Fin666, can you confirm any of this?
I have no idea whether this is good science or you’re pulling it our of your ass, but maybe we can stick to your original question concerning acceleration.
By ‘motivation’, do you mean force? We infer the force when we observe acceleration. This is true for the initial BANG and for the current rate of increasing expansion.
Gib, research it. Look into the LIGO project. Look into the movement of galaxies and Hubble’s Law…dig around.
Here for starters- nytimes.com/2006/05/02/scien … 2hole.html
Black holes are colliding- impossible under Hubble’s law…unless, they add another hypothetical to it. Either way, it’s wrong. And…no waves found. We’ve seen galaxies pass though each other. Impossible if there are black holes colliding. It’s simply…wrong.
Nick,
Thanks for the link. That article made it sound like it’s very rare to have all of the right elements come together simultaneously to produce waves.
The article was from 2006; when were they first able to witness galaxies crossing? Is it possible the centers didn’t pass closely enough to produce the waves that would occur if two black holes collided?
Anita,
I just grabbed the first article I saw. Halton Arp, haltonarp.com, first noticed strange behavior decades ago. There have been many galaxies that have passed through each other, with the centers passing very, very close (partially and totally through). But remember this- They weren’t supposed to be doing this. Hubble’s law has been busted. Because of Hubble, Einstein quit his cosmological constant work. Thankfully it was continued by others.
Also, Kip Thorne, etc, will of course make every excuse for not finding waves. They have rung up nearly one billion dollars in funding (for LIGO) and are asking for much more. They adhere to the theory and are not about to say “Oh, I guess we were wrong. Sorry about wasting 60 years and over one trillion dollars in funding”
I should add that the reason they took on LIGO was because we’ve seen centers of galaxies pass through each other. They thought “Oh, crap”. They then realized they had their last chance, they had to find the gravitational wave burst. They never will.
You can’t even get the die hards to admit that Hubble was wrong, even though he said the phenomenon was impossible.
It’s like getting the catholic church to question the existence of Christ. Good luck to that.
My prediction is that they will eventually admit that there are no waves. The string theory is somewhat of a first attempt at breaking away from the big bang. It is closer to the truth, but still incorrect.
Very interesting.
Where does the fact that most, (if not possibly all), current field theories rely expressly upon the unverified presence of the graviton fit in?
I’m not aware of this fact??? I know of no field theories that rely on gravitons. Where are you getting your information from?
The standard model contains no gravitons.
No one has even quantised gravity. There is no theory of the graviton.
All of theories that I am currently aware of are inherently marked with dualities, which is why M-theory; supersymmetry/supergravity, is in play.
In order for these theoretical models to have validity, they require the presence of quantum gravity field, or the graviton.
I never stated gravity had been quantised or that there was a theory of the graviton; it is required for current theories to work, yet it hasn’t been realised to date. See Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku for further inquiry. I’m just an interested party, they are the brilliant minds.
Post edit: LIGO and VIRGO are both in place and actively seeking some manner of empirical evidence to quantise the graviton, which would probably be a matter of direct contention for Muscular …
Current field theories that explain experimental observations are a)the standard model, a quantum field theory that contains no graviton, b)general relativity: that is a classical theory and hence contains no particles at all. M-theory isn’t a field theory and makes no experimental predictions.
Quantum Field Theory explicity requires the presence of gravitational waves, graviton, to be effectively merged with GR. Else, it is only moderately accurate with predictions in select categories. Quanta deals with the behavior and states of subatomic particles; the graviton is necessarily included.
General Relativity Theory is expressly built upon the effects of gravitational waves for the curvature of spacetime. That was the entire point to Einstein’s discussions with the mathematician David Hilbert at the University of Gottingen, circa 1915. The weak force of gravitational waves is explained as either a string or possibly a brane; hence, graviton.
Special Relativity Theory, which was Einstein’s first, and consequently, was only usable for predictions without the inclusion of gravitational waves. The reason this theory is less usable is that in the absence of gravitational waves the equations could not resolve the curvature of spacetime with the inclusion of mass and energy.
M-theory is used to resolve the dualities of the five string theories and 11 dimensional supergravity. I didn’t state anywhere it makes experimental predictions. More than a few so-called theories are nothing more than mathematical models and thought experiments. Neither did I make any assertion regarding the validity or accuracy of any of the mentioned theories, simply that they exist and minds far more brilliant than either of ours use them to help explain the Universe.
gravity is a very , very , very weak source of attraction though and is based on proximity of the closeness of matter too matter
so should we consider gravity as the basis for any galatic building at all ?
Gravitional waves are predicted by GR. Gravitons would only appear in a theory of quantum gravity.
GR is not built upon the effects of gravitionak waves. GR is built on the idea that gravity is the curvature of space-time due to the prences of matter/energy. Gravtional waves are a direct prediction of GR.
I think that to have a unified thery that includes both the standard model and GR as low energy effective theories may well have to include the graviton. So in some respects im agreeing with you. But your orginal statement that “QFT rely on the existence of the graviton” is false. The situation is not that our current theories demand the presence of the gravition. It is more that because there are quantum theories of the 3 other forces it appears that the most likely seniro is that gravity is quantised too. But there are other possibilities.
It would take someone far more knowledgeable than me to answer that question.
One has to wonder though, if gravitational waves are responsible for the warping of spacetime with respect to matter/energy … how much of “weak force” can it really be considered.
Where is Muscular … he’s the fellow with the insights … ???
Mastriani,
Sorry if this seems pedantic. But its an important point. gravitional waves are not the same as the gravitional force. You seem to be confusing the two. Think in terms of electromagnatism. the force between two magnets is due to the (electro)magntic field they produce. Light how ever is an electromagnetic wave which propagates with its own energy and hence can be seen as light. In gravity it is the gravitional field that curves spacetime. In some situations the gravitional field can produce gravitional waves in spacetime. But as gravity is so weak these waves are very hard to detect.
north,
The answer to your question is simple. Yes gravity is very weak. But it is also always attractive whereas the other forces repel/attract. This means that although at short distances the other forces overpower gravity and larger distance the negative ad positive charges cancel so that there is no net force due to the stronger forces. Hence gravity is the only force which is left to effect things on distance scales such as that of galaxies.
I’m good with honesty, so here’s how it comes down.
With respect to the quantum aspect, particle/waveform become hard to distinguish, it’s merely the semantics of linguistic reference of states, (energies?) …
One of the issues that I’m interested in learning about and understanding is the physicist perspective of quantum being firmly separated from anything definitionally considered “macro” … I’m by no means in the field, but it seems to be fallacious to consider the proposition as anything other than semantic and theoretical necessity on the mathematics side.
Then again, it wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong.
To better describe what one means by ‘weak’ concerning gravity (and be my own Devil’s Advocate) is the fact it is monopole. Water evaporates to create humidity, matter evaporates to create space. Space via the gravitational wave evaporating from potential energy is the lowest or smallest form of matter. The gravitational wave still would have energy and because it cannot crowd itself, two waves would synchronize. This would make it ‘weaker’ and mathematically unrelated to the other forces. This is because it would be monopole rather that dipole, like a magnetic field.
Anyhow, the theorized gravitational wave still would be found if they were there. Even if they were monopole, they would be found. And if you examine it, monopole would not bind. The fact is that there aren’t waves and gravity is a structural force.
LIGO would have found them, remember the supposed black hole collision would send a wave burst that, according to the theories, would be massive. Nothing found. If LIGO cannot detect this, what can it detect??? These bursts are cosmic rock and roll at it’s best, and nothing there?
The gravity ‘telescopes’ work like this- Each one consists of two 3km vacuum tubes at 90 degrees. Laser light from the junction sent along each pipe reflects back to and fro between suspended mirrors before passing to an interferometer. This technique is a thousand times more sensitive than any other technique and of the order of a thousandth the proton diameter.
A Neutron star should radiate enough, let alone a black hole collision…which isn’t supposed to be happening.
So the very thing they said couldn’t happen (black hole collision) is burning them twice.
Can you give more explanation? What do you mean by “structural force”? How does this differ from the current model?
The wave isn’t there because gravity isn’t a fundamental force. It is structural, the result of something else. Like a ball I throw, you could mistake the ball for being it’s own motive force if you were unaware of a thrower. They are examining the ball in the air and wondering how the hell it got there, and looking for it’s ‘waves’ or proverbial engine. Someone threw it.
Muscular, I’m not certain if you are aware, but there has been a change, hence: Matter as virtual reality.
I’m not sure how as matter as virtual reality changes anything. I’ll look at it deeper when I have time, but it doesn’t seem to make a difference.