Can Gravitrons And Black Holes Co-Exist

[johnferk]

Assumptions

 

1. Gravitrons are the hypothetical particle that carries "gravity" as a force. The particles (if they exist) would be massless spin 2 bosons.

 

2. Black holes are defined by their ability to prevent the escape of anything that falls below the event horizon including massless particles (e.g., photons).

 

3. Because of #2, no information escapes from the black hole (this is a good thing given that we would otherwise need to deal with the physics of singularities).

 

4. The ability of a black hole to prevent information transfer is generally explained in relativist terms as "an extreme curvature of space-time."

 

Thought and question -

 

So if 1) gravitrons exist they would 2) carry the force of gravity emitting from the black hole that is causing the space-time curvature. Additionally, they would carry the (very easily detected and measurable) force of gravity from the black hole that exists beyond the event horizon. If the latter is true, then de facto, gravitrons must "escape" through the event horizon. Further, that means the black hole is transmitting information from the singularity.

 

Is this reasoning a contradiction - how can both black holes and gravitrons co-exist?

 

Cheers

[Pincho Paxton]

I don't think that Gravitons, and Bending Of Space Time are the same theory. They might be but I don't see the need for two forces of Gravity.

[johnferk]

Pincho - thanks for the observation. That is precisely the point of the question. Gravitrons are a quantum consideration and space-time is the centerpiece of general relativity. We all know the 2 theories have not yet been integrated into a single unified theory. However, where I have seen other answers to the question of gravitrons escaping the event horizon, the responses are generally framed in the context of general relativity and space-time. That begs the point of the question since it is trying to use one theory to explain the other. Gravitrons require a quantum explanation.

 

Regardless of which theory you embrace to address the quesiton, the fundamental problem remains. Gravitrons must escape the event horizon in order to impart the gravitational field (a relativistic term) of the black hole. That is directly contradictory to the very definition of a black hole.

 

Cheers,

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho - thanks for the observation. That is precisely the point of the question. Gravitrons are a quantum consideration and space-time is the centerpiece of general relativity. We all know the 2 theories have not yet been integrated into a single unified theory. However, where I have seen other answers to the question of gravitrons escaping the event horizon, the responses are generally framed in the context of general relativity and space-time. That begs the point of the question since it is trying to use one theory to explain the other. Gravitrons require a quantum explanation.

 

Regardless of which theory you embrace to address the quesiton, the fundamental problem remains. Gravitrons must escape the event horizon in order to impart the gravitational field (a relativistic term) of the black hole. That is directly contradictory to the very definition of a black hole.

 

Cheers,

 

It's all paradoxical, and backwards. I don't see how it became the standard model in the first place. Apart from Newton only having an apple, and Earth to work with, the people that followed should have fixed the contradictions to attraction.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[7DSUSYstrings]

I rode on the "Gravitron" at a carnival once. It was fun. :D

 

 

A graviton does not have to originate from within mass. As an inbound stream of particles, though, that black hole contradiction goes away.

[CraigD]

… if 1) gravitrons exist they would 2) carry the force of gravity emitting from the black hole that is causing the space-time curvature. Additionally, they would carry the (very easily detected and measurable) force of gravity from the black hole that exists beyond the event horizon. If the latter is true, then de facto, gravitrons must "escape" through the event horizon. Further, that means the black hole is transmitting information from the singularity.

 

Is this reasoning a contradiction - how can both black holes and gravitrons co-exist?

I think jwkref poses excellent observations and a paradoxical question, which I think can be resolved informally – a good thing for me, as my knowledge or particle physics pretty much precludes me from using it formally.

 

In standard model of particle physics, all of the various elementary particles do not interact with one another. In particular, 2 of the 4 elementary bosons (2 of 5, if the Higgs boson is included) don’t interact with themselves. So, if the graviton were added, it would simply be added as a boson that doesn’t interact with itself, like this:

Note that I’ve simplified the usual interaction sketch by skipping the W (which self-interact) and Z (which doesn’t) bosons. The dotted interaction line means a theory could include or not this interaction, as if the graviton interacted only with quarks they could interact with gluons to describe observed behavior. Alternately, the G – g interaction could be added and the G – q removed, but the G – l and G – [imath]\gamma[/imath] interaction must remain.

 

Black holes, then, would be described quantum mechanically in a way that agrees, at least approximately and on a large scale, with General Relativity. The only particle that could escape a BH would be the graviton. All others would have nearly zero probability (recall that the classical description of quantum physics is probabilistic, so we can’t say an absolutely zero probability) of doing so.

 

I’m not suggesting that gravitons will soon or ever be successfully added to the Standard Model. Decades of trying by hoards of physicists have produced what reduces to the simple observation “attempts to extend the SM by adding gravitons runs into severe difficulties”. However, if gravitons are indeed physically real, and the SM is extended to include them, they’d have to be non-self.

 

When I compare the sketch above to the usual one for the SM extended by the Higgs boson,

(from wikipedia) I’m struck that it looks the same, except that the Higgs is theorized to interact with itself and not the photon, the graviton not with itself but with the photon. In my informal, amateur way, I’ve long wondered if some modification of Higgs field theory might combine the Higgs and the graviton. Alas, the mathematical physics remains beyond my command, so this remains for me just a vague hunch, which I hope a better educated person will help me with someday. :shrug:

[7DSUSYstrings]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(LeSage)

 

____________________________________________________________

 

This is something that many scientists have struggled with and revisited over theri scientific careers. Einstein also wrestled with "the aether" and dismissed it, but it hasn't stopped there. We should never ignore that Newton attributed the force of gravity as being imparted by God or the Holy Spirit.

 

 

 

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath181/kmath181.htm

 

Soon after the appearance of Isaac Newton’s Principia, describing the law of universal gravitation, Newton’s young friend Nicolas Fatio (1664-1753) conceived the idea that the apparent force of gravitational attraction between material objects might be due to an imbalance of repulsive forces arising from the impacts of tiny rapidly moving corpuscles from the nether regions of space. Objects would tend to shield each other from this shower of gravific corpuscles, so they would be driven together, and it’s easy to see that the strength of this effect would be inversely proportional (at least approximately) to the square of the distance between the objects, in accord with Newton’s law.

Since the force of gravity depends strictly on the mass of an object (not on its apparent size), Fatio postulated that material objects are almost entirely transparent to the gravific corpuscles. At the time, this was a radical suggestion, but Fatio argued for its plausibility by noting that corpuscles of light can pass through solid glass, even though glass is as seemingly dense and impermeable as other solids. Fatio also noted that the lack of appreciable drag on moving objects could be explained by postulating a sufficiently high speed for the corpuscles. He also explained that the gravific corpuscles must be slowed by their interactions with ordinary matter in order to transfer the necessary momentum. Fatio continued to refine and promote his theory throughout the rest of his life, even after enlisting with the exiled Camisards, a insurrectionist sect of Huguenots from the south of France.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath209/kmath209.htm

 

It’s an interesting historical fact that the attitudes of scientists toward the Fatio-Lesage “explanation” of gravity have varied widely, not just from one scientist to another, but for individual scientists at different moments. This is exemplified by Newton’s ambivalence. On one hand, he told Fatio that if gravity had a mechanical cause, then the mechanism must be the one Fatio had described. On the other hand, Newton usually inclined toward the view that gravity does not have a mechanical (material) cause. It’s true that he explicitly denied (in a famous letter to Bentley) the intelligibility of bare action at a distance, but he just as explicitly rejected (in a letter to Leibniz) the notion that space is filled with some material substance (a la Descartes) that communicates the force of gravity. His alternative was to say that gravity is caused by the will and spirit of God, not by any material cause. Of course, he gave consideration to various possible material mechanisms, and even included some Queries in the latter editions of Opticks, speculating on the possibility of an ether that is least dense near matter, and whose density increases the further we recede from matter. This could be interpreted as a somewhat obscure reference to Fatio’s theory, since the flux of gravific corpuscles is reduced in the vicinity of matter, due to the shadowing effect. And yet David Gregory reported that, behind Fatio’s back, Newton laughed at his method of explaining gravity, and Newton scrupulously avoided mentioning any such explanations in his cherished Principia – aside from making it clear that his conception of gravity did not assume any particular mechanism, nor even whether gravity was due to an inherent pull between matter or was caused by some kind of impulsion. Indeed Fatio was unhappy that Newton never publicly acknowledged, let alone endorsed, his theory. He wrote to Conduitt in 1730

 

"I have often wondered how the second and third Edition of Sir Isaac Newton’s Principles do touch so lightly upon this matter. For if there be a mechanical cause of gravity – as it is most probable – there is also a demonstration that there can be no cause of it than that which I give, and Dr. I. knew it very well."

 

Apparently Fatio didn’t appreciate how anathema his “explanation of gravity” was to Newton’s fundamental doctrine, which was to eschew occult (i.e., hidden) causes for manifest phenomena. Even setting outside the outlandishness of the explanation, Newton was never able to extract from Fatio’s idea any testable consequence that could support it, so the idea remained an occult mechanism which, according to Newton, is not the proper purview of science.

 

The way this all settles in states that Newton's concept of a process neutral to religion, favors a fairy tale as gravity's cause rather than a sound scientific one. If we delve further into the idea that gravity is mechanical, rather than "Holy Spirit," we can find mistakes, nonetheless, a scientific principle that might be refined and may be the correct concept.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________

 

Perhaps black holes do not jive with loops of force that reach a mighty hand upward to pull us down by the seat of our pants, because even singularities are subject to Occam's Razor, thus the path of least resistance. If not, then the razor is feable at best, but crippled at worst.

 

What I find fascinating at times, is that a concept such as mechanical gravity arises when examining issues such as propulsion. I first encountered it when looking at the "glue" holding stars together. At the moment of fusion, gravitational force reverses because it is is overwhelmed by the atomic forces designed to do exactly that at millions of degrees C., unless, perhaps, a graviton is collectively a force stronger than electromagnetism. We know that is not true.

 

On the other hand, a particle with inifnite range, such as the graviton, especially as an inbound stream, would be unaffected by such high heat and the force it generates because the infinite range, requiring the potentially inifite velocity, is a jugernaut compared to the force of a single boson, or even a domino-train-like string of bosons, because the boson is finite opposed to the collective string of gravitons, approaching infinite velocity. One needs to remember that a star, even though vast compared to us or a single atomic particle, is but a speck compared to the force available to an infinite universe, both material and potentially material.

[maddog]

Assumptions

1. Gravitrons are the hypothetical particle that carries "gravity" as a force. The particles (if they exist) would be massless spin 2 bosons.

2. Black holes are defined by their ability to prevent the escape of anything that falls below the event horizon including massless particles (e.g., photons).

3. Because of #2, no information escapes from the black hole (this is a good thing given that we would otherwise need to deal with the physics of singularities).

4. The ability of a black hole to prevent information transfer is generally explained in relativist terms as "an extreme curvature of space-time."

 

Thought and question -

So if 1) gravitrons exist they would 2) carry the force of gravity emitting from the black hole that is causing the space-time curvature. Additionally, they would carry the (very easily detected and measurable) force of gravity from the black hole that exists beyond the event horizon. If the latter is true, then de facto, gravitrons must "escape" through the event horizon. Further, that means the black hole is transmitting information from the singularity.

 

Is this reasoning a contradiction - how can both black holes and gravitrons co-exist?

Graviton with a spin of 2 indicates that gravity may "leak" into other dimensions. This may be the end around you need to allow both to coexist.

 

Now a quantitization of spacetime has been attempted with not so positive success. in fact every attempt so far has failed. This is where the supposed breakdown between GR & QM. Do a google search on "loop quantum gravity" or "Lee Smolin" of University of Toronto.

 

With LQG and M-Theory (and as Ed Witten has been trying) adding in Roger Penrose's Twistor Theory. one may have enough tools to put together

something that can describe the environment near the surface of a black hole on a quantum level. One could hope anyway.

 

maddog

[7DSUSYstrings]

With LQG and M-Theory (and as Ed Witten has been trying) adding in Roger Penrose's Twistor Theory. one may have enough tools to put together

something that can describe the environment near the surface of a black hole on a quantum level. One could hope anyway.

 

 

I think that LQG is where the paradox of conflicting forces rears its ugly head.

 

 

The force field, as shown above, could easily act as star birth in reverse. If a dipolar stellar field were to split into two opposing fields, the reverse of plasma jets, as would be seen in the star's initial birth, may have inverted, so gravitons and other higher order particles would radiate from the star's equator.

 

 

The above depicts stellar matter, whether born of contracted intergallactic hydrogen or anihilated older stars, flowing into the star normal to the axis. I've overlaid the Hubble image with graphics to depict energy flow and the polar lines of force. Whether gravity is quantum or relativistic or mechanical, certainly an anamoly of gravitational force manifests the accretion force(s). If a black hole evaporates, this is a likely mechanism (there's that "mechanic" word again...) that results from a reversible work process.

[suresh123]

The syllabus of our education boards still not cover these topics.On either side we think that we are not competing other nations in research context and on one side we are not providing these topics of research or topics related to astronomy in the books of students.

We have to include these topics in the NCERT books.And the education boards like gujarat board should strictly follow them.

[Cyberia]

Gravitons would suggest that gravity was a force being emitted by an object and as such, it would eventually run out of them.

 

Gravity is a property of a mass as much as size and density is. It's "effect" seems to work at light speed but that is just because that is the universal speed limit.

 

Since gravity is an effect of mass "just being there" it has no problems with a black hole being a gravity source despite an event horizon.

Edited June 22, 2012 by SextonBlake