Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Raghunath Tiruvaipati: on 10/25/20 at 14:39pm UTC, wrote Hi Friends, Electromagnetism is a field theory, Because of that, the...

sappy jackson: on 10/12/20 at 9:43am UTC, wrote good to read this post

Steve Dufourny: on 9/29/20 at 7:50am UTC, wrote Hi dear fqxi community, very cool this discussion, thanks, Steve great also...

Steve Agnew: on 9/28/20 at 18:27pm UTC, wrote A black hole is a matter-action transformation to pure quantum phase. Of...

John Cox: on 9/28/20 at 17:15pm UTC, wrote I just checked. The reactive region of a 21cm near field wavelength would...

John Cox: on 9/28/20 at 15:40pm UTC, wrote All good points, Perhaps we have to look in gravitational aggregate for...

Steve Agnew: on 9/28/20 at 14:57pm UTC, wrote The near field versus far field for a photon is very interesting and quite...

John Cox: on 9/28/20 at 14:05pm UTC, wrote Doc 1^-39th is in my ballpark also. What are your thoughts on my posts to...



FQXi FORUM
October 29, 2020

CATEGORY: High Energy Physics [back]
TOPIC: The Noise of Gravitons [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on May. 29, 2020 @ 17:54 GMT
The Gravity Research Foundation recently announced the winners of its 2020 essay contest.

Thank you to Steve Agnew for suggesting that we open a thread to discuss the first-prize-winning essay: "The Noise of Gravitons" by FQXi members Maulikh Parikh & Frank Wilczek, and their colleague George Zahariade.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator



Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 18, 2020 @ 06:49 GMT
Hi Zeeya,

It's a very well written paper and the mathematics is quite elegant. However, when you say, "he mode can have a finalstate|f〉, which, after interaction with the detector, will generically be different from itsinitial state because the detector masses will typically both absorband emit gravitons(through spontaneous as well as stimulated emission). ",

the part about a mass emitting and absorbing gravitons suggests an understanding of gravitons and how they behave, that should be talked about. I think the way the physics community is looking at gravitons is wrong!

You are treating gravitons as exchange particles that transmit momentum and energy between masses. But gravity is curvature of spacetime! If that is true, then shouldn't gravitons be contributors to spacetime?

Is it possible to treat gravitons as things that contribute to spacetime geometry? Perhaps gravitons are made of spacetime geometry itself...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Sep. 18, 2020 @ 16:44 GMT
Hi Jason,

I think you may be confused into thinking that I wrote the paper, "The Noise of Gravitons." I did not, so I am afraid I cannot answer your question about the wording within the paper. I simply opened the thread at the request of Steve Agnew who thought users of the site may want to read the paper.

Bookmark and Share

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 18, 2020 @ 19:28 GMT
Very well. But in all seriousness, I think the physics community is looking at it wrong.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 18, 2020 @ 19:01 GMT
Forgive me Zeeya. I didn't realize you were a layperson.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
sappy jackson replied on Oct. 12, 2020 @ 09:43 GMT
good to read this post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Sep. 19, 2020 @ 03:46 GMT
...well at least now two people are interested enough to comment on graviton noise. The LIGO measurements have shown gravity waves from black hole and neutron star mergers, but LIGO also shows gravity wave stochastic noise. Although electromagnetic noise dominates each LIGO location, the gravity waves phase coherence among LIGO locations also shows gravity wave noise.

We are in an ocean of gravity wave noise and that noise tells us a lot about our gravity ocean. Right now, we focus on the gravity wave storms, but there is useful information in the gravity wave noise as well. In fact, continuous spontaneous localization theory argues that gravity noise is responsible for the collapse of wavefunctions.

This seems to be likely true, but Science will likely need to measure gravity waves far away from earth to show this is true. Gravitons are still hypothetical particles, but since photon exchange carries charge force by QED, graviton exchange should therefore carry gravity force.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 19, 2020 @ 07:22 GMT
Hi Steve,

I hope you don't mind if I share an intuitive thought experiment with you about how gravitons actually work.

Gravitons begin as points from the Planck scale

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 19, 2020 @ 07:24 GMT
The FQXI editor seems to have cut off the rest of it. I"ll try again a little later.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 19, 2020 @ 07:36 GMT
Hi Steve,

I hope you don't mind if I share an intuitive thought experiment with you about how gravitons actually work.

Gravitons begin as points from the Planck scale. They expand at the speed of light in all directions such that they obey,

[equation]

Which is the equation of a sphere. As these gravitons expand, they are likely to bump into particles. If they do,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 19, 2020 @ 07:22 GMT
Hi Steve,

I hope you don't mind if I share an intuitive thought experiment with you about how gravitons actually work.

Gravitons begin as points from the Planck scale

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 19, 2020 @ 07:32 GMT
Hi Steve,

I hope you don't mind if I share an intuitive thought experiment with you about how gravitons actually work.

Gravitons begin as points from the Planck scale

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Sep. 19, 2020 @ 08:24 GMT
Thank you Steve Agnew. Interesting thoughts. I try to think about chaos and time. Maybe it is chaos and gravitation, because both are about movements.

Regards, Ulla Mattfolk

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 19, 2020 @ 08:39 GMT
The expanding graviton is stochastic by design. They randomly interact. The age range is what determines whether it will contribute to the lepton field, Higgs field or the spacetime continuum.

All those virtual photons that were proven to exist via the Casimir effect, are gravitons.

Curvature of spacetime due to planets, stars, and gravitationally signfiicant bodies are the result of the mass-energy, the stress-energy tensor casting a sort of negative energy "reflection" upon the spacetime continuum, which causes spacetime to warp, and also causes the average of momentum to vary with distance.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Sep. 19, 2020 @ 15:17 GMT
https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.00439 here you can see the termal noise as a blue line, actually with a spike near zero... /Ulla

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 20, 2020 @ 03:47 GMT
Does anyone else have a theory of how gravitons are related to spacetime geometry?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 20, 2020 @ 14:34 GMT
This paper is a very good paper when we extrapolate the gravitons and the GR and the gravitational waves, but the problem is to consider still only this spacetimes made of photons only , furthermore the gravitational waves are effects on the GR like we know and we have had results due to these BHs colliding and so we have these waves acting on this spacetime and we have ghad results with Ligo . But never the quantum gravitation has been proved to be correlated with these gravitational waves and also that it is different modes for photons . In fact the paper is a good attempt but it considers like strings in fact and onmly photons liuke primordial essence and so they have inserted the noise to find them with the gravitational waves, but it is just photons oscillating, not particles of gravitation. The secret for me is to consider the vaccumm differently , the DE and also this Dark matter like a different non relativistic spacetime superimposed and consider the particles of gravitation correlated with this cold dark matter and we link with the anti matter. That needs a new partitions and new encodings in our nuclei, the fact to focus on this GR and gravitational waves is not the secret, it is not remormalisable and quantisable in this line of reasoning. This paper permits to find the modes of gravitational waves but has nothing to dfo with the quantum gravitation for me. So they have tried to unify the QM and the GR with these gravitational waves in changing the modes of photons giving gravitons, but that does not quantify the quantum gravitation unfortunally, that gives just noises for the modes of phtons oscillating differently due to gravitational waves, Wilczek is very relevant and I respect his idea but it is not quantised and not the good road for me. But it is just my opinion. The noise of gravitational waves is nnot the noise of particles of gravitation, it is different.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 20, 2020 @ 15:01 GMT
That implies this prison that I told you due to our GR and the D branes of strings theorists. They consider these gravitons and wave lenghts different but that does not explain the vector of this quantum gravitational force. The fact for example to take a string closed giving a circle and you can give modes and vibrations giving the properties of spin, charhes or others , that does not solve the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 20, 2020 @ 15:27 GMT
well, let s go farer now, we need to explain this DM, this DE, this antimatter and this quantum gravitation and we must unify for this the GR and the QM. So all has a logic of unification and if we don t consider these unknowns, so we cannot, first of all we must superimpose a space time made of cold dark matter at my humble opinion to this GR and we must consider the vacuum like a coded energy ,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 20, 2020 @ 15:44 GMT
I have an idea to find these particles of DM encoded in our nuclei , and proving correctly this quantum gravitation , the particles of gravitation are bosons also and they are the bosons Z´, we could find them in the collisions at the LHC if we utilise maybe the cold also and that can prove this cold cosm Dark matter instead of this amtimatter cosmological , and that permits to explain the cold dark matter encoded in nuclei and so the antimatter correctly , that will prove also that we have not only photons like primordial essence and that this hylogenesis is foundamental and the non baryonicmatter balancing also and we can better understand the evolution furthermore and even predict the future of our universe and the spherisation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Sep. 21, 2020 @ 03:30 GMT
Well finally...people are interested in graviton phase noise...I cannot emphasize how important graviton phase noise is for any understanding of physical reality.

This pleases me greatly. Noise is such a throw-away concept of Science that simply accepts noise as the limit of measurement...but does no posit noise as the basis of neural free choice. Continuous spontaneous localization depends on some perturbation to collapse a wavefunction.

Graviton noise seems to be that perturbation and yet Science does not yet realize that this is actually the basis of physical reality. Once again, no one that I know believes this except for me...but I believe that one person can change the universe...and am...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 21, 2020 @ 08:06 GMT
Hi, I liked this paper about these noises, of course it is a very interesting work about these waves and how they interacts with this spacetime, and I liked the tools and partitions utilised for this ocean of gravitational waves . But I just tell that we don t know these gravitons and we cannot affirm that these gravitons are the quanta of these gravitational waves, the perturbation of collapse of wavefucntion is about the phtons and the GR and we cannot affirm if it is the link to affirm these gravitons, first of all we must really prove these gravitons and what they are really and after we can make an experiment to check them and after we can correlate in unifying the GRand thr QM or we unify with a depper logic, I just tell a thing logic, if these gravitons are not the quanta of gravitational waves, so the perturbation is just about waves acting in this GR, like a partiton of ranking of all the noises, I liked the equations utilised in this paper, but we cannot affirm still what are these gravitons, the best seem to find them in our nuclei and for this the LHC could help with the good experiment. Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 21, 2020 @ 08:29 GMT
What I find relevant is the signals for the noises , and the links with the informations, these gravitational waves carry kinds of informations and we convey them to explain this phenomenom, we have so like a partiton of all these noises acting on this spacetime relativistic, because we see these pertubations and the collapsing of wavefunctions, it is logic in fact , we have the effets of cosmological objects in time and locally and so we rank these waves in function of the noises in time and space respecting the photonic spacetime and this GR, but what I explain is simple, if these gravitational waves are just effects on this GR and that the quanta of gravitational waves are not gravitons but here just photons oscillating differewntly in function of objects and in ranking them in time , so we must be prudent about the conclusions, we cannot affrim that the gravitons are correlated.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 21, 2020 @ 08:43 GMT
we must find these gravitons and their properties , and we must maybe find this conjecture between the strings and the coded particles, let s imagine this, let s consider higher spacetime diemsnions due to strings and let s consider the Kaluza Klein modes and the branes ,and let s consider this general relativity and let s try to consider hiddem variables due to the unknowns that I explained in superimposing these 2 other spacetimes, let s analyse the branes and the dimensions and let s consider these spacetimes superimposed and lets consider the scalar fields in considering these hidden variables for the modes. If the 3 aaethers that I explained are a reality and that the foundamental objects are these 3D spheres in motions and oscillations and if the superfluidity is a reality for the real spacetime made of 3 spacetimes, so we can rank the modes and converge , the real interest is to find the couplings and why we have these different couplings considering the 3 spacetimes.All this to tell that we have an interesting point to analyse for the modes and the mass of gravitons, if their mass is not 0 , that implies relevances for the other spacetimes. That could permit to see better the real perturbations on this GR in detailing better the effects of this gravitation withnthese 2 other spacetimes superimposed ,the scalar tensor theory so becomes more complex and need new parameters.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Sep. 21, 2020 @ 09:52 GMT
Stewe Agnew.

Graviton noise seems to be that perturbation and yet Science does not yet realize that this is actually the basis of physical reality.

You want to do the polarization between the waves and noise? But also the waves becomes noise by time. I am not sure about this approach. Maybe you think of the spin2 particle, which indeed looks very chaotical. For waves it is a sandwich perturbation? https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/zna/31/12/article-p1
664.xml?language=en

Gravitation is not perturbed, because it is not renormalized, because we are immensed in it, but actually chaos shows how we can understand the renormalization also.

Can you give us some links here?

Ulla.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 21, 2020 @ 09:59 GMT
The real problem seems to conclude that the gravitational waves and the gravitons are linked, like if they were the quanta of gravitational waves, so they are photons oscillating with different modes and they try to unify so the GR and the QM, but it seems not our foundamental reality, the perturbations of wavefunctions are not the problem, they are just gravitational waves, waves simply photonic due to movements of cosmological objects, the quantum gravitation is for me a different reasoning. We need really to unify not only the GR and the QM but all our unknowns, and the DE and DM seem essential at all scales.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 21, 2020 @ 10:06 GMT
You know in studying and reading many papers of the best thinkers and in reading the conclusions of the LHC or the Nasa or others, they conclude that it lacks something to superimpose to reach this quantum gravitation, all the best mathematicians and universities and thinkers have tried since more than 20 years and even in computing mathematical tools, it lacks something to superimpose and there are hidden variables, if we cannot renormalise and quantify there are reasons, the GR and QM cannot be unified in considering only this relativistic spacetime, we need really to understand these unknowns , the antimatter , the DM, the DE and we must unfify all in superimposing these unknowns and find the good partition, if not we shall trun still in round and we shall have just assumptions. It lacks really pieces to superimpose to our GR and this standard kmodel to find the real balances and the real matter energy transformations. The GR is correct of course for our spacetome photonic, it is just that it is not only the one peice of our universal reality, the thinkers can tell all what they want, the relativity is not sufficient to explain these deep unknowns.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Sep. 21, 2020 @ 10:07 GMT
It is indeed interesting that gravitation is too high, so we get these dark sides.

I also think of Einsteins efforts to understand the quantum world, even if he was one of its founders. He thought there is something more to it. Can it be the chaos that still was not found when he lived? Or understood. It indeed looks very Machian to me.

Ulla.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 21, 2020 @ 20:45 GMT
Let s consider the 3 main spacetimes , it is an assumption of course and let s consider the finite primoridal series of 3D spheres coded, one for the space vacuum the DE, the main codes and the two fuels the photons for the thermodynamics , heat and electronagnetism and the cold dark matter for the gravitation and the cold like a balance correlated also with antimatter. Let s consider so this GR...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Sep. 22, 2020 @ 04:42 GMT
Theoretically, the key to quantum gravity is in using the simple dimensions of matter, action, and quantum phase. This does mean that Science must move beyond the limitations of space and time to achieve an understanding of physical reality.

Science is so used to random noise that it does not realize how much useful information is in quantum phase noise...but it is very hard to measure quantum phase noise. Earth measurements are limited because of earth spin, but measurements in space far away from earth should finally be able to measure quantum phase noise from the gravity waves of our local cluster as well as our own galaxy.

Our sun responds to the gravity of nearby stars, but there is also an extra gravity vector force due to the coupling of star matter decays. The best measurements of gravity phase noise are LIGO and there are efforts to extract information from that noise.

Gravity wave polarization measurements are complicated since the three LIGO experiments are different orientations. The complexities of laser and interferometry polarization further complicate analysis. The ESA LISA mission will have the best chance of measuring quantum graviton phase noise...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 22, 2020 @ 08:28 GMT
Hi Steve, I know indeed about these methods correlated with the GR , in fact they try like I told to unify this QM and GR and many have tried like this beautiful paper of Wilczek, this paper is for me like I said about the gravitational waves and the noises correlated , but we must recognise that it is an assumption , first of all we have not found these gravitons and secondly we cannot affrim that this road is the good one to unify this QM and the spacetime.My ideas also are assumptions and I don t affrim them but between us , see that it is maybe a road to explain this quantum gravitation, I insist on the fact that the majority consider only these photons like the primoridal essence and that this GR is the only one piece of pur universal puzzle, we must recognise steve that we cannot affirm, we can tell all what we want, it is a fact , and frankly I doubt that we have only this GR at our cosmological scale to explain the things and that our standard model also is only made of encoded photons if I can say oscillating differently. The interferometry here was to prove the gravitational waves and never the gravitons, and also even the LHC or the Nasa and many accept that the gravitons are maybe not the quanta of gravitational waves, I just tell this, we cannot be sure even with the noises and the partition, it is a beautiful paper for me to rank all the noises of gravitational waves but we cannot tell that it is the noise of gravitons. So the gravitational waves phase noise yes ,m gravitons phase noises, I don t agree, I like this thinker Wilczek he is relevant but I am sure that himself he don t affrim , he tries like all to find them and prove them these gravitons, his paper is an assumption .At this moment this quantum gravitation has not been proved simply, we must recognise this,Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 22, 2020 @ 09:47 GMT
Dear Steve, imagine if My assumption superimposing these spacetimes is correct to reach the scales for this quantum gravitation and find their interactions and properties, the GR is really for me just a photonic spacetime and it is not our only one truth. The planck scale is an extrapolation and imagine if my reasoning is on the good road considering these coded 3D spheres at this planck scale and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 23, 2020 @ 11:33 GMT
Here is my equation improved hypothetical considering the 3 main spacetimes and the transformations energy matters, it is intuitive , we considered just the relativity so we had E=mc^2, but if this quantum gravitation, anti matter and cold dark matter are correlated so we have a deeper logic, and we can add their linear velocity more a parameter correlated with the cold Xl^2 and if we consider the Dark energy like an anti gravitational push, spherical and that we consider it like the main codes for the vacuum energetical, so we can add Y to have still more energy, that implies so this equation intuitive, E=m(c^2+Xl^2)+Y , we have more energy that we thought simply , of course it is intuitive and we must find these parameters but it is maybe on the good road. If this equation is correct , it is revolutionary but we must prove of course and find the roads to check it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Sep. 24, 2020 @ 09:15 GMT
Gravitation is shown to be an emergent classical phenomenon. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.05574

How is the gravitation described as a gauge group OUTSIDE U(1)? Does it mean the graviton contains it all? How is the noise separated?

Ulla.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Sep. 24, 2020 @ 17:44 GMT
First of all Singh's paper shows only that the very complex Lie group of SO(4) has many of the expected properties of gravitons, but that is very far from proving that gravity is an emergent classical phenomenon. The trivial U(1) group is just one dimension of Singh's 8D octanion graviton (see attachment).

The important question to ask is how can any measurement ever show a reality of 8 dimensions when we only really have 4D space and time? My opinion is that the math is interesting, but really not that useful for describing the rather simple reality of matter, action, and quantum phase. This is after all just a simple SO(3) Lie group that is noncommutative, but also includes gravity as anticommutative. Science assumes gravity is commutative since spin = 2 gravitons are not part of gravity relativity. Of course, spin = 2 gravitons are actually anticommutative, but that is a different story.

Anticommutative is also noncommutative, but in action and matter, not space and time. This means that quantum gravity uncertainties manifest themselves as uncertainties in matter and action, not location and momentum as in quantum charge.

Graviton noise is the key to understanding physical reality and is something that Science can and does measure. However, in the ocean of electromagnetic noise on earth, gravity noise is very difficult to measure as shown by LIGO. Even at Lagrange 2, LISA had a very hard time measuring gravity noise, but of course it was not meant to measure gravity noise. The next LISA will actually measure gravity noise, and so that will be exciting.

The cosmic microwave background is also an example of gravity noise along with electromagnetic noise, but the gravity noise is ambiguous at large angles of correlation due to the limits of electromagnetic noise in the measurement. Future missions far away from earth will push the noise limits of that CMB and that will be exciting as well...

attachments: 2020singhLieGroup.JPG

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 24, 2020 @ 17:55 GMT
The gravitons first of all must be proved and found in our standard model and at this moment it is not the case, and like I told, the BB is an assumption interesting with thw CMB but we cannot affirm that we have not a deeper logic , the antiverse like you told also is a pure assumption not proved with an anti BB and finally the noises of gravitational waves cannot affirm that it is the nnoise of gravitons because if all what I told is correct, so the gravitons are not the quanta of gravitational waves, we are indeed at an exciting moment but nobody can affirm nor prove , we just have assumptions and ideas even if the vanity is there and that all we are persuaded. Sorry it is a fact even if that irritates .The future missions and experiments are to find these gravitons and prove them in pour standard model, after we shall have their properties and there we coyuld conclude, now we have just assumptions with or without the approvements of persons persuaded. It is like this that the sciences act ,regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Sep. 24, 2020 @ 18:07 GMT
The spin = 2 graviton questions are interesting, but note that all quantum spin has the property of taking 4 pi rotation and so this is not just a property of spin = 2 particles like gravitons. There are in fact many spin = 2 atoms and molecules and of course, two photons also form a spin = 2 particle whenever they are coincident.

Feynman simply showed that a hypothetical graviton would...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 24, 2020 @ 18:28 GMT
we know all this Steve , we search a particle , and what I tell is simple, we have not found it and we cannot affirm that they are the quanta of gravitational waves and that the real secret is to unify the QM and the GR but apparently I speak in the wind , you seem persuaded that they are photons oscillating differently and the helicity is not the problem, the aim is not to repeat things known to explain them, the real interest is to first of all prove them with mathematical proofs and after we know the properties and there we can see if they are correlated with this GR, at this moment we don t know. I repeat even Einstein said that he was not sure that the GR was the only one piece of puzzle. So in conclusion I love Wilczek and I find him very relevant , he is smart but himself I am sure he recognises that his paper is an assumption, in fact he has won because his paper the noise of gravitons was the best in all the papers because it is a good idea but it is not proved, in fact he has won due to a beautiful idea simply, not for a proof, we don t know what are these gravitons and what are their properties. All the papers that this institute have received were all assumptions and they have chosen the best assumption with the best general idea and the best partition, but it is not a reason to be sure, the difference is there. We don t need lessons about what they are probably respecting the stadard model, we need to prove them first of all and nobody has renormalised and quantified them at this moment, is it difficult to understand ? Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 24, 2020 @ 18:51 GMT
lol and for the spin, this angular momentum different than the orbital one , see that the 3D spheres become relevant, odd that the standard model utilises these rotations but have not thought about 3D spheres like foundamental objects and that they have considered the fields like origin of our geometries, I insist on the fact that this 3D coded spheres are foundamental , it seems logic and if we utilise the spin it could be well to correlate with these 3D psheres and the series that I explained,well so the spin are vectors but let be simple, the rotations of 3D psheres become important and even this thermo, the spin 2 tells us an important thing, it is different than the others , that is why not only the senses of rotations become important but the angles probably more the cold at my opinion. I beleive strongly that these spin 2 gravitational momemtum permit to balance a thing that we don t know still, that is why this cold dark matter becomes inmportant being encoded in nuclei.In fact this gravitation permits like the anti matter, the cold dark matter to balance the actual spin 1 and 1/2 that is why these distance must be changed to respect the newtoniam mechanics and reach , quantify it ,and renormalise it, in fact it is not the gravitation wich is emergent but our actual standard model in logic, all this is an assumption, but be sure that converges I have calculated. The angles of 3D rotating oscillating spheres ......we can rank simply.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 24, 2020 @ 19:15 GMT
In fact Ulla if my reasoning is on the good road with these 3 main finite series having this dirac large number and the same than our cosmological finite series of 3D spheres, that becomes relevant for the rankings, there are so many things to add , not only the spin and other of our standard models, but many others properties if we have the vacuum for the main codes and these two fuels, you imagine the complexity of combinations , already the volumes, the angles, the densities, the exchanges this and that wowww it is infinite in combinations in fact

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Sep. 25, 2020 @ 11:11 GMT
This all start to look like numerology. I just discuss with Bruno Marshal about consciousness, and he says numbers code for consciousness, so... there is some primitive information about the ontology of what a number is.

Gravitation is about the inverse of Dirac Large numbers compared to em-force. What could possibly be a common point in that case? It is not only about a sqrt. oscillation....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Sep. 25, 2020 @ 14:19 GMT
Ulla,

You speak of EM emission as being 'one ray' which I can imagine as a soliton. This actually goes back to the point of departure of quantum mechanics from the classical because there has yet to be a rationalization for the spherical spread of luminosity and the measurable linear photo-electric effect. The working definition of "a photon" is a planck multiple value per second in which intensity becomes ambiguous. Consequently the latest claim that I have run across several years ago by a lab at (if I remember correctly) the University of Maryland, had a best count result of 4 photons.

What is lacking is an understanding of the Transition Zone in the near field, and until such time as there is an accepted general consensus on how a photon can be emitted (or ejected) in a direction away from the source, we will continue to have an entirely probabilistic, mathematical methodology of where that photon might become observable. 'Onward! through the fog!' jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Sep. 25, 2020 @ 23:45 GMT
Okay...so now spin = 2 is no longer an issue for a graviton, right? There now seems to be a bunch of things...

The Fibonacci sequence does create a spiral of square tiles with the same pitch as that of our galaxy spirals, so that is fun.

Of course, an anticorrelated spin = 2 biphoton does exist for each hydrogen atom as the superposition of its bonding exchange photon with its CMB light emitted from when that hydrogen bond formed. So that should not be contentious but certainly associating that biphoton dispersion with gravity is sweet because the matter-action math works. That is, gravity scales from charge with the size of the universe just as Dirac large numbers hypothesis.

The figure that I posted for U(1) came from that Singh paper for the octanion SO(4). It was not my figure, but it is a nice picture explanation of the complex octanion math.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Sep. 25, 2020 @ 23:57 GMT
Okay, the challenge below is a good one for matter action. Photons are the exchange glue that binds all matter together and so an emitted photon is never really free of either its precursor or its outcome. In fact they are in a quantum superposition with correlated phases.

From photon bonding events with an observer, we deduce that there are many other possible bonding events with this same photon precursor. From the relative phase and energy of an observer bond with a precursor emerges both space and time. Photon bonding gives meaning to the notion of both space and time and so the meaning of "spherical spread" emerges from those photon bonds, not the other way around.

The linear photoelectric effect is just a trivial matter of energy balance from a broad spectrum of possible oscillators. A single atom, of course, has a well-defined photon energy and can actually be transform limited...

"...because there has yet to be a rationalization for the spherical spread of luminosity and the measurable linear photo-electric effect."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Sep. 26, 2020 @ 17:29 GMT
John,

You speak of EM emission as being 'one ray' which I can imagine as a soliton.

I said it is the first transformation that is 'kicked' so I thought of the Majorana lepton, but it can also be other things. A BH should have two rays, or the biphoton.

In theory there can be many Higgses too, remember. Is the so called Higgs field also a gravitational field? It should be. There you get the biphotons.

A monopole can be a one ray, if it is much skewed, just as the sandwitch-effect in chaos theory. We also simulated this, and also the Aalto people found it. Then you need an outer field-effect. It is solitonic maybe?

Ulla.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Sep. 28, 2020 @ 18:27 GMT
A black hole is a matter-action transformation to pure quantum phase. Of course, the BH has all of the original gravity of its matter, but all of the information of that matter is now encoded as quantum phase. This includes the quantum phase of each atom's photon exchange bond, which still correlates with each atom's CMB creation photon.

Of course, gravity as a scalar force is a matter-action scalar monopole just like charge, but in matter action with radiation, gravity is also a vector force as well, just like magnetism is due to moving charge. Vector gravitism is responsible for galaxy rotation without the need to invoke any dark matter mysteries. Likewise, gravitism is also responsible for galaxy motion in clusters and gravity lensing of light, not dark matter.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Sep. 26, 2020 @ 17:37 GMT
Sarfatti also talked of near-field effects, but it is something I must learn better. It can tell about interference maybe? Is this near-field not quantized? But even so the difference between gravitation and em-force is much bigger.

If you can show me how the near-field would be a solution I would be glad.

Ulla,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Sep. 26, 2020 @ 18:47 GMT
Ulla,

you can of course 'wiki' Near Field and Far Field as an introduction which is very abbreviated, it is a complex area of investigation but generally technological rather than theoretical.

Briefly, for all that is stated as 'knowns' in the interminable debate of whether EMR is a wave or a particle, the ONLY direct observation of electro-magnetic radiation is at the receiving end...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Sep. 27, 2020 @ 00:24 GMT
Ulla and Doc Agnew,

The near field offers some interesting opportunities for phasing between discrete matter phase constituents of atomic structure, without requiring a foregone conclusion that a matter phase is continuously in existence at any one place or in motion. Conceivable, an electron mass might percolate out of an energy phase given favorable conditions.

So the reactive region which would be ~0.159 the distance of the equivalent wavelength for a frequency value photon could conceivably be modeled as a bulge on a discrete matter phase particle, and be constituted of the energy quantity that would be commensurate with the value of a photon for the respective 'quantum leap' of an electron between energy orbital shell levels. This suggestion would allow a much more forgiving range of possible wavelengths. It is also interesting that the orthogonal 1/2 pi angle finds a complimentarity in the 1/2 pi reactive region proportion of the wavelength, and modeling 'a bulge' as the genesis of a photon would perhaps shape the whole near field to 'wrap around' the locale of the 'outcome'. That suggests a physical realization of Euler's Formula where x=pi evaluates to Euler's Identity. The near field collapsing volume might account for the electro-magnetic domain and the second wavelength of the transition zone would 'wrap' as the local gravitational domain. That might model well as the physical vehicle that precurses the outcome of a time dependent quantum leap.

If you'll pardon the brain-storm. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Sep. 28, 2020 @ 14:57 GMT
The near field versus far field for a photon is very interesting and quite complex as you so aptly show and the Wiki pic also shows. At long radio wavelengths, single photons are quite large but radio waves usually come from a coherent motion of electrons in a macroscopic antenna. So the near field is a superposition of a very large number of electron fields and therefore photons and the antenna radiation is not yet "free". In the far field, the antenna becomes a point source and the waves then coherent and dipolar.

The near field is simply affected by multipoles and not yet a dipole field.

It is better to focus on a nice radiowave like the hydrogen atom 21 cm line at 1.4 GHz. This is a spin-flip transition that is highly forbidden and has a 10 million year half-life. How can such a large 21 cm single photon come from such a tini-tiny hydrogen atom 0.1 nm and yet the radiowave comes from 4.8e-9 size electron cloud.

The near field for a hydrogen is now defined relative to the size of the hydrogen atom and there are also multipolar effects for this near field. This transition can be observed as part of a maser and so the near field can actually be measured in a hydrogen maser.

Gravity is due to the far field effects of single photons, so once again, the far field gets us back to graviton noise. Graviton noise is the noise of ground-state atom oscillations ever since CMB creation...

attachments: nearFieldFarField.JPG

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Raghunath Tiruvaipati wrote on Oct. 25, 2020 @ 14:39 GMT
Hi Friends,

Electromagnetism is a field theory, Because of that, the result of QED was a quantum field theory - a quantum theory that contains a value at every point in space

in QED two particles communicate their electromagnetic information by emitting and absorbing a photon. A photon that acts in this manner is called a virtual photon or a messenger photon, because it is created solely for the purpose of exchanging this information

https://mxplank.com/Quantum-Physics%20-%20Quantum
-Electro-Dynamics-QED.php

Can somebody elaborate on QED , Please ?

Regards

Raghunath Tiruvaipati

Raghunath.Tiruvaipati@MXPlank.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.