It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gravitions or gravinos?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: xpoq47
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)?



Neither one. If the Universe is in fact expanding (I think that it may not be so and we are seeing observational artifacts) then that requires some fundamental new physics effect. Einstein put one in as a 'cosmological constant' but then took it out, and "Dark Energy" put it back in. I have no idea about the weak quantized limit of GR with a cosmological constant. If "Dark Energy" is real then it's some physical process involving standard model fields (or extensions thereof) and the 'constant' probably isn't actually a constant but something more complicated that we know nothing about at the moment.

On its own, without that, the equations of GR are perfectly valid and and presumably quantizable.



posted on Aug, 10 2021 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: xpoq47





gravinos . They Tend to Lean to the Left .



posted on Aug, 18 2021 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Very late to the show here... and i think much of what im going to type has more or less already been said.

Firstly Gravitons (is Gravitions a typo?) are a as yet hypothetical placeholder in the standard model of particle physics. It is kind of a "Well we have force carriers/gauge bosons for X and Y, and there is this other force, Z.... so yeah lets add one" It is one of those things that sounds rather dodgy, but isn't totally unfounded either.

Secondly, speaking of material inside a neutron star i have to ask the question... does you actually understand what the current working theory says it is? or should i say, what governs its behavour?

Neutron stars similarly to white dwarfs are highly degenerate. White Dwarfs... electron degenerate, Neutron stars, neutron degenerate.

But what does that actually mean? and what is the physics behind it? In a nutshell you can think of it as the following.

The force that prevents the neutron star collapsing in on itself is the exclusion principle's quantum mechanical strength. In such a material, all quantum states are essentially full, and for the material of a neutron star we consider things like position and momentum to be quantum states. So how does a neutron within a neutron star move around? Well it will basically hop between quantum states in a tunnelling mechanism as states free up due to lattice reconfiguration.

So you speak of how a graviton would escape this? well, a graviton doesn't have to interact with anything except a mass term... it can do so without having mass in and of itself too. So this hypothetical particle would only exist within this gravitational interaction regime. It wouldn't have to care what the local particle density was.

We see similar effects with neutrinos in Supernova, that this ghostly particle that barely interacts with anything, escapes the supernova before the optical signal does, with the neutrinos generated in the explosion being something like 70-90% of the total energy, and the main driving force that makes a supernova explode during the initial stages. Why? Well because the neutrino being neutral only really interacts via the electro-weak force.



posted on Aug, 20 2021 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Here's my question, and something that may start to become considered in the future. It's far past my area of experitise though.

Denser than a neutron star, is there any physical process that would permit a new equilibrium of hyper dense states? I.e. inside the black hole there is a 'quark-gluon star' or some new configuration that is self-supporting at a finite radius? Stabilize tetra or quintaquarks hadrons, or even bigger?

After all, somehow when squeezing past the neutron star's limit *something* happens? What gives way, what quantum states which were presumably 'full' before become no longer full? And is there anything else to take its place?



posted on Aug, 21 2021 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel
I'm glad to see you suggested something other than a singularity, which most physicists seem to think is not the right answer even though it's what relativity predicts.

So "What's inside the Black Hole" is THE big question, in some respects the final frontier in theoretical physics...the one thing we really can't explain without a quantum theory of gravity, or something like that (that, and the initial part of the big bang).

Astrophysicist Paul Sutter shared some thoughts on this, covering some theoretical possibilities called "Planck Stars", Gravastars, and the theoretical complications of rotating black holes. What I found interesting is Sutter's statement that that Gravastars now seem less likely based on LIGO observations.

What happens at the center of a black hole?

However, recent observations of merging black holes with gravitational wave detectors have potentially ruled out the existence of gravastars, because merging gravastars will give a different signal than merging black holes, and outfits like LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) and Virgo are getting more and more examples by the day. While gravastars aren't exactly a no-go in our universe, they are definitely on thin ice.
So maybe we can eventually say some things a black hole isn't, even if we can't say precisely what it is.

Even if we somehow manage to create a self-consistent theory for what's inside a black hole, I'm still not sure how we would test it. As much as I don't like to use the word "impossible", it's hard to see how to test such a theory when any probe you send into the black hole can't send any data out, but maybe there's a way around that. Quantum entanglement comes to mind, but then so does the "no communication theorem".


edit on 2021821 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 21 2021 @ 07:25 PM
link   
What sort implications could a Super Cluster or Structure imply, when they are made up millions of galaxies, each one with a super massive black hole in it. All the the universe is to be expanding, to point that all the Galaxies will just die off from using all their gas, while still making such an unfathomable structure.



posted on Aug, 22 2021 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: mbkennel
I'm glad to see you suggested something other than a singularity, which most physicists seem to think is not the right answer even though it's what relativity predicts.


Personally I'm not convinced that Einstein Gravitation is true at the microscopic level as opposed to being a large N thermodynamic limit effect. The theoretical difficulties resolving this despite nearly a century of work and brilliant people seems to suggest we have something wrong. Also the arbitrary couplings terms of mass and the fact that every field seems to (we think) be a source term in total distinction from the rest of the standard model where fields interact in specific regular patterns with integer or rational couplings & counting.

I'm emotionally in favor of classical gravitation as some kind of emergent effect.

I do understand that there have been difficulties theoretically recently with that approach as well, but it deserves lots of work.



posted on Aug, 22 2021 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
I'm emotionally in favor of classical gravitation as some kind of emergent effect.

I do understand that there have been difficulties theoretically recently with that approach as well, but it deserves lots of work.
It sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Here's a recent paper on the topic:

Einstein Gravity as an emergent phenomenon?

In this essay we marshal evidence suggesting that Einstein gravity may be an emergent phenomenon, one that is not “fundamental” but rather is an almost automatic low-energy long-distance consequence of a wide class of theories



posted on Aug, 22 2021 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

And the event horizon will immediately burn anything that passes through it could be a slight problem as well. Its been suggested that quantum effects would cause the event horizon to act much like a wall of fire.



posted on Aug, 23 2021 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

And the event horizon will immediately burn anything that passes through it could be a slight problem as well. Its been suggested that quantum effects would cause the event horizon to act much like a wall of fire.
That's another possible problem, there are so many problems with trying to confirm what black holes are made of. Time dilation and red shift is another problem, because even if a probe could magically send out a signal, it would be so time-dilated and red-shifted by the time we got it that it might be impossible to detect, and take over a billion years to get the signal even if we could detect it.

The "wall of fire at the event horizon hypothesis" is apparently a consequence of insisting that information loss cannot be violated even in a black hole. I can't say that's wrong, but I can say that black holes are beyond the ability of our existing models to describe, and I'm not as married to the idea that information can't be lost as the people who insist that our models which don't adequately describe black holes must nonetheless remain intact in black holes. We need a new model for black holes, then let that explain if information loss is still impossible. If it turns out information loss is possible in the new model, maybe there's no wall of fire at the event horizon, but at this point I think we just don't know the answers.



posted on Aug, 24 2021 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I too think the real answer is a little more complicated. At the core of a neutron star, it is very possible that we have another state, and in truth a neutron star will have regions with different structure and materials. AT their core they be a quark gluon plasma, then as you move outward toward the surface you go through neutronium in in a lattice, superfluid state and eventually have a crust or atmosphere that is electron degenerate and then regular high energy plasma. It is a very extreme object...also... very very hot despite seemingly like the description is one that sounds like a cold solid.

Neutron Stars and White dwarfs also exhibit a strange effect in that the higher their mass, the smaller their radius, totally opposite of regular fusion burning stars.



Neutron star merger data from Ligo and the observation of a merger taking place, or more accurately the supernova resulting from the merger. (2018, cant remember the candidate number)

The interesting part is that there is a period of a few seconds during the merger in which the object is above the critical limit for a neutron star. The interesting thing here is the question 'How is that possible' What this suggests is that the forces at play here are not totally understood and or that there is a geometrical and rotational effect happening here in which the object is rotating so quickly that it is held up as a neutron star in a super-critical state, and that as it spins down and radiates away energy, it becomes a black hole.

This gives us evidence of the so called frame dragging effect around a black hole, in that some blackholes have an ergosphere. What it tells us is that blackholes do have some physical properties that exert externally beyond simple gravity and that frame dragging suggests for example a finite speed of light. An egosphere can be used to bleed energy from a blackhole too, transferring its rotational energy and mass to the momentum of an object passing through the region.



posted on Aug, 24 2021 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

My thoughts exactly. Revolving all of physics around the study of hypothetical & frequently absurd particle interactions, has set us back a hundred years of more on where we could have been had we studied forces as fields. Indeed Tesla predicted it, the quote is so well-known that I won't repost it here, simply search Tesla's opinion on the study of fields!



posted on Aug, 24 2021 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Peeple

My thoughts exactly. Revolving all of physics around the study of hypothetical & frequently absurd particle interactions, has set us back a hundred years of more on where we could have been had we studied forces as fields. Indeed Tesla predicted it, the quote is so well-known that I won't repost it here, simply search Tesla's opinion on the study of fields!



I somewhat agree particle physics has given us new insight and led to advances in technology. However i think your right everything is about fields including particles. I see space as a chalk board waiting for information. Just like a chalk board provides the space needed. Space itself is fields that continually fluctuate.

When a radioactive material decays, for example, we think of it as spitting out different kinds of particles. Neutrons decay into protons, electrons and neutrinos. Those protons, electrons and neutrinos aren’t hiding inside neutrons, waiting to get out. Yet they appear when neutrons decay.

If we think in terms of fields, this sudden appearance of new kinds of particles starts to make more sense. The energy and excitation of one field transfers to others as they vibrate against each other, making it seem like new types of particles are appearing. We see this at Cern as well we smash particles together get entirely new particles. If particles are actually dields this makes sense.



posted on Aug, 24 2021 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Peeple

My thoughts exactly. Revolving all of physics around the study of hypothetical & frequently absurd particle interactions, has set us back a hundred years of more on where we could have been had we studied forces as fields. Indeed Tesla predicted it, the quote is so well-known that I won't repost it here, simply search Tesla's opinion on the study of fields!

I tried that search and got a page full of results related to Tesla cars. I modified the search a little and found this quote from Tesla mentioning fields; it's on a page full of Tesla quotes and it's the only one mentioning fields:

Nikola Tesla > Quotes

Misunderstandings are always caused by the inability of appreciating one another's point of view. This again is due to the ignorance of those concerned, not so much in their own, as in their mutual fields.

Speaking of misunderstandings, perhaps you have some of those, when you say "Revolving all of physics around the study of hypothetical & frequently absurd particle interactions". After physicist Harry Cliff described the "particle zoo" of the standard model, he said this at 10:50:

"Particles aren't really what matters at all. Our field is kind of badly named, in a sense. What actually we think of as being fundamental are not particles, but fields."-Harry Cliff
Beyond the Higgs: What's Next for the LHC? - with Harry Cliff

Paul Dirac had an early version of QED, a field theory, in 1927, with major advances in that field theory being made in the 1940s and 1950s, so we've been working on that all along.

But the more fundamental misunderstanding I think is your apparent idea that you can study one without the other, that is study particles without fields or fields without particles. The particles are commonly referred to as "excitations of the field", in which case as Cliff said, the field would appear to be more fundamental.

Tesla was a good engineer, but he had some big misunderstandings of physics, so if you quote him as a source relating to physics, you might find that some of his ideas are known to be incorrect. For example, it was his failure to understand physics, that caused his Wardenclyffe tower project to be such a massive failure.

Tesla’s folly – why Wardenclyffe didn’t work

Besides being mistaken about non-Hertzian waves, Tesla committed a grave error here – he assumed that waves could travel through the Earth without loss.


edit on 2021824 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join