• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,720 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Why are we trying to quantize gravity but not to "gravitize the quantum"?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

It's probably needed to mention that I'm still a graduate student, so I studied both General Relativity and QFT but gravity was never mentioned in my QFT courses, nor the other way around. Nevertheless, from some independent study, it seems to me that the next step towards a TOE is always said to be a quantized theory of gravity, the search for a graviton, etc. 

My question is, couldn't the other way be useful to analyze as well? Has anyone tried to give a curved manifold representation of QFT? If so, has it failed? If not, how come we don't hear about it more often?

asked Jul 9, 2020 in Theoretical Physics by cu2mauro (35 points) [ no revision ]

You may perhaps find this



1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

There's a lot in the literature about QFT on curved space time, but there are also books. Robert Wald's "Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics" is from 1994, and already represents a review of such work over decades. Google gets you straight to the inevitable Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory_in_curved_spacetime. Follow the references in the books cited there and follow citations forward. You likely don't hear about this work much because it's usually done as an outgrowth of Local Quantum Physics/Algebraic QFT, which is outside the mainstream of ordinary interacting QFT (because it aims at mathematical rigor, which has failed insofar as there are still no interacting models in 3+1 dimensions.)

answered Jul 9, 2020 by Peter Morgan (1,230 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights