Gravitational musing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2013, 05:30 PM
RE: Gravitational musing
(09-08-2013 05:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-08-2013 05:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wouldn't you just assume, at some (very small) level it WAS quantized ? Does someone say it isn't ? The Plank Constant, (6.62606957 × 10-34 m2 kg / s), the Plank relation, and quantum wavelengths are all related by quantized relationships.
The Gravitational constant is also a specific *measure*. 6.67384 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
I think unless there was evidence to the contrary, I would assume it was quantized, just because of the relationships it has to other known quantized phenomena.

Yup, that's pretty much what I'm saying. I don't know that it's not being treated this way by theoretical physicists, but it is not the common understanding of gravity - that is much more Newtonian or Einsteinian.

Well, due to the fundamentally quantum nature of mass-energy, it is implicitly recognized as being quantized. S'just that at the level at which it is relevant that isn't a particularly useful observation - it would hardly effect calculations involving stars and galaxies! And as far as, say, the hydrogen atom is concerned - one can include the terms for gravitational interaction, but their effect is utterly insignificant.

The current problem with gravity is determining why it occurs. That's the missing link on a unified theory as it stands...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 06:11 PM
RE: Gravitational musing
(09-08-2013 05:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wouldn't you just assume, at some (very small) level it WAS quantized ? Does someone say it isn't ? The Plank Constant, (6.62606957 × 10-34 m2 kg / s), the Plank relation, and quantum wavelengths are all related by quantized relationships.
The Gravitational constant is also a specific *measure*. 6.67384 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
I think unless there was evidence to the contrary, I would assume it was quantized, just because of the relationships it has to other known quantized phenomena.

Yup. I got my theoretical comment in. I'm keeping an observational distance from here on out. Drinking Beverage

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 06:23 PM
RE: Gravitational musing
If your theory stands up Chas then would it dispel any current theories, back some up or a mixture of the two, or none at all?

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 06:38 PM
RE: Gravitational musing
I believe the prevailing model is that gravity is quantum, although it has not been observed or measured as such at this time. Likewise, there is no really cohesive theoretical marriage between quantum theory and relativity so gravity may still be a wildcard... but so long as the Higgs continues to do what it is predicted to do it seems reasonable to continue with the current Higgs/Graviton model, which is certainly a quantum model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 06:43 PM
RE: Gravitational musing
(09-08-2013 06:23 PM)bemore Wrote:  If your theory stands up Chas then would it dispel any current theories, back some up or a mixture of the two, or none at all?

I don't know. I'm not up on the current state of theoretical physics.

I was just musing. Smile

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 09:35 PM
RE: Gravitational musing
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong...(I may very well be wrong)...but is not the photon the quantum packet of the electromagnetic field, but the electromagnetic field itself is not necessarily considered "quantized"? The photon is the "quantum expression" of the electromagnetic field?

If so, in the same way would not the graviton be the "quantized expression" of the gravitational field, but the gravitational field itself is not necessarily quantized?

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 11:18 PM
RE: Gravitational musing
(09-08-2013 09:35 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Okay, correct me if I'm wrong...(I may very well be wrong)...but is not the photon the quantum packet of the electromagnetic field, but the electromagnetic field itself is not necessarily considered "quantized"? The photon is the "quantum expression" of the electromagnetic field?

If so, in the same way would not the graviton be the "quantized expression" of the gravitational field, but the gravitational field itself is not necessarily quantized?

Well, from a classical perspective, the electromagnetic field is viewed as a smooth, continuous field, propagated in a wavelike manner; but from the perspective of quantum field theory, the field is quantized, as it composed of individual particles.

So goes gravity.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 11:34 PM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2013 11:43 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: Gravitational musing
Yeah, but what I mean is, isn't the photon and graviton the quantized part of that? For example, an electron acts as both a particle and a wave...

...actually come to think of it I might be answering my own question here...

But to finish my thought, and correct me where I'm wrong, but where an electron acts as both a particle and a wave, the wave is also the electron, not the particle being just the quantized part of the wave but both the particle and the wave. So is the believed to exist graviton then both the gavity partial and the wave? If so I'd say it's quantized.

...wait...what was the question?

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 11:42 PM
RE: Gravitational musing
Actually I guess what my point, or question is, is the graviton like the particle part of the gravitational wave in the same way as an electron is the particle part of an electron wave, or a photon is the particle part of a light wave?

I haven't studied up that much on gravitons yet so I don't know. I imagine if you posted this you might have an idea, though we haven't yet detected the graviton.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2013, 02:31 AM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2013 02:38 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Gravitational musing
All of the forces are understood to be transmitted by their respective bosons in a quantized manner that correspond to a waveform-like probability density function, where changes to the probability density function change over time according to Schrödinger's equation. The extent to which the probability density function is a real medium that stretches throughout the universe is not known, but that is a model that has explanatory power - it corresponds to known facts. Other interpretations also exist. We cannot know which explanation is accurate until the different explanations start to produce different testable predictions that we can use to decide between the different models. For now, whichever one makes sense to you is as good as any other to use. The "electromagnatism is everywhere, and photons are excitations of the field" model makes a lot of sense to me.




Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: