New Equivalence Principles?

[Vmedvil2]

Investigate deeply enough & you'll find my model to be the winner.

Polymath's view of Sub planck structures definitely gets the most creative award, I will say that.

[Shustaire]

ah then its a case of mistaken descriptive. I have no issue with the possibility of gravitons but that is a world of difference between the graviton being an invariant as opposed to gravity itself being invariant.

[Super Polymath]

Polymath's view of Sub planck structures definitely gets the most creative award, I will say that.

Well its two worlds exchange but removes the multiverse whilst offering an alternative to QM. Abbey plugs it into the D-wave machine & crypto currency gets jacked.

 

Billionaire.

[Shustaire]

My husband has spent over 10 years working on one of his models, How to treat the cosmological constant under striclty thermodynamic processes. He is getting closer to completion with the Higgs field.

 

 Some models takes an incredible patience right now he is waiting for better confirmation on the metastability seesaw mechanism. Doing the model under quantum geometrodynamics.

Edited July 17, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

How can you possibly say this, when nature does not require mediators for pseudo forces? And yes gravity is a pseudo force, like the Coriolis, Euler or even centrifugal force. Einstein made it clear, gravity is not a real force. This is why I ended up liking your post, because I thought you understood this. Gravitons, defies the relativistic understanding of what causes gravity. The medium is dynamic, but the medium is not particle controlled. 

 

gravitons are still a viable possibility, when you dig deep enough into QFT it becomes a question on how one defines a particle to begin with. Ie a little bullet or as a field excitation....

Edited July 17, 2018 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil2]

ah then its a case of mistaken descriptive. I have no issue with the possibility of gravitons but that is a world of difference between the graviton being an invariant as opposed to gravity itself being invariant.

 

Yes, the graviton is invariant which is the mediator of gravity basically Energy-mass in all forms with a double spin.

[Vmedvil2]

gravitons are still a viable possibility, when you dig deep enough into QFT it becomes a question on how one defines a particle to begin with. Ie a little bullet or as a field excitation....

 

It is definitely a Field Excitation in my model, the excitation of any field generates gravitons upon time-space to mediate the attraction of energy-mass to itself.

Edited July 17, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

then explain the phonon for sound waves. VP's in general are vector gauge bosons it is questionable if any are in fact real. For that matter the term particle itself cam be considered a historical misnomer under QFT which if you dig deep enough its incredibly difficult to find textbooks that even use the term particle instead of  a state. All vector gauge bosons are considered part of the internal lines on Feymann path integrals they have insufficient energy in their off shell state. Off shell is simply when the particle has less energy than the  mass of the on shell state.

 

Other quasi particles include the inflaton, curvaton , soliton. etc. these are all mediators that exhibit particle like characteristics. The trick is when you treat all particles under wave like characteristics the term particle becomes rather grey to begin with.

 

 Ever stop to ask how constructive wave interference of the two slit experiment can cause particles to pop into existence ? Or look into how particles pop in and out of existence in any treatment?

 

The QFT creation and annihilation operators does an excellent job of modelling such aspects under QFT.

 

For example we are often taught the proton is made up of just 2 up and one down quark however that isn't correct, in point of detail that represents the excess balance of those quarks. The number of quarks is literally 10's of thousands in accordance with the S-matrix.

 

When you get down to it the particles for Unruh radiation, parker radiation, and Hawking radiation also falls under this category of propagators represented by the internal Feymann lines.

 

So the question really boils down to how does one define a particle to begin with.....

 

The external Feymann lines are oft considered the only Real on shell particle states. The internal lines are oft describes as field fluctuations while the external "REAL" as in measurable individual states, being the on shell particle states.

 

Yet the only distinction between the two boils down to finite cutoffs of a waveform. The on shell excitation has distinct finite cutoffs while the propagator fluctuations do not.

 

In essence the real question boils down to how does one define a particle to begin with. If you treat particles as non corpuscular ie not little bullets of some matter like solid but as wave properties that exhibit pointlike characteristics as well as wavelike characteristics how one describes particles significantly differ.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

So explain the lattice guage phonon then if I am wrong. It is of the quasi particle family and does exert psuedo force like properties. It has energy and sound can certainly exert a force specifically a fictitious force yet it has a quasi particle assigned to it.

 

This list is far from complete but many of these do not represent a force.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quasiparticles

Edited July 18, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

Notice one detail in the suffix of all quasiparticles ?

 

So ask yourself this question, why all the articles including recent on the possibility of gravitons when gravity is recognized as a pseudo force?

for example.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0607045.pdf

Edited July 18, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

But they are not.

 

Pseudoforces as a strict definition cannot be quantized in relativity. To add to the problem, any attempts to quantize gravity leads to divergence problems which has made many prominent scientists think gravity cannot be quantized inherently. Under those same models, gravity field is not a complex field, which is at a serious difference to the rest of the ''fundamental fields'' which do, require mediator particles. It is from, but not only from, first principles of relativity, that when a field is pseudo, it cannot be described in observable terms. 

 

Its funny you should mention first principles considering there is an article specifying graviton from first Principles.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.08246

 

while I agree that the renormalization problem is a serious issue for gravity it doesn't preclude the possibility it may be shown viable at a later time.

[Super Polymath]

@Shustaire, there's no need to triple post here, you get unlimited time to edit unlike on .net.

 

P.S., motion cannot be reduced to a luxon metric. Irreducible particles are an illusion. There are no unmoved movers in nature. Everything has an internal structure that's constantly changing. Except for black holes, their "internal" structure is actually external. That's a constituent of our relatively reverse universe. Even that perpendicular dimension is infinitely dynamic as per angular momentum.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

Unfortunately Poly that's not really true. You cannot find an internal structure to an electron for example neither under a Penning trap nor the strongest microscope available.

[Shustaire]

Oh no absolutely not. My husband and I have been aware of these problems for over 10 years. He even attempted to solve it for a few years simply to better understand it knowing he wouldn't solve it.

 

 You have no idea how nuts it drove me as he would never shut up about it roflmao.

 

He was always a firm believer of the spin 2 statistics and literally celebrated when LIGO detected the first GW wave as those detectors would not work without spin 2 being correct. It also managed to predict the right quarter amplitude wave. If you understand how antennas work they only detect quarter waves or 3/4 waves. Hence the sheer length of each LIGO arm.

 

This might surprise you but one of the theories he looked into even involved a graviton ghost loop as well as the graviton loop.

 

I really don't know if you are familiar with zero order, first order or higher order loops in terms of the Feymann path integrals on vertexes. Its incredibly difficult to describe the divergence problem unless your familiar with the key scalar propagators under the Feymann Golden rules in particular a quartic d=4 divergence.

 

ie [math] G_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+H_{\mu\nu}[/math] will equate to ( or rather should) [math] D=4L-2I-2V[/math] L is number of loops I is number of internal propagators V is number of vertexes. This will equate to 4th order theory

 

 K. S. Stelle, “Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity" has an excellent coverage though its an older model you might better know it as part of the fourth order field equations or rather 4th order Weyl  gravity. I would have to check but its in essence [math]\phi^4[/math] which is renormalizable but if you try to employ the same methodology to gravity you run into problems. So one proposal was D=8 but this once again runs into problems.

 

edit : I should note ordinarily you would also have n for the number of external lines but as were dealing with a vector gauge bosons self energy there is no applicable external line.

 

chuckle you have no idea how often my husband laughs when he sees theories to quantize gravity that don't employ the Feymann rules most people bandy the term renormalization and divergence without understanding what those terms imply.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Shustaire

[OceanBreeze]

chuckle you have no idea how often my husband laughs when he sees theories to quantize gravity that don't employ the Feymann rules most people bandy the term renormalization and divergence without understanding what those terms imply.

 

Ah, but that is all starting to change. Are you familiar with the amplituhedron?

 

 

It is a geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality.

The traditional machinery of quantum field theory, involving hundreds of Feynman diagrams worth thousands of mathematical terms, is reduced to just one geometrical function.

[OceanBreeze]

I've proposed the theory here where there is a couple of science minded people with degrees. So if there are any objections, you might find it here:

 

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?169315-Black-Holes-and-Larmor-Radiation-and-Why-I-think-Big-Bang-is-Wrong

 

It seems that there are many objections.

 

One in particular echoes exactly the same objection that I raised, and you never responded to:

 

You wrote:

 

1. A black hole moving fast relative to an observer at rest will appear hot.

 

And since everything is relative, it is also true that:

 

2. An observer moving at relativistic speeds will measure the black hole at rest to be cooler.

 

 

 To which, a poster named Shaula responded:

 

This is fundamentally wrong. Relativity says that the two situations (fast moving black hole vs fast moving observer) are completely indistinguishable because only the relative velocities matter. You have basically just proposed that it is possible to work out whether you or the black hole are moving via a temperature measurement, what will actually happen is that in both cases the observer will measure a higher temperature for the black hole.

 

 That is the same question I raised back on page one of this thread.

 

Do you have a reply?

[Vmedvil2]

But they are not.

 

Pseudoforces as a strict definition cannot be quantized in relativity. To add to the problem, any attempts to quantize gravity leads to divergence problems which has made many prominent scientists think gravity cannot be quantized inherently. Under those same models, gravity field is not a complex field, which is at a serious difference to the rest of the ''fundamental fields'' which do, require mediator particles. It is from, but not only from, first principles of relativity, that when a field is pseudo, it cannot be described in observable terms. 

 

What if gravitons exchanged more like a gas with areas of emptiness with a particle that sending the information back a forth on much like an array not every planck length will have a particle for gravity within it just ones that connect to a Energy-massive particle, just like gluons hold and exchange the information of the strong nuclear force then so should gravity have particles that bind the two masses together even at a large distance, they are still bound by the graviton field just less densely. The Gravitons connect everything with energy-mass together through time-space but  not empty spots, the connector String or Graviton causes curvature, that is my view on it. Einstein's Fluid was actually a gaseous material, The "Temperature" particle of time-space is the graviton, the more gravitons in a spot the more of a gravitational pull the object feels/exerts. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by VictorMedvil