Gravitions or gravinos?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

I have a question that has been running through my head for a few weeks. You know how if you pull apart a pair of quarks you get two pairs because of the energy it takes to actually pull the pair apart. Okay this thought will take place in the far remote regions of space where matter isn't slowing the expansion of space and dark energy has full reign on expanding space as fast as can be. Could the expansion of space become so fast and strong that a pair of quarks floating in that region could be pulled apart then those pairs get pulled apart then a "snow ball" affect occurs creating a "big bang"?

Not sure I follow your thinking correctly. The aether has no accessible energy in itself to impart to anything. It is instead a reference level of energy, just like a voltage is excitation of electrons as compared to the ground voltage or temperature is thermal excitation of atoms compared to a reference temperature. There would be no energy differential to create a pull on the quarks, which are matter themselves.

Quarks actually do not exist, at least in the way we tend to think of them. Matter is a standing wave trapped by the reflectivity of the aether; a quark is a 1/3 harmonic of that energy. Together, three quarks form the stable standing wave, but separate them out and the wave is now unstable and the energy either recombines to a stable frequency or dissipates.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Now the aether (space-time stuff) that is continually drawn in and basically blowing past us as we stand still on the earth is what we percieve as acceleration (gravity). This is why gravity and acceleration seems to be perceived as the same. But where is the aether going? This is where other dimensions come into play, dimensions that we are yet to observe. It seems to be drawn in but goes nowhere. It could perhaps come back out as dark energy, perhaps this is what dark energy is. Maybe TheRedneck is right, maybe dark energy is just microscopic "white holes".

You're pretty much right on with the gist of what I am saying.

All matter attracts aether. As the aether is pulled into a matter particle, the Lorentz term in Einstein's Relativity equations becomes complex (a multiple of i). This occurs at the Schwartzchild's radius of all matter. As i appears, it shifts the equation by a factor of pi/2 (90°) which implies an alternate dimension. At this stage I cannot say whether we are discussing a single dimension or if there are ix, iy, and iz dimensions, but regardless a wormhole is created which places the aether into an alternate dimension. This wormhole is connected to a corresponding particle of antimatter somewhere in the Universe. The aether moves through the alternate dimension(s) to the antimatter and re-emerges in our three dimensions.

The length of the wormhole has nothing to do with the locations of the entangled particle and anti-particle in our three dimensions... only the position in the alternate dimension(s). This is why quantum entanglement seems to defy the speed of light restriction. We can only observe the positions in the three dimensions we can observe. The particle and anti-particle may be 100 million light-years apart in them, but two feet apart in the alternate dimension(s). The delay indicated by quantum entanglement is occurring at the speed of light in those alternate dimensions so it has no connection to locations in our dimensions.

It's an endless loop powered by the interaction of electrical and magnetic fields that comprise the standing wave. Aether moves into matter, through alternate dimensions, back into our dimensions via antimatter, and is pulled back into matter again.

The origins of this theory are found in the exact comparison between inertia and gravity that you mention. There is no experiment we can perform on earth that would show different results between us being pulled toward the planet and the planet accelerating outward toward us. We know from other obvious observations that the planet surface is not accelerating outward at 9.8 m/s^2, so the only possible explanation is that we, along with all matter, are being pulled toward the earth. Being made of matter, we are an embedded in the aether as it is pulled along (and we actually pull on the same aether ourselves).

It's like two people holding the ends of a very large rubber band. If they both pull on the rubber band, they will pull themselves together. Now imagine the rubber band is invisible: would an observer not see the two men being pulled together by a mysterious force? In actuality, neither is pulling on the other; they are both pulling on the same medium.

This also explains why light is bent by gravity. Light is massless... it must be! Any mass traveling at the speed of light exhibits infinite mass to an observer. Light obviously travels at the speed of light, so if it contains any mass whatsoever it would appear as infinite mass. A single photon would crush any matter it impacted. So if light is massless, why is it affected by gravity? Simple... light is an energy wave traveling trough the medium that is responsible for gravity by its movement. Medium moves; energy traveling through that medium moves as well.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Certainly agree it makes sense to equate gravity with flowing spacetime. But if we look at black holes. At a certain point the gravity becomes so great that time stops. So spacetime would have to remain static whilst in that gravity well. Any matter entering would just increase the density of black hole which in turn would expand the perimeter in which time stops.

Perhaps it's the elasticity of spacetime at play. When stretched or pushed against.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think dougs vogts got it.

Its not reflected by anything back on itself. Its just traveling through time in a circle O

youtu.be...

Go to 12 minutes 50.

originally posted by: xpoq47
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Okay, I don't need raw materials to make holes, but I do need energy, Whatever form gravitons might take, wouldn't it take energy to produce them, energy possibly hard to come by for a neutron deep in a neutron star surrounded by other neutrons that need it too?

I seem to be in the market for a straitjacket. I'm thinking white.

The answer to this gets a bit complicated. Remember this from my previous post?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
One theory is that there would be "real" gravitons and "virtual" (not measurable) gravitons, just as QED theory has "real" photons and "virtual" (not measurable) photons as exchange particles for the electromagnetic field.

Let me try to explain how it works for real and virtual photons, since we have well developed theories for those. "real" photons have "real" energy and it must have an energy source, like the photons coming from the sun that might contain over 1000 watts per square meter of real energy hitting the surface of the earth. "virtual photons" have "virtual energy" and don't necessarily require an energy source for that, because the virtual particles are transient. We use virtual photons to describe interactions between magnets for example, and you don't have to plug two permanent magnets into any energy source to get them to attract or repel each other.

So if gravitons worked like photons, then you would need a real energy source for real gravitons just like you need a real energy source for real photons. But similarly you wouldn't need a real energy source for virtual gravitons the same way you don't need a real energy source for virtual photons. Matt Strassler explains virtual particles as "not particles", and he wishes they weren't called that:

What are Virtual Particles?

A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn’t call it that.

Now are there real gravitons, or virtual gravitons, similar to the way we have modeled real photons and virtual photons? Nobody knows for sure, but they can't be exactly like we model real and virtual photons. Modeling both the photons and the gravitons creates infinities, and we've found a way to cancel out the infinities with photons, so we have a model for quantum electromagnetism that makes valid predictions we can test, but so far nobody has found a way to cancel out the infinities when modeling gravitons, which is why we don't really have a working graviton theory.

So there are definitely very serious theoretical problems with the idea of gravitons, but the issue you describe with gravitons not being able to escape a neutron star core I don't think would be a problem. For example, you might think that since nothing can travel faster than light, that photons can't escape a black hole, and you would be right. But virtual particles don't play by the same rules and they can escape from a black hole, thus allowing a black hole to have an electric charge:

How does the gravity get out of a black hole?

Often this question is phrased in terms of gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of spacetime distortion. If things like gravity correspond to the exchange of "particles" like gravitons, how can they get out of the event horizon to do their job?

Gravitons don't exist in general relativity, because GR is not a quantum theory. They might be part of a theory of quantum gravity when it is completely developed, but even then it might not be best to describe gravitational attraction as produced by virtual gravitons. See the physics FAQ on virtual particles for a discussion of this.

Nevertheless, the question in this form is still worth asking, because black holes can have static electric fields, and we know that these may be described in terms of virtual photons. So how do the virtual photons get out of the event horizon? Well, for one thing, they can come from the charged matter prior to collapse, just like classical effects. In addition, however, virtual particles aren't confined to the interiors of light cones: they can go faster than light!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I agree with most of what you said except for the part of virtual particles escaping a black hole. Once something crosses the event horizon it cant return. I thin you are talking about Hawkins radiation and that is not virtual particles escaping the black hole. Near the event horizon virtual particles can form and they form in pairs. Normally they just anihalate each other one being positive energy the other negative energy. Quantum effects would cause a "partner wave" carrying negative energy to be created and also pass into the black hole, reducing the black hole's total mass, or energy. ITo an outside observer it would appear as if the gravitational force has allowed the black hole's energy to be reduced and the energy of the universe to be increased. This negative energy is why black holes must gradually lose energy and evaporate over time. id go as far as saying Virtual gravitons aren't real, so it makes no sense to talk about them escaping from the event horizon.

So could gravitons escape a neutron star probably but not a black hole. If gravitons exist they wouldnt be the cause of gravity. They would be more like mesengers updating a gravitational FIELD . What gravitons do is tell field values in other places how to change. So if a back hole gobbles earth then the region around the black hole will have a changing energy momentum tensor, and it is HERE where the gravitons enter the scene:

They carry the message to the rest of the Universe that Earth has just been eaten for breakfast and has fractionally increased its event horizon to accommodate the extra entropy it has gobbled up. The rest of the Universe is very interested in this information about Earth being gone and each point duly updates its gravitational field value as soon as it receives the message that the field has changed.

With this you dont need a particle to cause gravity just let you know something changed.

originally posted by: xpoq47
The speed of gravity and the speed of gravitational waves, as predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger, is the speed of light. Gravino theory doesn't dispute that.

Confirmed, thank you.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I agree with most of what you said except for the part of virtual particles escaping a black hole. Once something crosses the event horizon it cant return. I thin you are talking about Hawkins radiation and that is not virtual particles escaping the black hole. Near the event horizon virtual particles can form and they form in pairs. Normally they just anihalate each other one being positive energy the other negative energy.

Yes Hawking radiation involves pairs as you say.

The virtual photons going faster than light is a statistical result of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, where on average, they go the speed of light, but statistically, individual virtual particles go faster or slower than the speed of light if you were to calculate their speed. I didn't make it up, the source I already gave you was written by Matt McIrvin from the Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. But if you don't trust a Harvard physicist, here's the wikipedia article saying essentially the same thing. If you think the Wikipedia article is wrong, you can attempt to change it, but someone might just change it back if they think you are wrong.

Faster Than Light

In quantum mechanics, virtual particles may travel faster than light, and this phenomenon is related to the fact that static field effects (which are mediated by virtual particles in quantum terms) may travel faster than light (see section on static fields above). However, macroscopically these fluctuations average out, so that photons do travel in straight lines over long (i.e., non-quantum) distances, and they do travel at the speed of light on average. Therefore, this does not imply the possibility of superluminal information transmission.

Here's an article written by Dave Kornreich PhD saying similar things about virtual particles escaping black holes, and he also suggests reading the book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman for further explanation:

How do gravitons escape black holes to tell the universe about their gravity? (Advanced)

You may have heard about how space is a "frothing sea" of elementary particles, with particles and antiparticles continuously popping into and out of existance. That would be another manifestation of virtual particles. Virtual particles are essentially allowed to do anything at all short of violating causality during their lifetimes. They necessarily violate conservation of energy just by existing, and they're also allowed to violate many other physical laws before they disappear. One of these is the restriction on travelling slower than the speed of light. So the virtual gravitons and photons speed away from the singularity faster than light until they're beyond the event horizon, from whence they spread out into the universe to carry on their virtual business. Various physical processes conspire to insure that no actual information is transmitted superluminally; that is, if the black hole were to instantly disappear, its gravity would still be felt outside a radius ct from the singularity.

For further reading, a very good technical (but understandable) essay on this subject can be found in QED by Richard Feynman.

Again I'm not arguing for the existence of real or virtual gravitons, I'm open minded to either possibility that they do or do not exist. Even virtual photons where we have a working model may only exist in the model, but the model seems to work, so we use it until we have a better model.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Sounds to me to be a severe misunderstanding of Hawkins radiation. See heres the problem if gravitational radiation could escape, you could theoretically use it to send a signal from the inside of the black hole to the outside, which is forbidden. Hawkins radiation becomes well uneccesary. Then if these particles actually moved faster than light you would get Cherenkov radiation. Blackholes would literally glow a blue color so i cant see how any of this would be possible other than some very screwy theory that really makes no sense.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Sounds to me to be a severe misunderstanding of Hawkins radiation.

You can't even spell Hawking radiation, but I'm the one with the misunderstanding? No, it's not a misunderstanding of Hawking radiation.

See heres the problem if gravitational radiation could escape, you could theoretically use it to send a signal from the inside of the black hole to the outside, which is forbidden.

It seems you're not even reading the sources I posted which say things like "Various physical processes conspire to insure that no actual information is transmitted superluminally" which is in my source immediately prior to this one by Dave Kornreich, and the previous source I cited from Matt McIrvin from Harvard says something similar.

Hawkins radiation becomes well uneccesary.

Untrue, virtual photons carry virtual energy, not real energy. Once the virtual particle's life is over, the virtual energy ceases to exist so it's not going to carry mass or energy away from a black hole, like Hawking radiation does. For example virtual particles can appear to violate energy conservation while they exist (if you treated them as real particles), but after they cease to exist, energy is still conserved. You can't measure the virtual particles so you can't measure any violation of energy conservation from their virtual energy.

Then if these particles actually moved faster than light you would get Cherenkov radiation. Blackholes would literally glow a blue color so i cant see how any of this would be possible other than some very screwy theory that really makes no sense.

It seems to me like you're attempting to assign aspects of real particles to virtual particles and it doesn't work that way. Virtual particles aren't even particles according to Matt Strassler, it's a misnomer so maybe that's part of your confusion.

What are Virtual Particles?

The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields...

If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn’t call it that.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So maybe gravity is mediated by undetected virtual photons similar to the ones that mediate magnetism, not that I'm suggesting that gravity's virtual photons should be called gravinos.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I will go back and read the papers but i will say this is what happens when you try to use electodynamics to descibe gravity you get really messed up results and have to give virtual particles super powers. As you can tell i dont agree with this at all lol.

originally posted by: xpoq47
How does gravity work? Whatever the truth is, it would likely sound ridiculous to present-day people.

Gravity is what happens when an object with mass tries to "fall" into one of the many non-physical dimensions it interacts with. No place to go, but it keeps being pulled (down) into the nothingness.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I guess I'm stuck with mainstream theory, even though it's wrong.

If I get abducted by aliens, I'll be sure to ask how gravity works and post their answer in a new thread so everybody can tell me how wrong it is.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Maybe the photons from the Big Bang are the “pressure” keeping this crap soup from falling apart...

Chowder!!!



(Psssst! It is all particles in Universe interacting with all other particles that gives us the illusion of gravity. Break that interaction with a metamaterial that make Universe flow around you, and you have a big black flying triangle spaceship that looks like a UFO!)

a reply to: xpoq47

This gravino thing might lead to a way to find out if gravity is a pulling or pushing force. If all neutron stars have the same surface gravity, it's a pushing force. If their surface gravity varies depending on size, it's a pulling force. That's assuming we have the ability to detect that and compare.

originally posted by: xpoq47
a reply to: xpoq47

This gravino thing might lead to a way to find out if gravity is a pulling or pushing force. If all neutron stars have the same surface gravity, it's a pushing force. If their surface gravity varies depending on size, it's a pulling force. That's assuming we have the ability to detect that and compare.

Id say Einstein would probably tell you its neither one. Where in quantum mechanics it would be a pushing force of spacetime. The graviton would be a guage particle which repels space-time in the vicinity of a gravitating mass
The force results form this energy density gradient so spacetime would actually push to objects together. What will be the correct answer remains to be seen i guess.

a reply to: dragonridr

I still think that with surface gravity of neutron stars thought to average 7 billion g it's a stretch to think gravitons can generate that much force, whereas gravinos traveling at 34.6 billion miles per second and having tiny mass and tiny volume can generate such force without overcrowding space and might be the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe, where objects beyond the Hubble limit are thought to be moving away from us at more than lightspeed, and faster the farther away they are, with most of the universe moving many times lightspeed away from Earth. The curvature of spacetime has to be the result of some quantum cause rather than the cause itself, and gravinos seem to me to be one good possibility.

Setting aside the notion that gravinos might travel faster than light, considering gravitons and gravinos equal in size and power but only one of them can exist and be responsible for gravity, which is more indicative of the accelerating expansion of the universe, pulling bosons (gravitons) or pushing bosons (gravinos)?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Virtual particles are often an artifact of our limited human understanding of quantum field theory, because the full calculations in nonlinear interactions are too complex to perform or understand most of the time, it's done in a 'perturbative' approach which starts with free particles (no interactions) and then adds in modest interactions. And then the mathematics is often like an infinite sum of terms---an asymptotic expansion, and then individual parts of these terms look sort of like those for free particles and then may be called 'virtual particles'.

But this is a mathematical artifact. Simpler example: you can form all sorts of series and continued fraction expansions for transcendental functions, and get all mystical about the interpretation of each term in the series which has a certain form ('oh that's the 2 particle intearction the 3 particle interactions, blah blah), when in reality it's just one single nonlinear complicated thing.

When you start to get paradoxes about the meaning of virtual particles it means that it's a mistake to assign these mathematical artifacts too much reality.

The simplest analogy is complex electrostatics problems from your classical E&M textbook: if you solved these as 'virtual particle expansions' there would be a whole frothing sea of virtual photons, but in fact it's just one single nonlinear electric field solution.