Gravity: Wave-Particle vs Space-Time Warpage
san...@my-dejanews.com
of "gravity waves" and associated particles (gravitons), but then there is
the idea of gravity as the warping of space-time by matter.
How do the 2 ideas intersect?
If gravity is just a curving of space by matter, then doesn't that preclude
the concept of gravity as a force carried by "graviton" particles moving as
waves?
I've know about wave-paticle duality, but is there an even greater
transcending duality, where the wave-particle concept is then mated with the
curvature of space? (Don't tell me, would this be part of "Grand Unification
Theory"?)
So can the effect of warpage/curving be described in terms of waves and
particles? Are there any other similar existing precedents or analogies to
this in physics, or are these ideas unlinkable until someone comes up with
the big grand unification theory?
If there was a way to link the graviton/gravity-wave idea to the space
curvature idea, then would that allow any curvature phenomenon to be
conceptualized thru a particle-based perspective?
ie. If I use stretched saran-wrap as an analogy to space, and I put an apple
on it to make it bend, as an analogy to matter warping space, then what in
this picture could I use as an analogy to the graviton/gravity-waves? The
tiny polymer molecule linkages that transmit the tension across the
saran-wrap, allowing it to bend?
Are gravitons analogous to a tension in the fabric of space, which can
"transmit curvature"? Somehow that concept seems inverse to the idea of a
wave, tho. Somehow in my mind, I associate wave propagation with slack. And
tension is the opposite of slack. Can tension exist in the form of waves?
Oh well, just a crude attempt to create a picture of things in my mind.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Nathan Urban
> I'm curious then, I hear about gravity being speculatively described in terms
> of "gravity waves" and associated particles (gravitons), but then there is
> the idea of gravity as the warping of space-time by matter.
> How do the 2 ideas intersect?
Nobody knows. It's a major open problem in physics.
> If gravity is just a curving of space by matter, then doesn't that preclude
> the concept of gravity as a force carried by "graviton" particles moving as
> waves?
I'd guess that _both_ situations are only approximations to what's really
going on. I wouldn't say that one precludes the other because we don't
understand this stuff very well.
> I've know about wave-paticle duality, but is there an even greater
> transcending duality, where the wave-particle concept is then mated with the
> curvature of space?
That would be a theory of quantum gravity. People are working on it.
> (Don't tell me, would this be part of "Grand Unification Theory"?)
By a GUT, some people mean the unification of the three non-gravitational
interactions, so in that case no. Other people mean the unification
of all interactions including gravity (though the term "unified field
theory" or less accurately "Theory of Everything" is more often used),
and since this would include quantum mechanics as well, quantum gravity
would be a part of it.
> So can the effect of warpage/curving be described in terms of waves and
> particles?
Maybe. But maybe not! A quantum theory of gravity doesn't necessarily
correspond very meaningfully to "waves and particles". It's probably
at its most fundamental a theory of probabilistic geometry.
> Are there any other similar existing precedents or analogies to this in
> physics,
You mean, other than attempts at quantum gravity itself? I suppose
topological quantum field theories might count as something similar.
> or are these ideas unlinkable until someone comes up with
> the big grand unification theory?
Please note that the quantization of gravity may not require unification
with the other interactions, contrary to what the string folks would
have you believe.
> If there was a way to link the graviton/gravity-wave idea to the space
> curvature idea, then would that allow any curvature phenomenon to be
> conceptualized thru a particle-based perspective?
All we can say right now is "maybe". As mentioned above, my personal
opinion is that both curvature and particles will be approximations to
what's really going on.
> ie. If I use stretched saran-wrap as an analogy to space, and I put an apple
> on it to make it bend, as an analogy to matter warping space, then what in
> this picture could I use as an analogy to the graviton/gravity-waves?
Well, in the most naive graviton picture, you wouldn't really have a
curved space at all, you'd have a bunch of gravitons generating a quantum
field that _acts_ like curved space. Some people think that this sort
of picture might generalize to a real working graviton-based theory;
some people don't. (I don't.)
> The tiny polymer molecule linkages that transmit the tension across the
> saran-wrap, allowing it to bend?
That's too "mechanical" a picture; one must always be cautious about
taking an analogy (like the saran-wrap) too far.
That being said, one of the current approaches to quantizing gravity
does describe the quantum geometry of space in a "polymer-like" way in
terms of how you can visualize them (but don't think of spacetime as
real physical little polymers!); e.g. section III-C of:
http://vishnu.nirvana.phys.psu.edu/riem_qm/riem_qm.pdf
(An older HTML version is at
http://vishnu.nirvana.phys.psu.edu/riem_qm/riem_qm.html)
> Are gravitons analogous to a tension in the fabric of space, which can
> "transmit curvature"? Somehow that concept seems inverse to the idea of a
> wave, tho. Somehow in my mind, I associate wave propagation with slack.
Once again, I think you're trying to extend an analogy in problematic
directions. Space doesn't really have a "tension" or "slack" like a
material medium does. You can describe its curvature, waves of curvature,
and things like that, but don't expect them to really act like compression
waves in a medium or something.
[Followups to sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity as this is off-topic
for most of the others.]
Todd Desiato
san...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <79qbn7$qf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I'm curious then, I hear about gravity being speculatively described in
terms
>of "gravity waves" and associated particles (gravitons), but then there is
>the idea of gravity as the warping of space-time by matter.
>
>How do the 2 ideas intersect?
>
>the concept of gravity as a force carried by "graviton" particles moving as
>waves?
If you read the pre-prints at LANL you'll find a lot of confusion about what
people call "gravitons". On one hand you'll see some use them to describe
quanta that mediate the gravitational field. In other words, mediate the
information from one object to another, how that object affects the
curvature of space time. On the other hand you will also see them used to
describe the quanta that mediate gravitational waves, in other words
changes in the gravitational field in a linear approximation to wavelike
motion. Either way they are purely a speculation to be analogous and
consistent with how virtual photons mediate the electromagnetic field, or
how photons are quanta of the waves of light.
>I've know about wave-paticle duality, but is there an even greater
>transcending duality, where the wave-particle concept is then mated with
the
>curvature of space
Yes, but it is not an accepted model yet. I have come up with a model that
is consistent with GR and with QED without changing either theory. In it,
matter is constructed of probability waves, just as in quantum mechanics.
Gravitation is the dispersion of probability waves as a result of changes in
the wave velocity as a function of the mass/energy density in that region.
If you're interested please read;
"Quantum Gravity: The Probability Wave Dispersion Interpretation of
Relativity"
http://tjd-online.simplenet.com/New/Interpretation.html
It explains how the speed of light is invariant, and why it is observed to
be constant. It also explains how probability wave dispersion results in the
properties of mass, inertia and space-time curvature. Showing they are all
aspects of the same mechanism.
>Are gravitons analogous to a tension in the fabric of space, which can
>"transmit curvature"?
In my model gravitons are unnecessary. But if I were to interpret the
interaction as such it would be analogous to a photon coupled to its mirror
image. I'm not sure how this fits into any accepted theory of gravitons, but
if a photon has Spin 1, then a coupling with its mirror image particle would
have Spin 2. The result is a change in the wave velocity at that point.
Todd Desiato
san...@my-dejanews.com
Thanks for the reply.
In article <wP6w2.52198$641....@news.san.rr.com>,
You've used the word "dispersion" of probability waves. Don't you mean
"distortion" or skewing of the probability distribution? Why "dispersion"
rather than "distortion"? Or do you mean the "distribution" itself of the
probability? In which case, how do you distinguish between the natural
distribution of the probability, and the skewing of this distribution?
> It explains how the speed of light is invariant, and why it is observed to
> be constant. It also explains how probability wave dispersion results in the
> properties of mass, inertia and space-time curvature. Showing they are all
> aspects of the same mechanism.
So everything is probabilistic. Then how is the probability manipulable, for
practical exploitation of this concept?
> >Are gravitons analogous to a tension in the fabric of space, which can
> >"transmit curvature"?
>
> In my model gravitons are unnecessary. But if I were to interpret the
> interaction as such it would be analogous to a photon coupled to its mirror
> image. I'm not sure how this fits into any accepted theory of gravitons, but
> if a photon has Spin 1, then a coupling with its mirror image particle would
> have Spin 2. The result is a change in the wave velocity at that point.
> Todd Desiato
So what is then the mirror image of the graviton particle, in your opinion?
What is the meaningful interpretation of the graviton's spin?
Nathan Urban
> In article <wP6w2.52198$641....@news.san.rr.com>,
> "Todd Desiato" <todd...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> > I have come up with a model that
> > is consistent with GR and with QED without changing either theory.
> I have what may be a really silly question, but since I've got a gravity
> expert online,
I hope you weren't under the impression that you were speaking to a
gravity expert.
> If we assume:
> 1. Gravity is an effect of the curvature of time-space by the presence of
> matter.
> 2. Matter is transformed into energy in stellar reactors.
> 3. Energy is either free or it is bound into matter and these states are
> distinct.
> 4. Fission is a discrete process, not continuous.
> What happens to the gravitational field when matter is converted into energy?
It's kind of hard to say, because to model fission and matter-energy
conversion well requires quantum mechanics, and we can't tell yet how
a quantum field generates a gravitational field. However...
> Do photons warp space-time as well?
Yes. Anything with energy does.
> If not, is the field immediately altered everywhere (a breach of information
> speed limit) or is the change gradual (a wave? at what speed?)
Changes in the gravitational field always propagate at the speed of light.
Also, if you want to try to treat this all classically, as some massive
particles splitting apart and releasing some massless ones while obeying
all the conservation laws, then the overall mass-energy (or rather
stress-energy) distribution will change continuously (not discretely)
upon fission. Then it starts changing, of course, as the photons and
decay products and such move apart.
> Has any of this been tested (is it even TESTABLE?)?
It's testable in principle, but beyond our current means in practice.
[Note followups to sci.physics.relativity.]
Todd Desiato
san...@my-dejanews.com wrote ...
> "Todd Desiato" wrote:
>>
>> san...@my-dejanews.com wrote ...
>> >I'm curious then, I hear about gravity being speculatively described in
>> Yes, but it is not an accepted model yet. I have come up with a model
that
>> is consistent with GR and with QED without changing either theory. In it,
>> matter is constructed of probability waves, just as in quantum mechanics.
>> Gravitation is the dispersion of probability waves as a result of changes
in
>> the wave velocity as a function of the mass/energy density in that
region.
>> If you're interested please read;
>> "Quantum Gravity: The Probability Wave Dispersion Interpretation of
>> Relativity"
>> http://tjd-online.simplenet.com/New/Interpretation.html
>>
>
>You've used the word "dispersion" of probability waves. Don't you mean
>"distortion" or skewing of the probability distribution? Why "dispersion"
>rather than "distortion"?
Because dispersion is what you call the relative relationships between
frequency, wavelength and velocity. If the velocity changes the wave packet
changes via dispersion. Read the paper and you will see what Prof. Rumsey
refers to as a "Dispersion Diagram", and how they are equivalent to
Minkowski's "Space-time Diagram".
>Or do you mean the "distribution" itself of the
>probability?
That is what the probability wave is, the equation that expresses the
amplitude of the distribution as a function of the coordinates.
>In which case, how do you distinguish between the natural
>distribution of the probability, and the skewing of this distribution?
By the refractive space-time metric. In flat space-time the components of
the geodesic equation disappear. This is where the gradients in permeability
and permittivity are zero. That gives the natural distribution in flat
Minkowski space-time per the solutions to the Dirac equation.
>> It explains how the speed of light is invariant, and why it is observed
to
>> be constant. It also explains how probability wave dispersion results in
the
>> properties of mass, inertia and space-time curvature. Showing they are
all
>> aspects of the same mechanism.
>
>So everything is probabilistic. Then how is the probability manipulable,
for
>practical exploitation of this concept?
o
o oo
o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o
o o o
o
Think about it! Think mutualy coupled inductance and capacitance in free
space. Read the paper. In it I describe how to model the process like an
electronic circuit.
>> >Are gravitons analogous to a tension in the fabric of space, which can
>> >"transmit curvature"?
>>
>> In my model gravitons are unnecessary. But if I were to interpret the
>> interaction as such it would be analogous to a photon coupled to its
mirror
>> image. I'm not sure how this fits into any accepted theory of gravitons,
but
>> if a photon has Spin 1, then a coupling with its mirror image particle
would
>> have Spin 2. The result is a change in the wave velocity at that point.
>So what is then the mirror image of the graviton particle, in your opinion?
Uh, another graviton? :0) Seriously, in a semi-classical analogy where a
photon is a quantity of electromagnetic flux, then when the photon couples
to its reflection, the electric flux cancels and the magnetic flux adds,
even partially. So if there is a nearby charged particle, with some zero
point motion, then where the photons couple the particle will see an
increased capacitance, and an increased inductance. These photons are
induced by the field of the charged particle itself, coupled to its own
reflection. It is simply that charge is held constant, but the capacity of
the vacuum to store energy is not. So where you have more couplings of this
type, (more reflections from denser regions) the permeability and
permittivity increase since these are what is seen by the charge as
inductance per unit length, and capacitance per unit length respectively.
Just like a wave transmission line, or a wave guide. They determine the
energy of the particle at each point.
Carefully now,... since the speed of light squared is the inverse of the dot
product of the permeability and permittivity vectors, it can change from
point to point. Being a vector dot product it is a scalar quantity, so is
still invariant to all inertial observers. It appears to be constant because
the length of a ruler is directly proportional to the speed of light,
through the dispersion relationship,
wavelength = c/frequency
or
(E^2)/(p^2 + m^2) = 1
which is the dispersion relationship for a relativistic probability wave.
Locally the speed of light is always 1, but if it were different at a
different altitude it could not be measured as such locally using rulers and
clocks composed of probability waves, such as the atoms and subatomic
particles of matter. The ruler will change length with the value of c. This
leads naturally to the fact that the speed of light is not arbitrary, but
depends on the density of matter and energy in the local region.
The speed of light is invariant, it appears to be constant, yet it changes
from point to point. Believe it or not, that is totally self consistent, and
consistent with observation. Such effects as gravitational red shift and
gravitational lensing are exactly predicted by this model since with it I've
shown it is consistent with the Schwarzschild solution of GR.
>What is the meaningful interpretation of the graviton's spin?
It is the combined angular momentum of the two coupled photons.
Todd Desiato
Todd Desiato
suns...@techie.com wrote ...
> "Todd Desiato" wrote:
>
>> I have come up with a model that
>> is consistent with GR and with QED without changing either theory.
>
>I have what may be a really silly question, but since I've got a gravity
>expert online, I'm gonna ask it anyway . . .
>
What a nice compliment! Thanks, you made my day Sunshine. :0)
>If we assume:
>
>1. Gravity is an effect of the curvature of time-space by the presence of
>matter.
>
>2. Matter is transformed into energy in stellar reactors.
>
>3. Energy is either free or it is bound into matter and these states are
>distinct.
>
>4. Fission is a discrete process, not continuous.
>
>Then my question(s) is (are):
>
>What happens to the gravitational field when matter is converted into
energy?
>Do photons warp space-time as well?
Yes they do, all matter and energy contribute to gravitation. When matter is
converted to energy, is that energy radiated away? If so then as it radiates
away at the speed of light the gravitational field will be decreasing at
that rate. If not, then it makes no difference, unless it affects the
density of energy in that region compared to nearby regions. In other words
it depends on how uniform the process is, and how the energy density is
changing because of it.
>If not, is the field immediately altered everywhere (a breach of
information
>speed limit) or is the change gradual (a wave? at what speed?)
Changes in gravitation are propagated at the speed of light in vacuum. So
any change in the distribution of matter in one place takes time to reach
another place. It is not instantaneous.
>If so, would this negligible warping on very large scales behave as
"missing
>mass"?
It's not missing if we know about it, is it? I can't speak for cosmologists
but I hope that the energy density of light from visible matter is taken
into account, since is is not "dark matter".
>Has any of this been tested (is it even TESTABLE?)?
What is testable is eventually tested. If it cannot be tested, what effect
does it have? What difference does it make?
Todd D.
suns...@techie.com
"Todd Desiato" <todd...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> I have come up with a model that
> is consistent with GR and with QED without changing either theory.
I have what may be a really silly question, but since I've got a gravity
expert online, I'm gonna ask it anyway . . .
If we assume:
1. Gravity is an effect of the curvature of time-space by the presence of
matter.
2. Matter is transformed into energy in stellar reactors.
3. Energy is either free or it is bound into matter and these states are
distinct.
4. Fission is a discrete process, not continuous.
Then my question(s) is (are):
What happens to the gravitational field when matter is converted into energy?
Do photons warp space-time as well?
If not, is the field immediately altered everywhere (a breach of information
speed limit) or is the change gradual (a wave? at what speed?)
If so, would this negligible warping on very large scales behave as "missing
mass"?
Has any of this been tested (is it even TESTABLE?)?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Thanks!
Sunny Snaith
http://come.to/sunshine
suns...@techie.com
Christopher
> of "gravity waves" and associated particles (gravitons), but then there is
> the idea of gravity as the warping of space-time by matter.
>
I beleive that this has been answered in the thread "SPEED of GRAVITY" in
sci.astro news group. Gravity controls clocks and timing mechanisims.
Gravitons exist and are in the aether that permeates the universe. However it
is not clear that there needs be any motion of them at all. The force of
gravity is instantaneously transmitted to all other gravitons in the universe
where the strength of the force is determined by proximal distance to other
gravitons. Much like glass and its various densities of molecular and
electrodynamic compositions cause light to bend and refract. Photons are
absorbed by molecules diffracted by QED and QCD interactions, slowed by
proximity to gravitons and retransmitted on a vector determined by chemical
composition, to the next adjacent atomic structure where the effect
continues. Gravitons without acompanying atomic structure do not have
elctrodynamic properties. That is why we don't see chromatic aberrations in
gravitational field lens's. As the density of gravitons increases so does the
gravitational field strength, which slows and warps the light beam through
it. If the light is slowed in speed (apparent to us) then its clock must have
speeded up while in proximity of the G force.
Where electrons and photons have electrodynamic properties photons do not
seem to be deflected by electromagnetic fields. The waves of these particals
are probably like the old beach ball I played with as a child. There was
pocket of sand(gravitons) at the end opposite the inflation stem which moved
the center of gravity away from the spherical plastic(field) center of the
ball. When tossed with different spin motions the ball will undulate
predictibly in what is considered a wave just like light waves. Depending on
the spin motions right or left circular polarization, horizontal or vertical
polarization.
Not the same with gravity waves. I don't believe that motion is a necessary
component. If a graviton is caused to be moved by some atomic force only its
gravitaional field strength need be felt and transmitted by surrounding
gravitons. Because of their mass they need only move slightly while the force
they impart is instantly changed everywhere in the universe.
> How do the 2 ideas intersect?
>
> If gravity is just a curving of space by matter, then doesn't that preclude
> the concept of gravity as a force carried by "graviton" particles moving as
> waves?
>
> I've know about wave-paticle duality, but is there an even greater
> transcending duality, where the wave-particle concept is then mated with the
> curvature of space? (Don't tell me, would this be part of "Grand Unification
> Theory"?)
>
> So can the effect of warpage/curving be described in terms of waves and
> particles? Are there any other similar existing precedents or analogies to
> this in physics, or are these ideas unlinkable until someone comes up with
> the big grand unification theory?
>
> If there was a way to link the graviton/gravity-wave idea to the space
> curvature idea, then would that allow any curvature phenomenon to be
> conceptualized thru a particle-based perspective?
>
> ie. If I use stretched saran-wrap as an analogy to space, and I put an apple
> on it to make it bend, as an analogy to matter warping space, then what in
> this picture could I use as an analogy to the graviton/gravity-waves? The
> tiny polymer molecule linkages that transmit the tension across the
> saran-wrap, allowing it to bend?
>
> Are gravitons analogous to a tension in the fabric of space, which can
> "transmit curvature"? Somehow that concept seems inverse to the idea of a
> wave, tho. Somehow in my mind, I associate wave propagation with slack. And
> tension is the opposite of slack. Can tension exist in the form of waves?
>
> Oh well, just a crude attempt to create a picture of things in my mind.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
They call me Curious George and I don't know why?
Christopher
> >
> > In my model gravitons are unnecessary. But if I were to interpret the
> > interaction as such it would be analogous to a photon coupled to its mirror
> > image. I'm not sure how this fits into any accepted theory of gravitons, but
> > if a photon has Spin 1, then a coupling with its mirror image particle would
> > have Spin 2. The result is a change in the wave velocity at that point.
>
> So what is then the mirror image of the graviton particle, in your opinion?
>
Joe Fischer
: <:
: > So what is then the mirror image of the graviton particle, in your
: > What is the meaningful interpretation of the graviton's spin?
:
: Simple... It's the Anti-Graviton.
:
: They call me Curious George and I don't know why?
George, please stop posting the stuff about aether
and gravity waves as a causal mechanism of gravity and
gravitons as anything other than hypothetical, people will
think you are "troll George", or worse. :-)
Joe Fischer
Christopher
joe...@iglou.com (Joe Fischer) wrote:
> George, please stop posting the stuff about aether
> and gravity waves as a causal mechanism of gravity and
> gravitons as anything other than hypothetical, people will
> think you are "troll George", or worse. :-)
>
> Joe Fischer
>
O.K.... Did I say that?..... I don't know about aether but there is something
in that vacuum we all call space. And gravity waves, I stand corrected. Tides
are Gravity waves. Gravitational waves are the presumed, unsubstantiated
(except for tides), theoretical emanations of large massive bodies in motion.
Curious George, and I don't know why?
See I'm learning something.
Any Questions?