Mordred

Very close be more accurate to understand that pure gravity via gravitons by itself is renormalizable. Any permutations are not. So the unperturbed Maximally symmetric spacetime \(\eta_{\mu\nu}\) using the minimally coupled Langrangian is renormalizable. However once you lose maximal symmetry via curvature, gravity waves, cosmological constant, or other permutations involving the stress energy momentum tensor acting upon the perturbation tensor \(h_{\mu\nu}\) are not renormalizable. These are where the higher order loop integrals arise from not the gravitons (one loop integral field ) by itself. So under for example the weak field limit. \[g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}\] When \(h_{\mu\nu}=0\) consequently \(T_{\mu\mu}=0\) spacetime is renormalizable. It loses renormalizability when those tensors do not equal zero Dave for the density term at T_(00).

The spin 2 characteristics arise from the perturbation rank 2 symmetric tensor \(h_{\mu\nu}\) which is transverse and traceless but also must couple to matter and antimatter. This obviously also requires the rank 2 stress energy momentum tensor. The other detail is that gravity only attracts which is also a determining factor for spin 2. The solutions are rather intense Ryder Lewis "Introductory to Cosmology"gives a simplified solution However this article describes the main points as to why Spin2 is the most likely http://fmatrm.if.usp.br/~enrico/Gravitation_from_Field_Theory.pdf A simple understanding is that it is the polarizations such as those of gravity waves that leads to the spin 2 and those derive from working from 4D geometry via SO(3.1) Poincare group.

A little secret both the graviton and gravity waves properties are derived via the Einstein field equations. Gravity waves being spin 2 quadrupole however does suggest the most likely particle candidate being spin 2 as well. However there is also spin 1 and spin zero possibility for the graviton. However there is also the possibility that gravity is strictly a spacetime effect and has no mediator boson.

Yes it is plausible to get a ToE without gravitons and even if gravitons are discovered the UV divergence problem will still exist.

If it's a personal theory post it in Speculation not one of the mainstream physics forums.

I'm sorry but most of that last post makes little sense.

Probability functions are already factored in via the related momentum term under the renormalized Hamilton including related uncertainties,Schrodinger, Klein-Gordon and Dirac relations Probability currents due to different amplitudes are also included in the Feymann integrals themselves as well as the position/momentum uncertainties from Fourier transformations. Those Feymann integrals is what the renormalization counter terms is being applied to. QM and QFT use different operators for the above but they are in essence equivalent provided Lorentz invariance is being applied by QM via Dirac equations as the Schrodinger is not Lorentz invariant. Keep in mind it also isn't unusual to have multiple Langrangians involved in the same particle to particle scattering event. In point of detail you more often than not will be working with multiple integrals. Particularly with mass terms each requires it's own renormalization counter term or multiple counter terms for integrals with multiples orders (first, second, third....). A simple example being the momentum vs wave vector being inclusive in the same integral such as positive/negative frequency modes using the creation/annihilation operators.

Let's ask a simple question. Do you get angry at your teacher when he tells you, your method or idea won't work ? Or do you take the time to understand why the teacher makes that statement and learn from it. With regards to calculations I honestly didn't see much interest to the Maxwell equations I posted earlier on this thread with regards to the experiment. So I stopped mentioning them. Prior to describing the helical and cyclotronic magnetic moments.

Here is the thing about renormalization. The method used whether it is dimensional regularization, renormalization or simply an effective cutoff actually makes no difference . One can alternately employ any method or even mix methods with the same Feymann integrals. Though mixing isn't recommended it doesn't change anything. I will think about how to explain the higher order integrals in an easy to understand manner if I can think of a way to describe them in an easy to understand manner. I will post it. Edit the simplest way with regards to gravity. All loop integrals has k loop momentum. The one loop momentum is the massless propogator action. In essence with regards to gravity the first order velocity terms. (Maximally symmetric Minkoskii, anti Desitter or DeSitter space would fall under one loop integrals ) These spaces the number of nonzero terms with regards to the related tensors are nimimal The higher order terms with regards to gravity kick in when spacetime is no longer maximally symmetric due to curvature. Under GR the acceleration terms reside. Now that's a poor description when it comes to loop amplitudes and power counting to determine the UV divergence. For example if all loop amplitudes are on shell in an integrated the UV divergence is zero. This can be accomplished for Maximally symmetric spacetimes . Now for higher order integrals one can typically use integrad reduction by cancelations in the numerator and denominator terms in the integrals to minimize the number of loop amplitudes. This method works with other fields in keeping the number of loop amplitudes finite. ( This is one of the steps to calculate higher loop integrands) However with spacetimes not Maximally symmetric we haven't been able to keep the number of loop amplitudes finite. In math terms when you perform loop amplitude power counting the power counting becomes infinite hence UV divergent. Example infinite density of a BH meaning infinite number of loop amplitudes which corresponds to an infinite number density of related particles (gravitons for this case, though as mentioned not necessarily required ) the propogator action would still be infinite as well.

You don't require a graviton for renormalization of gravity. The issue with gravity is the UV divergences. No effective cutoff ie singularity conditions That issue would exist even if a graviton is found. Sure discovery of a graviton would be a great assist it isn't required when it comes to GuT/TOE. In point of detail using gravitons is the method employed by Hoof'T. This is in essence the one loop integrals. It is the second order and higher order Feymann loop integrals terms that are divergent.

A ghost field for leftover terms from renormalization already exists. Pick a different name lol.

Then I would think it's safe to assume the entirety of the post is part of the joke. Lol I wouldn't want to see an experiment performed by not buying Christmas presents for your children in Santa's name to see if gifts get delivered or not.

I find it rather curious to see a post from a claimed science expert but the post itself has no evidence of applying a scientific method beyond a little historical detail.

Great course guideline those definitions I provided will be identical to what's taught in your physics course and apply to all forms of physics including QM/QFT, String theory etc.

! Moderator Note As this is discussing a personal theory on the topic it belongs in our Speculation forum. A large portion above wouldn't make sense. Understandably it's tricky to understand spacetime curvature. As your a student in high school its important to get a few physics definitions out of the way first and foremost. Energy is ability to perform work. Mass is the resistance to inertia change. Space is simply the available volume where the SM particles reside its not a fabric and such isn't a mediator for mass. Now taking the above spacetime curvature describes the geodesic paths of particles both massless and massive. Different geodesics for each above. So take two parallel light beams if the beams remain parallel spacetime is flat. If they converge (positive curvature) if they diverge the negative curvature. Now with the above consider the following mass being resistance to inertia change( mass being determined by the coupling constants of each field a particle interacts with.) Let's see how we'll you understand the above before continuing.

Join the club lol. Yes carriers are limited however certain Motorolla two way radio repeaters can handle pagers and can further get IP connected for either internet or phone. Higher end two way radios can also have pager capabilities.

Lol trying to find companies that still remember how to program pagers however is rather tricky.

My ex wife is a personal care aid. They required pagers as cell phones were too easily abused where the worker would steal company time playing on their cell phones.

Lol some of those equations get downright brutal even for first order approximations. Glad it's a rare occasion for me nowadays. Haven't had to design a ground grid for a tower in near a decade.

Yeah missiles as opposed to bullets.

Fair enough your on the right track with your last post. I don't have personal experience involving thermal conductivity. Any tests I've done has been electrical conductivity.

What you will likely notice is that the higher porosity the higher the moisture content the higher the electrical conductivity due to higher concentration of dissolved cations and anions. Soil layers with higher drainage will contribute to higher removal of conductive salts as opposed to soil content with poor drainage. So poor drainage soils will lead to higher salt accumulation. That's been my experience

I have done soil conductivity sampling for radio towers. You really want to remove any salt and water from the soil to get an accurate reading. Typically the water content will be conductive due to the additional salt content. A lot depends on salt content which will vary layer per layer.

Easy enough however there is another method to down a plane have enough shrapnel to chew up the jet intakes. It's a common technique to knock down missiles.

Particles are not little bullets with defined boundaries. That is not the modern understanding. Nor is the Bohr model of the atom. The electron cloud in modern treatment is a probability cloud which is what those images are showing.. You also won't see a Higgs boson in those images. The Higgs theory does not predict nor describe the atom with a volume or changes in volume for good reasons. The second paper discusses the probability aspects Edit looks like IlyaGeller deleted his post