Virtual particles and fields

[dimreepr]

If I was looking to start out on a career in physics and had a lifetime in front of me to study every established theory, there still would still not be enough time to learn everything, I am interested in.

 

Enjoy the journey.

[StringJunky]

 

Thanks all for the input, it is actually really appreciated even though I may not understand it all yet. You have all given me some interesting things to think about, and things to chase up.

 

If I was looking to start out on a career in physics and had a lifetime in front of me to study every established theory, there still would still not be enough time to learn everything, I am interested in.

We'll never understand it all but if we keep reading worthwhile stuff we will know more than we did yesterday.

[Handy andy]

Your assertion that gravity can all be accounted for with quantum foam instead of gravitons is a big speculation. You might have noticed that people have been able to say what the properties of a graviton would be if it is found to exist. That's based on models. So any discussion of gravitons fulfills the requirement of making testable predictions (and not just in principle — as Mordred pointed out, the detection of gravitational waves is entirely consistent with gravitons being spin-2). Your speculation, however, is hand-waving, with no models backing it up, contrary to what the rules demand.

 

I had hoped someone else might be dumb enough to ask these questions ref the graviton. At the risk of being annoying.

 

How does the graviton cause attraction?

How does it cause repulsion in an expanding universe?

What special properties does it have that enables it to get out of a black hole?

How does a spin 2 boson move or what does it look like?

 

Is the graviton a virtual particle or boson or is it real particle or boson.

How does it accumulate energy? Does it have a frequency, a pressure. or is it a stream of gravitons hitting a particle or photon that causes attraction.

 

A photon of light as all particles do stretch space around them causing a gravitational gradient. Is this represented with a waves of gravitons hitting something, does a graviton wave spread out like a normal wave.?

[swansont]

 

A photon of light as all particles do stretch space around them causing a gravitational gradient.

 

 

You really need to stop preaching this nonsense.

[Handy andy]

 

 

You really need to stop preaching this nonsense.

 

I believe in nothing and preach nothing.

 

To save you attempting to answer the questions. I found the answers I was looking for on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

[MigL]

Maybe you should have read Wikipedia before you started preaching all your wrong assertions about virtual particles and fields.

[Strange]

How does the graviton cause attraction?

 

 

IF the field (space-time) could be quantised, then the interaction (curvature of space-time) could also be described in terms of the exchange of virtual photons.

 

 

 

How does it cause repulsion in an expanding universe?

 

I am not aware that it does.

 

 

 

What special properties does it have that enables it to get out of a black hole?

 

None. It can't.

 

 

 

How does a spin 2 boson move or what does it look like?

 

As the graviton would be massless, it would travel in straight lines at the speed of light.

 

"What does it look like" doesn't make much sense. Any "image" of a fundamental particle is a poor analogy.

 

 

 

Is the graviton a virtual particle or boson or is it real particle or boson.

 

It would be a real particle, a boson. Its interactions (gravity) would be mediated by virtual particles (i.e. not particles).

 

 

 

How does it accumulate energy? Does it have a frequency, a pressure. .

 

I don't think it can accumulate energy. (I think the photon is unique in coming in a range of wavelengths/energies. Although, obviously, massive particles can gain kinetic energy by being accelerated.)

 

 

 

or is it a stream of gravitons hitting a particle or photon that causes attraction

 

No.

 

 

 

A photon of light as all particles do stretch space around them causing a gravitational gradient. Is this represented with a waves of gravitons hitting something, does a graviton wave spread out like a normal wave.?

 

As others have said, this is just nonsense.

[imatfaal]

 

 

IF the field (space-time) could be quantised, then the interaction (curvature of space-time) could also be described in terms of the exchange of virtual photons.

 

 

I am not aware that it does.

 

 

None. It can't.

 

 

As the graviton would be massless, it would travel in straight lines at the speed of light.

 

"What does it look like" doesn't make much sense. Any "image" of a fundamental particle is a poor analogy.

 

 

It would be a real particle, a boson. Its interactions (gravity) would be mediated by virtual particles (i.e. not particles).

 

 

I don't think it can accumulate energy. (I think the photon is unique in coming in a range of wavelengths/energies. Although, obviously, massive particles can gain kinetic energy by being accelerated.)

 

 

No.

 

 

As others have said, this is just nonsense.

 

Great answer - would quibble only this

 

"I don't think it can accumulate energy. (I think the photon is unique in coming in a range of wavelengths/energies."

 

The graviton - as the boson of a gravitational radiation (ie not as the virtual boson of gravity) - can hold any frequency and will reflect the period of the quadrapole which generated it just as the real photon does (obs not quadrapole etc) . I also think that Energy will still be proportional to frequency although I do not know if it is still as straight forward as E=hf

[Strange]

 

Great answer - would quibble only this

 

"I don't think it can accumulate energy. (I think the photon is unique in coming in a range of wavelengths/energies."

 

The graviton - as the boson of a gravitational radiation (ie not as the virtual boson of gravity) - can hold any frequency and will reflect the period of the quadrapole which generated it just as the real photon does (obs not quadrapole etc) . I also think that Energy will still be proportional to frequency although I do not know if it is still as straight forward as E=hf

Yes, of course, you must be right.

[swansont]

 

"I don't think it can accumulate energy. (I think the photon is unique in coming in a range of wavelengths/energies."

 

The graviton - as the boson of a gravitational radiation (ie not as the virtual boson of gravity) - can hold any frequency and will reflect the period of the quadrapole which generated it just as the real photon does (obs not quadrapole etc) . I also think that Energy will still be proportional to frequency although I do not know if it is still as straight forward as E=hf

 

 

It's early and my brain is still waking up, but I don't see how it wouldn't. You will have E = pc and p = h/lambda (those are QM equations which do not apply just to photons) and any wave has lambda*f = v, which in this case is c since the particles are massless. So lambda = c/f = hc/E E = hf

[imatfaal]

 

 

It's early and my brain is still waking up, but I don't see how it wouldn't. You will have E = pc and p = h/lambda (those are QM equations which do not apply just to photons) and any wave has lambda*f = v, which in this case is c since the particles are massless. So lambda = c/f = hc/E E = hf

 

"(those are QM equations which do not apply just to photons)" - OK so this was the bit I was unsure of; thanks.

 

...The graviton - as the boson of a gravitational radiation (ie not as the virtual boson of gravity) - can hold any frequency and will reflect the period of the quadrapole which generated it just as the real photon does (obs not quadrapole etc) . I also think that Energy will still be proportional to frequency although I do not know if it is still as straight forward as E=hf

 

Thinking more - I guess the frequency of the graviton, just like that of the gravitation radiation, will be twice the of frequency of the varying mass system (eg twice the frequency of rotation in the LIGO event); it's quadrapole - two peaks for each complete cycle of driver

[swansont]

That should be SR and QM. E = pc comes from relativity (for massless particles), and lambda = h/p is the deBroglie wavelength, which applies to all particles

[MigL]

A graviton will interact with other gravitons, unlike other bosons.

Can it gain/lose energy in that way ?

 

( It interacts with its own virtual particles: that interaction gives rise to the non-renormalizable infinities that don't allow for quantization )

[Handy andy]

A graviton will interact with other gravitons, unlike other bosons.

Can it gain/lose energy in that way ?

 

( It interacts with its own virtual particles: that interaction gives rise to the non-renormalizable infinities that don't allow for quantization )

 

Stupid question again but what the hell. The answer isn't on google or Wikipedia this time.

 

Would it not be better to consider the graviton as a wave stressing space rather than individual bosons.

 

If it was viewed similar to a radio wave rather than similar to a photon, it could quite happily propagate outwards slowly diminishing its effect as it goes.

 

In support of viewing gravitons as waves. Bosons cant get out of black holes. Waves travel through space as a result of black holes spinning around each other, it seems waves do get out of black holes, and diminish as they propagate through space. A wave transfers energy through a solid liquid or gas which would stop a particle.

 

WTF The above wave idea assumes that space is a substance like a liquid, which ?????

 

A graviton wave starting at a particle due to the movement of particles, expands outwards into space rather than staying focused like a photon of light.

 

Some people have stated the graviton is real and a spin 2 boson, others have stated it is virtual and a wave. Which is it, can it be a spin 2 boson that expands.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Handy andy

[swansont]

 

Stupid question again but what the hell. The answer isn't on google or Wikipedia this time.

 

Would it not be better to consider the graviton as a wave stressing space rather than individual bosons.

 

If it was viewed similar to a radio wave rather than similar to a photon, it could quite happily propagate outwards slowly diminishing its effect as it goes.

 

In support of viewing gravitons as waves. Bosons cant get out of black holes. Waves travel through space as a result of black holes spinning around each other, it seems waves do get out of black holes, and diminish as they propagate through space.

 

Alternatively, ???

 

 

Radio waves are a classical representation of EM radiation. We already have a classical representation of gravity. It's General Relativity. A quantum theory is needed on scales where the classical theory fails.

 

"Waves stressing space" is nonsense that you need to drop from the conversation. Unless you have a model to defend, you don't get to bring it up.

[Handy andy]

 

 

Radio waves are a classical representation of EM radiation. We already have a classical representation of gravity. It's General Relativity. A quantum theory is needed on scales where the classical theory fails.

 

"Waves stressing space" is nonsense that you need to drop from the conversation. Unless you have a model to defend, you don't get to bring it up.

 

ROFL

 

The question was not directed at you.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Handy andy

[Mordred]

If its on a forum it can be answered by anyone

[swansont]

 

ROFL

 

The question was not directed at you.

 

 

You might consider expending a little more effort on learning how discussion forums work (in particular, this forum)

[Handy andy]

 

 

Radio waves are a classical representation of EM radiation. We already have a classical representation of gravity. It's General Relativity. A quantum theory is needed on scales where the classical theory fails.

 

"Waves stressing space" is nonsense that you need to drop from the conversation. Unless you have a model to defend, you don't get to bring it up.

 

Open Forum any one can respond.

 

EM waves travel through space and disperse in the same way gravitational waves do. They are therefore a good analogy to a gravitational wave. You assigned Boson Energy to hf above. Migl raised some questions ref the graviton. Me suggesting that it is a wave was not as stupid an idea as was your response which caused me to have ROFL and still does.

 

The concept of the graviton as a particle is theoretical, and contrary to your belief I do not think it fits with observed reality.

 

The concept of the graviton existing as a field which expands through space fits with the observed gravitational effects but not with your Bosonic idea giving it an energy of E=hf

 

If it cant get out of a black hole how does gravity in a black hole work? etc

 

If you don't want me to post stop answering my posts

[Strange]

The concept of the graviton as a particle is theoretical, and contrary to your belief I do not think it fits with observed reality.

 

 

The concept of a graviton is hypothetical. If it were theoretical, we would have solid evidence of its existence.

 

 

 

The concept of the graviton existing as a field which expands through space fits with the observed gravitational effects but not with your Bosonic idea giving it an energy of E=hf

 

The graviton (if it exists) would be a quantum of changes to the field, not a field itself. And it would be a boson. And so its energy would be defined by the frequency of the radiation.

 

 

 

If it cant get out of a black hole how does gravity in a black hole work? etc

 

Same way that magnetism can get through an opaque material.

 

1. Forces are mediated by VIRTUAL particles (I think you have been told this before). Virtual particles are not particles, they are misleadingly named mathematical constructs.

 

2. Gravitons do not have to (and could not) get out of a black hole., The black hole's gravitation field is outside the event horizon. And that is where the virtual gravitons would do their job of mediating the force.

[swansont]

Open Forum any one can respond.

 

EM waves travel through space and disperse in the same way gravitational waves do. They are therefore a good analogy to a gravitational wave.

Yes and no. Some properties are the same. Some are not. (e.g. a lot of EM radiation is dipole, gravitational is quadrupole)

 

You assigned Boson Energy to hf above. Migl raised some questions ref the graviton. Me suggesting that it is a wave was not as stupid an idea as was your response which caused me to have ROFL and still does.

 

The concept of the graviton as a particle is theoretical, and contrary to your belief I do not think it fits with observed reality.

 

The concept of the graviton existing as a field which expands through space fits with the observed gravitational effects but not with your Bosonic idea giving it an energy of E=hf

 

If it cant get out of a black hole how does gravity in a black hole work? etc

Do you understand the difference between classical physics and quantum physics? That's what my commentary was about.

 

Would you care to elucidate how my response was "stupid"? Are EM waves not classical? Is GR not classical?

 

If you don't want me to post stop answering my posts

I didn't say I didn't want you to post. What I want is for your posts to comply with the rules of the forum.

[Handy andy]

 

 

The concept of a graviton is hypothetical. If it were theoretical, we would have solid evidence of its existence.

 

 

The graviton (if it exists) would be a quantum of changes to the field, not a field itself. And it would be a boson. And so its energy would be defined by the frequency of the radiation.

 

 

Same way that magnetism can get through an opaque material.

 

1. Forces are mediated by VIRTUAL particles (I think you have been told this before). Virtual particles are not particles, they are misleadingly named mathematical constructs.

 

2. Gravitons do not have to (and could not) get out of a black hole., The black hole's gravitation field is outside the event horizon. And that is where the virtual gravitons would do their job of mediating the force.

 

If a graviton does not have to exist out side a black hole, why does it need to exist at all?. A virtual particle or disturbance in a field could easily be caused by fermions whizzing past each other inside a nucleus, with no need for actual gravitons. A virtual graviton is just a wave or fluctuation in a field caused by the movement of particles. Waves expand outwards from the source of a disturbance, and there energy level reduces the further the wave travels and expands.

Yes and no. Some properties are the same. Some are not. (e.g. a lot of EM radiation is dipole, gravitational is quadrupole)

 

 

Do you understand the difference between classical physics and quantum physics? That's what my commentary was about.

 

Would you care to elucidate how my response was "stupid"? Are EM waves not classical? Is GR not classical?

 

 

I didn't say I didn't want you to post. What I want is for your posts to comply with the rules of the forum.

 

I understand exactly what your waking commentary was about, my maths is still at a reasonable level compared to your average peasant

Ref physics. I have forgotten more than I care to relearn but happily still have an idea of the differences between quantum and classical physics .

I am not going to get drawn into a personal debate with you ref what my opinion of some of your posts is. Don't ever take things personally on the internet, TTFU darling as one of my friends used to say to her over sensitive child.

 

TTFU for those with kids is short for "Toughen The Fuck Up" and it can be used in public whilst smiling at your screaming brats.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Handy andy

[swansont]

If a graviton does not have to exist out side a black hole

 

That's pretty much the opposite of what Strange said.

 

I understand exactly what your waking commentary was about, my maths is still at a reasonable level compared to your average peasant

Ref physics. I have forgotten more than I care to relearn but happily still have an idea of the differences between quantum and classical physics .

Then what's the problem here? You are claiming to have the requisite knowledge to know and understand the answer to the question you asked.

 

I am not going to get drawn into a personal debate with you ref what my opinion of some of your posts is. Don't ever take things personally on the internet, TTFU darling as one of my friends used to say to her over sensitive child.

I hope you are taking your own advice.

[MigL]

The problem is NOT that you ask dumb questions, as there is no such thing as a dumb question ( although they may be ill posed ).

The problem is the wild-ass assertions you make subsequently, that have no basis in Physics.

[Phi for All]

I understand exactly what your waking commentary was about, my maths is still at a reasonable level compared to your average peasant

Ref physics. I have forgotten more than I care to relearn but happily still have an idea of the differences between quantum and classical physics .

I am not going to get drawn into a personal debate with you ref what my opinion of some of your posts is. Don't ever take things personally on the internet, TTFU darling as one of my friends used to say to her over sensitive child.

 

TTFU for those with kids is short for "Toughen The Fuck Up" and it can be used in public whilst smiling at your screaming brats.

 

!

Moderator Note

This is the wrong attitude for our site. The volume of physics you've forgotten is part of the problem here, along with the idea that we're your personal science sandbox where you can crap and not bother trying to clean up after yourself. We're interested in discussion here, not wild-ass guesswork preached at us from someone who thinks being above the rules is the "tough" POV, and people who follow the rules are wimps.

 

Nobody but you is taking any of this personally. You've been asked to explain parts of your idea by people who are trying to participate. Answer them or the thread gets closed. Simple rules.