Gravitions or gravinos?

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: xpoq47

Texttraveling at lightspeed squared. They would mediate Einstein’s lightspeed limit but certainly not be subject to it.

Light speed (c) squared is c.

The squared is geometrical and rotational. Where in our three dimensions of length, height and width. Squared is a 90 deg by 90 deg rotation = 180 deg. Backwards being square of forward (length), down being square of up (height) and left being square of right (width). And/or vice versa. But all travel at c only.

When I say lightspeed squared I mean (186,000 x 186,000) miles per second, where lightspeed is only 186,000 miles per second. The two values are _not_ the same.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: xpoq47
The matter would react like a sponge in a body of water, pulling in the gravinos from all directions.

I envision particles of matter always deflecting gravinos except when taking a few of them in for self-repair after being damaged by cosmic radiation, so very rarely absorbing the gravinos. And being pummeled by and deflecting gravinos is what holds a particle (which is really a packet of energy) together in a little ball.

a reply to: xpoq47

"What about gravinos (spin-1 [compressor] bosons)"

If it is a boson with integer spin, then it must obey Bose-Einstein statistics. If it is a boson, it must carry a force. What force does your 'gravino' carry? It cannot be gravity because gravity is not a force between masses. Gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass.

"gravino has a minuscule rest mass"

How minuscule?

"they would mediate Einstein’s lightspeed limit"

No. Light speed limit is a result of spacetime geometry. Spacetime's geometry is what dictates speed limit for photons and whatever particle you may think of.

"superluminal gravinos"

Your 'gravino' cannot be superluminal. The speed limit is set for all particles by spacetime, and the geometry of your spacetime limits the maximum speed you can travel to that of light.

"gravinos bend light"

No. No boson bends light. It is spacetime curvature what bends particles, whatever their nature.

"gravinos might be what holds photons and particles of matter together"

If that were the case, your 'gravino' is not doing its job because photons and particles of matter (whatever 'matter' means) are not held together. Unless you redefine what you mean by 'being held together'.

a reply to: TheRedneck

"I have been working out the math behind this theory for several years now. It is possible that at some future time, the equations will imply why and how the waveforms get reflected. I suspect it has something to do with a natural tendency of the aether to reflect specific frequencies, but that is still merely conjecture on my part at this time. "

I think your suspicion is partly right. Reformulate your equations by having in mind spacetime consists of waveguides. The dimensions of the waveguide allow for some particles to travel, while others are supresed. The equations are those of superstring theory in which you assume particles to be vibrating strings inside the waveguide. You then find a cutoff limit (Planck's mass) giving you the maximum mass a particle would sustain in your universe, and it will also give you a bottom non-zero cutoff below which no wave can travel. The vibrations are quantized, as we are here talking about a discrete spacetime.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes it is a complex number. Where -1 is the square of 1.

If 1 = c then -1 = c^2.

a reply to: xpoq47

There is no faster than c.

c^2 is c.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Yes it is a complex number. Where -1 is the square of 1.

Ummm... that's not a complex number. I was referring to i, not 1.

A complex number can be expressed as a+bi, where the coefficient of i is the imaginary portion (i being defined as the square root of -1). In no numerical system is 1^2 equal to -1. The imaginary descriptor i, when squared, is -1 (the square root of a number squared is that number) but i is certainly not 1.

(and that may have actually solved one of my problems I had been having. It never occurred to me to think of the solution as complex. Maybe I'm getting slow in my old age.)

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: xpoq47

If it is a boson with integer spin, then it must obey Bose-Einstein statistics. If it is a boson, it must carry a force. What force does your 'gravino' carry? It cannot be gravity because gravity is not a force between masses. Gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass.

If calling the gravino a boson is too restrictive, then I should simply call it a particle. How minuscule? I can't measure it, but I suppose billions of times smaller than an electron and only significant because of its extreme speed. And I'm suggesting that gravinos are the cops that enforce Einstein's speed limit, but cops don't restrict themselves to the speed limits.

And I'm suggesting that bending of space is virtual bending of space caused by the onslaught of gravinos, like the virtual warping of space caused by a strong wind.

I'm suggesting that gravinos are the cops that enforce Einstein's speed limit, but cops don't restrict themselves to the speed limits.

a reply to: xpoq47

That's a nice metaphor. You suggest gravinos are cops who don't restrict themselves to speed limits. I am suggesting the road is spacetime, and it imposes a speed limit to the both cops and non-cops. No matter how powerful the cops' bikes are, they are limited by how narrow and winding the road is.

That is what spacetime is for any and all particles: a road, which sets how fast they can go.

originally posted by: Direne

I'm suggesting that gravinos are the cops that enforce Einstein's speed limit, but cops don't restrict themselves to the speed limits.

a reply to: xpoq47

That's a nice metaphor. You suggest gravinos are cops who don't restrict themselves to speed limits. I am suggesting the road is spacetime, and it imposes a speed limit to the both cops and non-cops. No matter how powerful the cops' bikes are, they are limited by how narrow and winding the road is.

That is what spacetime is for any and all particles: a road, which sets how fast they can go.

I know that's your position. And I'm suggesting that the curvature of spacetime is a consequence of gravinos, just as the curvature of a flexible sign fastened along its centerline to a post is a consequence of the wind—that the curvature of spacetime is quite real but caused by something: wind consisting of gravinos opposed by weakened (partially shielded) wind from the opposite side of the planet, leaving a net effect of curved spacetime to the degree afforded by the surface gravity of the planet or other body in question.

a reply to: Direne

Gravinos have nothing to do with the speed of light. Its easier to think of the speed of light as the speed of causality. Time is relative but causality isnt. If things are causality conected everyone would agree on the order of those events, If you allowed causality to occur faster than light then causality cannot be maintained. In that case events could occur before their cause. This is the reason Einstein set the speed limit of C. Nothing can or will go faster because if it did the universe itself ceases to function.

originally posted by: xpoq47
How does gravity work? Whatever the truth is, it would likely sound ridiculous to present-day people.
I doubt the existence of gravitons (spin-2 [pulling] bosons), since a neutron deep within a neutron star shouldn’t be able to compete with surrounding neutrons for the raw materials to produce them ad infinitum.

I don't follow this rationale, though I'm neutral on the idea of gravitons. I can't prove they don't exist and I don't follow your argument about why you doubt them. "raw materials" makes no sense to me, if the gravitons are massless; what "raw materials" do you need to make a massless particle?

Nobody has proven they do exist, and proving such would be difficult.

What about gravinos (spin-1 [compressor] bosons) that impart a version of radiation pressure powerful enough to result in gravity as we know it?

I'm not familiar with gravinos. I found a gravino paper on Vixra but it says they would travel at the speed of light, so they are apprently not the same thing as what you are calling gravinos. It doesn't seem like a very good paper, but in your case, there is no paper linked at all.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: xpoq47

There is no faster than c.

c^2 is c.

E=mc² contains the term c² which is the speed of light squared. It doesn't imply anything is going faster than c, it shows the relationship between mass of a stationary object and energy of that object.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Peeple

Yes i tend to go with Einstine on this one. I think gravity is caused by the bending of space time and not actually a force.

That may be true.

This is why we dont see it in particle physics.

I don't know how you come to that conclusion. The reason why we don't see it in particle physics as far as I know is that the other three forces are on the order of a trillion trillion trillion times stronger, so the gravity of a single particle is unlikely to be measured or detected by any known technology.

Now my other thought i had was the similarity between gravity and the electrostatic force.I find it interesting that the gravitational force and the electrostatic force can be so empirically similar and yet give rise to such completely different theory. Why do we not explain electrostatic attraction by saying that the presense of a charge warps space-time? I still find it odd that two forms of attraction could be so very different. But maybe its just me but i feel things need to be fundamental and connected somehow.

It's natural to look for patterns in nature so, why not look for such a relationship or pattern, it seems worth looking into it. Many have had the same idea, looked, and not found a relationship that makes sense. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not there, maybe we just haven't found it yet, except for the electric universe guys who say some things about it that sound like complete nonsense and are contradicted by observation.

The kind of mainstream thought is that gravity would be unified with the other forces at high enough energies, but there's no proof of that idea. There is proof of the unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces in a combined electroweak at higher energies.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The second created phenomenon is that all aether passing the Scwartzchold's radius exceeds the speed of light (the definition of the Schwartzchild's radius) and thus shifts into another dimension as per Einstein's Relativity equations (the Lorentz function reduces to a function described by the imaginary portion of a complex number). This means that at some point, the aether must shift again into the original dimension (else we would detect a loss of aether and a shifting of known constants based on the properties of the aether). Thus, I theorize that this happens in the minuscule version of a "white hole"... or, as more widely known, antimatter.

I had similar thoughts as your theory here. However I was thinking maybe instead of the mini white holes maybe it returns as the dark energy.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
. . . if the gravitons are massless; what "raw materials" do you need to make a massless particle?

Good to hear from you.

If massless particles of any kind exist, maybe they don't exhibit the properties of mass, but they must consist of something, probably pure energy, in which case they must have been produced from some kind of raw material, even if that raw material is energy. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not comfortable with something that consists of nothing.

Also, suppose a neutron deep within a neutron star could produce gravitons out of nothing. Am I to believe that those gravitons can penetrate miles of neutrons to make it to the surface and out into space?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Dark energy (and dark matter) is simply the flow of large amounts of aether.

There is nothing that exotic about dark matter/energy. We have observed that some galaxies tend to spin too slowly for the mass we can detect to be responsible for it holding together. We can take those equations and observed data and formulate the areas affected and the forces that appear to be missing. We then call these missing forces "dark matter" and "dark energy." "Dark" because we can't detect ("see") it, and matter when it appears to generate a positive gravitational force/energy when it appears to generate a negative gravitational force.

One of the first concepts I looked into was the forces that would exist, according to this theory, between two particles floating free in space. The equation I came up with was eerily similar to gravitational formulas, with one exception: a single term which only became significant at comparably large distances ("comparatively large" meaning distances greater than the distance across an atom). At very small distances, however, that term decreased to zero and actually went quite negative. The implication there is that at these small distances two particles will stop attracting each other and even begin to repel each other quite strongly.

The reason is actually simple: as the two particles get closer together, the amount of space (and of aether) between them becomes quite small. But the space around them is still as large as before (essentially infinite). Therefore, the force opposing the two particles' pull on each other becomes quite considerable in relation to the force attracting them together.

In the case of a disk composed of matter, it appears to me that the gravitational pull may be quite different for a particle in the plane of the disk as opposed to a particle above or below it. That could explain much of the dark matter.

This aether must be flexible, meaning that under matter-induced forces it can stretch and change density. A density shift would equate to a difference in the gravitational constant of that area of space. I recently saw a documentary where the narrator mentioned dark energy and showed a 3D map of the various areas of this dark energy. It all was in the area of galaxies and other dense areas of matter... it literally formed a framework for the Universe. That makes a lot of sense when taken with my theory on gravitation, as the matter density itself would tend to shift the gravitational constant of the area around it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

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"?

a reply to: xpoq47

I am afraid that you will receive a bunch of responses stating that you are stuck in the particle world.

The problem is that the real world only has a small amount of particles in it! The rest appears to be fields, interactive fields, and quasi fields. This is the “where” the observable phenomenon we call gravity is thought to come from. Since haven’t fit it into a precise framework we let it slide and call it “emergent” with a wink and a nod.

Those Navy UFO patents claim that they know how to prevent the sea foam of quantum foam/fields from forming around your ship.

Particles are easy but take off the training wheels and jump into the quantum foam!! The concepts are strange, at first, because you are so steeped in “particle theory”, and that is a tangible part of your existence. To think of yourself as spaceship of consciousness held together by standing wave weak nuclear forces that exists in quantum flux... why that is madness!!!



But thanks for the thinking, and this thread!

S+F!

a reply to: TheRedneck

I propose an aether which is not composed of particles, but of energy. It must also interact with matter;

Perhaps matter is just knotted aether that requires an equal amount of energy to knot/unknot. The knots themselves causing directional changes within the aether that we percieve as gravity.

So the eather could be just a wind of potentials.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: TheRedneck

I propose an aether which is not composed of particles, but of energy. It must also interact with matter;

Perhaps matter is just knotted aether that requires an equal amount of energy to knot/unknot. The knots themselves causing directional changes within the aether that we percieve as gravity.

So the eather could be just a wind of potentials.

Right. Picture a vortex on the water, one that doesn't spin, see how it looks on the surface. Now place it on a sphere and another and another until the sphere is covered. Now imagine that all those vortex are combined into one. This is how I pictured matter in my thought experiment. Matter sits in the middle as the aether is drawn in. TheRednek's theory seems close to what I was thinking.

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".

Maybe every particle has an in (gravity) and an out (dark white hole). Concentrations of particles form concentrations of gravity and concentrations of dark white holes. I say dark white holes because they can't be seen. They are just the black outflow of aether, the opposite of the end where matter is raking in aether in what is seen as gravity.

I think any visible white hole would be from a collapsed universe. On one end the universe expands from the initial big bang but that universe is too close to the force of gravity so then eventually the expansion stops, reverses and proceeds to collapse into a "big crunch". On the other end of the "big crunch" you get the white hole, a "big bang".

It's seems so far that the universe we live in isn't so close to the force of gravity that gravity will stop the momentum of the expansion going for a "big crunch". It appears the expansion of our universe actually seems to be accelerating and we are heading for a "deep freeze ".

Looks like our sea foam bubble is gonna burst.

originally posted by: xpoq47

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
. . . if the gravitons are massless; what "raw materials" do you need to make a massless particle?

Good to hear from you.

If massless particles of any kind exist, maybe they don't exhibit the properties of mass, but they must consist of something, probably pure energy, in which case they must have been produced from some kind of raw material, even if that raw material is energy. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not comfortable with something that consists of nothing.

If gravitons exist, they would be force-carrier or exchange particles like the massless photon force-carrier of the electromagnetic force and the massless gluon force carrier of the strong force, so there's a good chance they would be massless, though there are theories which give them a small mass not unlike the neutrino which was once thought to be massless but we now think neutrinos have very tiny masses.

Exchange Forces


In field theory there are fields everywhere, and the particles are energy excitations of the fields, so just as a photon force carrier is an excitation of the electromagnetic field, the graviton would theoretically be an excitation of the gravitational field, though there are multiple different graviton theories and I haven't read them all, they are not all the same. 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.

Also, suppose a neutron deep within a neutron star could produce gravitons out of nothing. Am I to believe that those gravitons can penetrate miles of neutrons to make it to the surface and out into space?

Some particles have very low interaction profiles with matter. Most neutrinos coming from the sun pass right through the entire earth as if it wasn't even there, it's only very rarely that a solar neutrino would interact with the matter from the earth.

Gravitons are also theorized to have low interaction profiles with matter. Below is a paper which calculates that if you built a graviton detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% detection efficiency, and put it in orbit around a neutron star, it would be expected to detect a graviton only once every 10 years. Even if you did that you wouldn't know if it was a graviton or neutrino that was detected. So another problem arises if you build a shield around the detector to block neutrinos, they are so hard to block that the added mass would collapse the apparatus into a black hole. In any case this paper details the mathematics of hypothesized gravitons and how they would interact with matter, which of course is critical to making a graviton detector.

Can Gravitons Be Detected?

Neutrinos can leave neutron stars, so why not gravitons? Though it's a bit complicated since they don't travel through the neutron star like sunlight shining through a window, they still manage to leave, and neutrinos are thought to have a tiny mass unlike the graviton force carriers, which are thought to possibly be massless like the photon and gluon force carriers/exchange particles.

A Rapidly Cooling Neutron Star

In a newly born neutron star, neutrinos are temporarily trapped in the opaque stellar core, but they diffuse out in a matter of seconds, leaving most of their energy to heat the matter in the core to more than 500 billion kelvin. Over the next million years, the star mainly cools by emitting more neutrinos...

The neutrinos carry away energy as they escape from the star, and as the star cools, the number of thermally excited nucleons drops.

So if neutrinos with a tiny mass are escaping the neutron star, why not gravitons which are theorized to be massless?

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.