Jump to content

POVphysics

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by POVphysics

  1. If the universe was designed somehow, there would probably be some engineering parameters that can't be explained; they're just built into the universe.
  2. I'm done. You're deliberately trying to prevent innovation. We could literally develop the interstellar drive if it wasn't for all the effort being put into stalling.
  3. I am restricted from telling you why those theories have holes in them, other than what I've already said. If you want to start a new thread, you can. It is your free will and it is the physics community's free will to focus on things like 1) how long does it take for a proton to decay 2) how long does it take for a black hole to evaporate 3) how long will the universe last 4) we don't have to think about physics constants 5) spacetime exists, but we don't know what it's made of, and don't care. You folks can decide what you think is important. But just don't ask me to care what your
  4. The topic is about WHAT IS SPACETIME MADE OF. I have answered the problem by proposing a model for a quanta of spacetime. I am calling it an expanding graviton. I am happy to oblige your concerns that spacetime is not made of particles; spacetime is made of things that behave like spacetime geometry, behave like the mathematical objects called wavefunctions, and things that are carriers of the physics constants. Wave functions describe the interaction between gravitons and particles. When I say that wave functions are gravitons, please permit me the linguistic freedom to make the shorthan
  5. The graviton part is your conjecture. I was asking about the experiment itself, and YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION. One of the unwritten rules here is that getting someone to clarify their speculation shouldn;t be like pulling teeth. The system you described, using a crystal, entangles polarizations. If you want to entangle some other properties, you need a different setup. I am not that familiar with the experimental process of creating quantum entanglements and verifying their existence. I have looked online, but haven't been able to find a good book
  6. Correct. Quantum waves have volumes. I've already defined gravitons as the objects that have quantum states built into them; that is to say, gravitons are wave functions. Therefore, when gravitons expand from a point, they collide with particles and become part of the quantum system. So, an expanding graviton is a wave function; it belongs in the standard model, even if it doesn't remain a point particle.
  7. Each graviton broadcasts the speed of light and other physics constants, continuously. That's why their values don't drift over time. I don't know if you looked at the pictures of the double slit experiment waves. That was another clue that lead me to believe that spacetime is broadcast, from a point, by expanding gravitons. Why do we have to write 1 for the physics constants? That's exactly the same as sweeping them under the rug. Are physicists afraid of the physics constants? I hope not. Because I really want humanity to get past these obstacles so that we can contemplate
  8. Did you see the picture I posted of the 2 slit diffraction pattern? That conclusion does not follow, and even the premise is somewhat faulty - gravitons, were they real, would only mediate changes in the gravitational field. Setting String Theory and other unproven conjectures aside for now, no elementary particle has any kind of volume; they behave as point-like objects. It is appropriate to set string theory aside because it is not empirically based. When you say that particles don't have volume, what do you call this? Maybe
  9. That conclusion does not follow, and even the premise is somewhat faulty - gravitons, were they real, would only mediate changes in the gravitational field. Setting String Theory and other unproven conjectures aside for now, no elementary particle has any kind of volume; they behave as point-like objects. It is appropriate to set string theory aside because it is not empirically based. When you say that particles don't have volume, what do you call this? Maybe you don't see it, so I'll tell you what I see. From every point along the distance "a" there is a w
  10. You're more familiar with the mathematics of gravitons than I am. If you say it doesn't work, I believe you. But the difference between the gravitons that you are using in your calculation and the expanding graviton that I am proposing, is that my gravitons expand, just like the whole universe did at the big bang. Do you remember how the Michelson-Morley experiment convinced the whole physics community that no spacetime medium is possible? Well, I am proposing a medium that has the derivation of time dilation built into it. Instead of spacetime being made of a single object that expan
  11. Like I said in my previous comment, trying to quantise gravity in terms of the usual quantum field theoretic framework doesn’t work, so the entire concept of ‘graviton’ is highly suspect at best. The mathematics simply don’t work. But even if they did, then gravitons would be elementary particles subject to all the usual rules that apply to spin-2 bosons, so they wouldn’t have a volume that could somehow ‘expand’. Then we have a problem. The universe actually occupies a very large volume. The universe is expanding since it was a point at the big bang. Gravity is a fact
  12. The difference between entangled photons and entangled electrons is that the electrons exist with a graviton between them. In the case of two entangled photons, the photons are excitations of the graviton, on opposite sides. When the photon is absorbed by a crystal, the energy is used to excite a crystal electron to a higher energy shell, but the graviton remains attached to the crystal until it breaks free or is absorbed by the crystal
  13. The light cone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone also suggests that an expanding graviton is the best building block for spacetime. Gravitons are the very epitome of causality. Events cause gravitons, and there effects spread spherically outward at the speed of light. The reason that photons are the surface area of gravitons is because photons travel at the speed of light, relative to the point of the event. Everything inside of the sphere has to do with wave functions quantum states. Events cause gravitons.
  14. Your list of graviton features is correct but IMO incomplete. I'm glad you noticed the list of loose ends. By adding just three additional features, gravitons are carriers of physics constants (because something has to account for them), gravitons are wave functions (which is how we unify QM with GR by broadcasting quantum states so densely that they become geodesics and spacetime geometry) They expand from a point, a sphere of radius r = ct (got the idea from the right triangle derivation of time dilation; also, wave expand from a point in the two slit experiment; also,
  15. In my expanding graviton hypothesis, the graviton causes everything else to behave the way we observe it (in terms of physics). There are 3 spatial dimensions because that's the way gravitons are. I dare not say they were made that way! They just are that way. A graviton will obey the equation X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 - (ct)^2 = 0.
  16. I think you're trying to keep track of all the combinations. All I want from the entanglements is those momentum and position quantum states. I believe that if I blueshift the P1 photons, redshift the P2 photons, that the momentum states will align in a way that acts like a force of gravity. The position states will align in a way that is similar to spacetime curvature. Any particles that occupy one of those quantum states will experience the gravity field. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful in understanding entanglement entropy. I think it was you who didn't like my 6 sided d
  17. If a charge can interact with a quantum entanglement field, then it seems to me that a creative person could do something useful with that? I was going to argue that a quantum entanglement field does exist and if you went to the LHC and caused a beam of ions to travel through a quantum entanglement field, you would have to include the wave function of the field in the calculation to figure out what might happen. It actually does make sense, I'll have to draw you a picture.
  18. If I take a laser and point it at a crystal that is known to create quantum entanglements, then there would be pairs of photons that are entangled. I was under the impression that this could be done experimentally very easily. How do you “trap” photons “between the electron energy levels of the crystal”? When an electron in an atom, in a crystal, absorbs a photon, the electron jumps to the next highest energy band. The photon is confined to the energy bands of the crystal. Because I believe that if you split a laser into two entangled beams P1 and P2, I believe there is a
  19. I'm such a terrible person for giving neg reactions to people who derail the conversation with extraneous nonsense. I never give neg reactions to people who disagree with me on the physics, like you have. Maybe we're just not going to see eye to eye. The Michelson-Morley experiment created the impression that NO MEDIUM IS NEEDED. I'm sure you believe that too. But the question I'm trying to answer is, what is spacetime itself made of? Actually, I've created several lists of things that expanding gravitons are needed to explain. I've challenged superstrings as somethi
  20. Does anyone here think that a graviton is a point particle? If so, how does it create spacetime geometry which is 4D?
  21. The gravitational fine structure constant is the number that controls coupling of gravitons to energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant It's the order of 10-45 in international units. Would you be as kind as to tell me where in your "calculations" is the faintest inkling of how you would evidence this from a purely electromagnetic model? Thank you. Although the non-answer I can only predict. We disagree on what a graviton is. If I cannot convince you that a graviton is a 4D point in space, that expands at the speed of lig
  22. Again, this is about the science, not you. Quit making it personal. No one cares what you believe. They care about the science. It is truly a tragedy that there are not creative people in the physics community who can use experiments to lead humanity to the stars. Instead, there are people here who want to create friction. Your education... I'm sad to say... I'm sad you had to drag the conversation into the gutter.
  23. You are coming across as a bit of an ass. Dial down the anger and just discuss the science. This is not a contact sport. I am willing and eager to answer any questions, just direct me to them. I have no wish to come across as an ass. But then don't expect me to believe the scientific authority when they affirm facts that are not based on experimental data. Do you mean like how the Caluba Klein model is not experimentally verifiable? Or that a photon frequency can change as it travels along a gravity well? If you think I ignored something, what was it?
  24. It's like your answering questions that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If you're going to criticize, criticize me for what I actually affirm. Gravitons exist. They expand at the speed of light into a sphere of radius r = ct. Expanding gravitons are the carriers of the physics constants. Wave functions are describing gravitons. The quantum entanglement between two photons can be described by a wave function (in principle) and is identically a graviton. Using a laser, an entanglement crystal, you can split the beam into two entangled beams, you can
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.