Gravitons are neutrally charged because they do not rely on electomagnetic foce to cause the attraction. They're pure force bosons, like the strong force or the weak force. One hits you, you start moving toward the source. No pluses or minuses required.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Am I correct in saying that Gravitons have yet to be proved to exist? Read on my friend...
I was thinking a bit more about gravity today, as no one seems to know if gravitons really exist or where they come from, and how they ft into the Quantum arena, Consider this.
It is known that if a photom has enough energy, it can split into a pair of electron like particles. Ie a regular electron and a positron, when these two meet up again, they annihilate into an energetic photon.
The problem I see with this is that a massless particle has split into two particles with a mass, Einsteins E=MC2 tells us that matter with mass cannot travel at the speed of light, So I concur that during the 'split' there must be some kind of decelleration of the particles. Wouldn't this therefore return a kind of energy to outside the system? (and naturally where there are lots of energetic photons, there must be lots of this splitting happening-think stars)Now lets say that this energy is measured positive (But we cant really measure it as so, because it is uniform in the universe, except around objects such as stars, where we see it manifest as gravity). Therefore, the overall charge of the universe vacuum is positive, which will gently attract the real matter of the universe, ie Atoms (more strongly where we 'see it as gravity' but generally about a point central to the universe).
For this to happen, the vacuum +ive energy can only 'sees' the electron shells of atoms, as it is fractionally closer to the electron shells than the positive nuclues, and as the nuclues is hidden from the repel of like forces by the electron shells, the overall effect could be (an almost zero on the quantum scale but suitably large for macroscopic objects) to pull macroscopic objects together. This decelleration of photons into electros and positrons may well be the source for the graviton boson pure energy you mention if by absolute fking miracle Im thinking along the correct lines!
BTW, Ive only been studying this for a month, so I probably sound like a complete half-wit!
Edit: And i see another implication of this split, a photon in its photon stage must be travelling faster than the electron-poitron split, therefore wouldn't this reduce the measured speed of light, what Im suggesting, is that maybe photons by themselves travel at infinite speed, but the constant splitting into slower speed particles brings the average speed down to what we classically measure as "C". This in itself could explain non-locality or "spooky action at a distance".
BTW, has it occurred to you that perhaps the universe could have initially opened through diffusion? I'm looking into this right now...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not come across this yet, unless you mean a fluctuation that has zero overall energy thus allowing it to 'live' for a long length of time and expand rapidly?
I'd think that any college level freshman physics book would have some information you might find helpful. IMO on the Internet everyone tries to whip up some spooky ass BS about physics that has nothing to do with reality. The reality is that QM is a well-understood area of physics. We may not know why small things behave that way but we have a very good handle how they behave. That?s QM.
If you want to understand things like the uncertainty principle then you need to know calculus. Well maybe not but it would help.
hey scott, nice to see you contibulte to a thread in a positive way!. I think I understand the uncertantity principle, ie the more accurate you measure a particles position, the less accurately you can measure its momentum. Isn't this due to the wavelength of the measuring beam or something, the smaller the beam, the more kick it gives the particle thusmaking the other measurement less accurate.?
I really don't think I'll ever understand the maths of it all though, It would help if the books Ive got actually told me way the symbols they used were called, so I could look up the function behind it. Where might I get this information? Preferabally at 'retard' level!
As far as non-math theories go, Im really great at this. I understand them all (Ive come across), just the maths is a big let down for me.
Is there a non-math book on string theory? Gribben has touched on this in his last book , Schrodingers kittens, as the big one but goes no further. This sounds like the answer.
But the math is where it all comes from. I didn't really understand it all the way until I took a math course the last semester of my last year. Then after that some of the things I learned in grad school about linear systems and transformations using orthogonal sets of basis functions helped more. The math background where I went to school was weakened by the engineering department. I was in physics but the first two years of calculus and linear algebra was dictated by engineering. As a result my pde and linear algebra skills were blunted.
BTW I think I contribute something positive to each thread. People just take it the wrong way.
Two good non-math books on string theory are Hyperspace by Michio Kaku and The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene,but even these use some math.The best place on the web for info on string theory is <a href="http://www.superstringtheory.com"; target="_blank">www.superstringtheory.com</a> , which I mentioned above and which runs from a basic to fairly advanced level.But if you really want to understand this stuff you need to learn the math,if you don't you are cheating yourself.A lot of mathematical concepts don't translate into everyday language at all.
A good mathematical description of the uncertainity principle is in Schaum's Outline of Quatum Mechanics.If you really want to understand what physicists are talking about when they mention symmetry start studying group theory,it's a very rich area of mathematics,applicable to many situations.
Comments
<strong>By the way, about gravity...
Gravitons are neutrally charged because they do not rely on electomagnetic foce to cause the attraction. They're pure force bosons, like the strong force or the weak force. One hits you, you start moving toward the source. No pluses or minuses required.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Am I correct in saying that Gravitons have yet to be proved to exist? Read on my friend...
I was thinking a bit more about gravity today, as no one seems to know if gravitons really exist or where they come from, and how they ft into the Quantum arena, Consider this.
It is known that if a photom has enough energy, it can split into a pair of electron like particles. Ie a regular electron and a positron, when these two meet up again, they annihilate into an energetic photon.
The problem I see with this is that a massless particle has split into two particles with a mass, Einsteins E=MC2 tells us that matter with mass cannot travel at the speed of light, So I concur that during the 'split' there must be some kind of decelleration of the particles. Wouldn't this therefore return a kind of energy to outside the system? (and naturally where there are lots of energetic photons, there must be lots of this splitting happening-think stars)Now lets say that this energy is measured positive (But we cant really measure it as so, because it is uniform in the universe, except around objects such as stars, where we see it manifest as gravity). Therefore, the overall charge of the universe vacuum is positive, which will gently attract the real matter of the universe, ie Atoms (more strongly where we 'see it as gravity' but generally about a point central to the universe).
For this to happen, the vacuum +ive energy can only 'sees' the electron shells of atoms, as it is fractionally closer to the electron shells than the positive nuclues, and as the nuclues is hidden from the repel of like forces by the electron shells, the overall effect could be (an almost zero on the quantum scale but suitably large for macroscopic objects) to pull macroscopic objects together. This decelleration of photons into electros and positrons may well be the source for the graviton boson pure energy you mention if by absolute fking miracle Im thinking along the correct lines!
BTW, Ive only been studying this for a month, so I probably sound like a complete half-wit!
Edit: And i see another implication of this split, a photon in its photon stage must be travelling faster than the electron-poitron split, therefore wouldn't this reduce the measured speed of light, what Im suggesting, is that maybe photons by themselves travel at infinite speed, but the constant splitting into slower speed particles brings the average speed down to what we classically measure as "C". This in itself could explain non-locality or "spooky action at a distance".
Boy, the bollocks is really flowing tonight hey!
[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: MarcUK ]</p>
<strong>
BTW, has it occurred to you that perhaps the universe could have initially opened through diffusion? I'm looking into this right now...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not come across this yet, unless you mean a fluctuation that has zero overall energy thus allowing it to 'live' for a long length of time and expand rapidly?
perhaps you can explain.
If you want to understand things like the uncertainty principle then you need to know calculus. Well maybe not but it would help.
I really don't think I'll ever understand the maths of it all though, It would help if the books Ive got actually told me way the symbols they used were called, so I could look up the function behind it. Where might I get this information? Preferabally at 'retard' level!
As far as non-math theories go, Im really great at this. I understand them all (Ive come across), just the maths is a big let down for me.
Is there a non-math book on string theory? Gribben has touched on this in his last book , Schrodingers kittens, as the big one but goes no further. This sounds like the answer.
Thanks
Marcus
BTW I think I contribute something positive to each thread. People just take it the wrong way.
A good mathematical description of the uncertainity principle is in Schaum's Outline of Quatum Mechanics.If you really want to understand what physicists are talking about when they mention symmetry start studying group theory,it's a very rich area of mathematics,applicable to many situations.
[ 07-06-2002: Message edited by: Rick1138 ]</p>