamental (not emergent)?
If I am understanding your counterpoint correctly, then this argument can only be concluded satisfactorily if either Graviton is observed (proving is existence) or something more fundamental and deeper is observed (proving that quantum gravity can emerge without graviton).