Wulphstein

New Approach to Anti-gravity [Split from: A New Area Law in General Relativity, questions.]

Recommended Posts

If it's not antigravity, then what shall I call it?

What I have is an idea for an experiment that can store gravitational potential energy between two entangled photons p1 and p2. If the p1 photons are moved to vector A, and p2 photons are moved to vector B, there will be a gravitational potential energy between them. Since [latex] \vec{F} = -\frac{\Delta U} {\Delta x} [/latex], a mass m will accelerate in this field. 

If that's not what you call it, then give me another name. Modified gravity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Spacetime field differentials is how Alcubierre drive works. It theorizes two different curvature region's one in front and one behind the craft at two different energy densities. It's theoretically viable but requires extreme energy requirements.

Here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wulphstein said:

What makes you believe that antigravity is not possible?

What makes you believe that it is possible? Talk is cheap, and forum's making nonsensical claims are open to all and sundry. You need to go back to the fundamentals as I suggested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Spacetime field differentials is how Alcubierre drive works. It theorizes two different curvature region's one in front and one behind the craft at two different energy densities. It's theoretically viable but requires extreme energy requirements.

Here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

For Alcubierre drive, you want a large positive gravitational potential behind you, and a large but negative gravitational potential in front, so you can fall through space. But there's more to it.

Not sure what to call it. Technically it's curvature generation.  Or gravity potential generation. 

But to make it work, we still have to prove,  via experiment,  that two entangled photons, when p1 is blueshifted with a centrifuge a sufficient number of times, and the p2 photons are redshifted, centrifuged enough times, that the entangled pair, will store gravitational potential within the quantum states of the entanglement,  namely the wavelength and frequency states.

Tell me your questions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

If it's not antigravity, then what shall I call it?

If that's not what you call it, then give me another name. Modified gravity?

Spacetime manipulation? It's not anti gravity nor looks like anti gravity.

1 minute ago, Wulphstein said:

Tell me your questions. 

Why pretend? Why the apparent arrogance? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, beecee said:

Spacetime manipulation? It's not anti gravity nor looks like anti gravity.

Technically,  the idea is to manipulate a small subset of spacetime,  which requires far less energy than the stress energy tensor demands. This assumes that we could experimentally confirm that a quantum entanglement between two photons behaves like a very small subset of spacetime.  In one of my most optimistic calculations,  we could get a gravitational potential energy of .0003*hf per photon.  Doesn't seem like much, but the theory is still being worked on.  The acceleration vector points from the redshifted p2 photons to the blueshifted p1 photons. So it would be easy to generate a repulsive acceleration field, or an attraction field like a tractor beam.

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Look I know how to mathematically describe Spacetime curvature both positive and negative. I also know how to describe mathematically spin 1 or spin 2 gravitons in a path integral.

 We suspect spin 2 but haven't confirmed spin two.

 I also know how other fields affect spacetime as well as what is really involved in entangled states beyond pop media.

 Pictures don't count for much.

Trust me even if you generate negative curvature or even  anti gravitons. It's stil not antigravity.

In antigravity Newton's laws literally reverse. 

The good news is you don't require antigravity to use spacetime to generate thrust. Google Alcubierre drive.

When I've thought about how my idea could be applied to the alcubierre drive,  the photons emit from the back at the speed of light, and the front, at the speed of light. Still trying to understand,  but looks like like the field generated is several light seconds long, and could protrude out of spacetime,  giving access to superluminal travel. But this is still undefended speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it undefeated speculation, with the Alcubierre drive however they have performed the main calculations. As Beecher noted it isn't antigravity  but it is manipulating spacetime to your advantage.  

 Now here is the thing quantum entanglement won't help. It's actually extremely easy to entangle particles. They have diodes that can do just that. 

 They won't contribute anything that single particle states can do. Two single particle states have the same energy/mass as two entangled particles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Yes it undefeated speculation, with the Alcubierre drive however they have performed the main calculations. As Beecher noted it isn't antigravity  but it is manipulating spacetime to your advantage.  

 Now here is the thing quantum entanglement won't help. It's actually extremely easy to entangle particles. They have diodes that can do just that. 

 They won't contribute anything that single particle states can do. Two single particle states have the same energy/mass as two entangled particles.

 

Let's go back to the derivation of special relativity.  We're trying to figure out the mechanism that nature uses to measure distance and count time. The clue is that the speed of light is invariant for the train or spaceship,  AND the outside observer.  That means that some that can travel at the speed of light is measuring distance and counting time. I can think of two thinks that fit that description.  Photons and virtual photons.  A virtual photon is just a unit of action that has the whole range of frequency and wavelength not excited, no real energy to fill those states. I will suggest it's just a wave function of the form [latex] \psi = e^i(k_x*x + k_y *y + k_z*z - \omega t) [/latex]. All of these are available quantum states as they (lots of them) fill all space. The point I'm arguing is that momentum,  position, frequency states are essential for the existence of spacetime.

If that is true, then a small piece of spacetime would need available quantum states as well.  Photons by themselves only have filled quantum states.

Photons by themselves have nowhere to store gravitational potential energy.  But if they're entangled, the entanglement has available states that can become ordered by centrifuging,  and will store gravitational potential energy as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Let's clarify a few things in the last post.

All mass less particles are invariant at c. Particles do not store gravitational potential energy regardless of being entangled or not. That is the job of the spacetime field itself. That field applies the mass or energy density at each region. All particles contribute to the mass density.

 The propogator can be the field itself which can contain the virtual particles though these are a convenient label. In QFT it's never referenced as virtual particles. They simply define it as the propogator state. All particles are field excitations described as wavefunction states.

Your terminology is getting much better and it's evident your listening and learning keep it up

+1

HiAn entangled pair is nothing more special than two states that one has prepared to assign a statistical correlation function to.

For example you create two electrons as a consequence one must be spin up the other spin down to maintain conservation of spin. So you also have a statical probability that if you measure one of the two the other particle must be the opposite spin.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Wulphstein said:

Photons by themselves have nowhere to store gravitational potential energy. 

A photon by itself has no gravitational potential energy to store. It needs to be in a gravitational field, which means there is some body nearby, and the interaction between them is where the energy is stored.

Quote

But if they're entangled, the entanglement has available states

This is something you need to show, because the entanglement is just one state, involving the two particles.

Quote

that can become ordered by centrifuging,  and will store gravitational potential energy as a result.

Another thing you have to show is true.

Pound and Rebka already showed that photon energy changes in a gravitational field, and without using entangled photons. A similar shift was shown using a centrifuge (for references see http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/1426) Again, no entanglement necessary. Or multi-stage systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mordred said:

All mass less particles are invariant at c.

What do you mean? 

 

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

Particles do not store gravitational potential energy regardless of being entangled or not. That is the job of the spacetime field itself.

Right.  I am arguing that the spacetime field is actually made of a large collection of quantum states (frequency, wavelength, momentum).  We can infer that because gravity fields cause time dilation (the frequency states are the mechanism of time), spacetime curvature (because wavelength states are the mechanism of geometry) and acceleration (momentum states).  

Quantum states are things associated with wave functions (mathematics).  But it looks to me like the most like candidate of a physical mechanism to cause gravity has certain characteristics.  First, it has quantum states.  Second, it travels at the speed of light.  The most likely things that fit that category are virtual photons and quantum entanglements.  Quantum entanglements, are referred to as "spooky" things that connect two particles in a way such that particle 1 has spin |spin A> and particle 2 has |spin not A> when the choices are spin up and spin down.  If a phenomena like entanglement has two quantum states at each end, and they're opposite, what is in between?  Probably more quantum states.  

To recap, I think there are some unknown quantum states between the two end states of a quantum entanglement.  I think that space and time are caused by mechanisms that have the speed of light built into them as a characteristic.  Third, I want to entangle two photons, because it's pretty routine to do so, and try to blueshift the p1 photon and redshift the p2 photon using a centrifuge system.  What I expect is that the "suspected to exist" quantum states of the entanglement will start to arrange themselves from smallest to largest.  If an experiment showed that to be true, then one could argue that the smallest unit of the spacetime continuum would be a quantum entanglement between two photons.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

This is something you need to show, because the entanglement is just one state, involving the two particles.

As near as I can understand, which falls short of a proof, is that the entangled states are connected by the mechanistic version of a phase angle of a virtual photon that could include a polarization of the same phase angle.  In other words, two entangled  particles would have to be mechanistically connected by a characteristic of a virtual photon (which includes polarization).  Polarization is when the oscillating E x B field field of a photon is also rotation along the axis of its Poynting vector.

 

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

The propogator can be the field itself which can contain the virtual particles though these are a convenient label. In QFT it's never referenced as virtual particles. They simply define it as the propogator state. All particles are field excitations described as wavefunction states.

Listening.

 

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

Your terminology is getting much better and it's evident your listening and learning keep it up

+1

Thank you.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

For example you create two electrons as a consequence one must be spin up the other spin down to maintain conservation of spin. So you also have a statical probability that if you measure one of the two the other particle must be the opposite spin. 

I still suspect that this spooky action at a distance, "measure one particle in a state, and you know the state of the other particle", is being accomplished by a virtual photon mechanism.

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

A photon by itself has no gravitational potential energy to store. It needs to be in a gravitational field, which means there is some body nearby, and the interaction between them is where the energy is stored.

This is something you need to show, because the entanglement is just one state, involving the two particles. 

Another thing you have to show is true.

Pound and Rebka already showed that photon energy changes in a gravitational field, and without using entangled photons. A similar shift was shown using a centrifuge (for references see http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/1426) Again, no entanglement necessary. Or multi-stage systems. 

I am interested in the reading the article. 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

A photon by itself has no gravitational potential energy to store. It needs to be in a gravitational field, which means there is some body nearby, and the interaction between them is where the energy is stored.

I am attempting to get down to the mechanism that causes gravity.  I suspect that a quantum entanglement between two particles is the mechanism.  When the two particles are photons, the stress energy tensor relationship is insignificant; however, when the p1 photon are blueshifted  and the p2 photon is redshifted, the result will be a curvature of the entanglement between them.  Since (as I suspect) the entanglement is really a virtual photon which has quantum states (frequency, wavelength, momentum), the gravitational potential energy between the two entangled photons will be stored within the rearranged order of those states, from smallest to largest.  This is unknown to physics today.  But maybe in the future, this will be experimentally verified (as all physics facts need to be).

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Another thing you have to show is true.

Pound and Rebka already showed that photon energy changes in a gravitational field, and without using entangled photons. A similar shift was shown using a centrifuge (for references see http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/1426) Again, no entanglement necessary. Or multi-stage systems. 

"Necessary" is the word you would use if you wanted to generate a curvature field with a gravitational potential energy stored within quantum entangled photons.  The quantum entanglement is suspected to be the smallest unit of a spacetime continuum.  This has never been experimentally verified before.

 

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

This is something you need to show, because the entanglement is just one state, involving the two particles. 

Okay, watch this.  P1 and p2 photons are quantum entangled.  P1 has a quantum state, p2 photon has the opposite state.  Don't know what the state is unless it's measured.

 

[P1 photon][quantum state] ....... ......... ........ ........ spooky ......  ........ unknown ...... ........ ........ what is it? ...... ....... ...... ........ ........ ....... [opposite quantum state][p2 photon]

 

 

If you're not wondering if the spooky unknown between the two entangled photons is not more quantum states, then what else could it be? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

Third, I want to entangle two photons, because it's pretty routine to do so, and try to blueshift the p1 photon and redshift the p2 photon using a centrifuge system. 

Doing that would (almost certainly) destroy the entanglement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Doing that would (almost certainly) destroy the entanglement. 

Possibly.  But we need to experimentally prove that it does.  Alternatively, we need to look for quantum entanglements that can endure the process of blueshifting and redshifting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wulphstein said:

 I still suspect that this spooky action at a distance, "measure one particle in a state, and you know the state of the other particle", is being accomplished by a virtual photon mechanism.

It happens faster than c

 

Quote

I am attempting to get down to the mechanism that causes gravity.  I suspect that a quantum entanglement between two particles is the mechanism.

Gravity propagates at c. Entanglement is not limited by that speed.

Quote

  When the two particles are photons, the stress energy tensor relationship is insignificant; however, when the p1 photon are blueshifted  and the p2 photon is redshifted, the result will be a curvature of the entanglement between them.  Since (as I suspect) the entanglement is really a virtual photon which has quantum states (frequency, wavelength, momentum), the gravitational potential energy between the two entangled photons will be stored within the rearranged order of those states, from smallest to largest.  This is unknown to physics today.  But maybe in the future, this will be experimentally verified (as all physics facts need to be).

"curvature of the entanglement between them"

"stored within the rearranged order of those states"

This is just word salad

 

Quote

 "Necessary" is the word you would use if you wanted to generate a curvature field with a gravitational potential energy stored within quantum entangled photons.  The quantum entanglement is suspected to be the smallest unit of a spacetime continuum.  This has never been experimentally verified before.

Suspected by whom? Citation needed.

 

Quote

Okay, watch this.  P1 and p2 photons are quantum entangled.  P1 has a quantum state, p2 photon has the opposite state.  Don't know what the state is unless it's measured.

 

[P1 photon][quantum state] ....... ......... ........ ........ spooky ......  ........ unknown ...... ........ ........ what is it? ...... ....... ...... ........ ........ ....... [opposite quantum state][p2 photon]

 

 

If you're not wondering if the spooky unknown between the two entangled photons is not more quantum states, then what else could it be? 

Saying "it's a quantum state" (or "more quantum states") tells you nothing new about the situation. Entanglement itself is already known to be a quantum state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wulphstein said:

 

Right.  I am arguing that the spacetime field is actually made of a large collection of quantum states (frequency, wavelength, momentum).  

Let's address this statement all three is part of the same state, if you have a fequency you automatically have a wavelength and the frequency will have momentum. They are all properties of the same state not separate  states.

Gluons also propogators at c  all massless particles  do so

Mass is resistance to inertia change  massless particles have no resistance to inertia change so they all propogators at the same speed as photons.

We keep telling you there is nothing special about entangled particles. Not in so far as spacetime.  It has a predictable nature simply due to probability statistics. The spooky action at a distance is simply part of the statistical nature. They do not communicate with one another, nor does one alter the other at a distance.

 In essence there is no Action when you determine one and know the state of the other.

You can do the same with an apple, an orange and two paper bags. Get someone else to put the apple and orange into separate bags. You can formulate the statistics of 50% chance bag a has an apple. You now have a correlation function  the bags are in superposition as each bag can have either or.

Once you open bag A and see it has am orange you automatically know bag b has an apple. 

Particle entanglement is the same. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Let's address this statement all three is part of the same state, if you have a fequency you automatically have a wavelength and the frequency will have momentum. They are all properties of the same state not separate  states.

Gluons also propogators at c  all massless particles  do so

Mass is resistance to inertia change  massless particles have no resistance to inertia change so they all propogators at the same speed as photons.

We keep telling you there is nothing special about entangled particles. Not in so far as spacetime.  It has a predictable nature simply due to probability statistics. The spooky action at a distance is simply part of the statistical nature. They do not communicate with one another, nor does one alter the other at a distance.

 In essence there is no Action when you determine one and know the state of the other.

You can do the same with an apple, an orange and two paper bags. Get someone else to put the apple and orange into separate bags. You can formulate the statistics of 50% chance bag a has an apple. You now have a correlation function  the bags are in superposition as each bag can have either or.

Once you open bag A and see it has am orange you automatically know bag b has an apple. 

Particle entanglement is the same. 

 

Mordred, 

Let's go back to special relativity.  What causes the speed of light to be invariant? What does c have to do with the mechanism that causes spacetime? 

There is a short list of things that travel at the speed of light,  photons, virtual photons and globs. We've ruled out photons because SR works without photons.

We can rule out gluons because gluons don't have wavelength to measure distance,  and frequency to measure time.

We can rule out particles with mass because they don't travel at the speed of light.

Virtual photons have wavelength states (ruler), frequency states (time) and momentum states (acceleration). 

Therefore, virtual photons are a good candidate for a mechanism that causes spacetime. 

Entanglements. Initially I also thought it was like apples in one bag and oranges in another bag. But they proved, I'll have to find it, that the quantum state can be both until it's measured.  That proves there is a connection between entangled photons. I think it's frequency states. Science says I should develop a hypothesis and then perform an experiment.  Do you agree?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It happens faster than c

 

Gravity propagates at c. Entanglement is not limited by that speed.

"curvature of the entanglement between them"

"stored within the rearranged order of those states"

This is just word salad

 

Suspected by whom? Citation needed.

 

Saying "it's a quantum state" (or "more quantum states") tells you nothing new about the situation. Entanglement itself is already known to be a quantum state.

We should perform an experiment to try to determine what is between two entangled particles,  what is the entanglement made of.  Don't you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In quantum mechanics,  wave functions are mathematical solutions to the Schrodinger's equation.  [latex] \psi [/latex] refers to a set of quantum states that describe the system.  This is standard physics. Does anyone challenge it?

Edited by Wulphstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

In quantum mechanics,  wave functions are mathematical solutions to the Schrodinger's equation.  [latex] \psi [/latex] refers to a set of quantum states that describe the system.  This is standard physics. Does anyone challenge it?

Nothing wrong with the above however the Schrodinger equation is not Lorentz invariant. The equation that takes the Schrodinger equation and adapts it to Lorentz invariance is the Klein Gordon equation.

 I am still gathering the information I need to answer your post previous to this one as you have two very important questions that need to be addressed properly and as complete as viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Nothing wrong with the above however the Schrodinger equation is not Lorentz invariant. The equation that takes the Schrodinger equation and adapts it to Lorentz invariance is the Klein Gordon equation.

 I am still gathering the information I need to answer your post previous to this one as you have two very important questions that need to be addressed properly and as complete as viable.

Look forward to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Wulphstein said:

Mordred, 

Let's go back to special relativity.  What causes the speed of light to be invariant? What does c have to do with the mechanism that causes spacetime

Let's start with this question. 

Ok we will start with the Lorentz transformations rules.

[latex] \acute{x}=\gamma(x-vt),\acute{y}=y, acute{z}=x, \acute{t}=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)[/latex]

With inverse note sign change

[latex]x=\gamma(\acute{x}+v\acute{t}), y=\acute{y}, z=\acute{x},t=\gamma(\acute{t}+v\acute{x}/c^2)[/latex]

Where

[latex]\gamma=(1-v^2/c^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}[/latex]

This shows that both time and space is relative to the observer.

Under Galilean relativity only space was relative so the only transformation was on the x axis

[latex]\acute{x}=x-vt,\acute{y}=y, \acute{z}=z,\acute{t}=t[/latex]

Inverse( I will only do the x axis as rest is just which y,z,t is prime)

[latex]x=\acute{x}+v\acute{t}[/latex]

Now we will set each inertial frame up in the same manner.

[latex]S:(x,y,z,t), \acute{S}:(\acute{x},\acute{y},\acute{z},\acute{t})[/latex]

Now under Galilean relativity it was meaningful to talk about the relative velocity of inertial frame to the other. The laws of physics are the same in each inertial frame. The transform rules under Newtonian mechanics are covariant. (Of the same form) thus forms the Galilean group in which the laws of mechanics are the same. If you have another frame Let's denote this [latex]\acute{S}\prime[/latex] moving relative along the x axis to [latex]\acute(S)[/latex] with speed [latex]\mu[/latex] along their common axis x. Then the speed of [latex]\acute{S}\prime[/latex] to S is

[latex]w=\mu+\nu[/latex]

Thus is the law of velocities in the Newtonian-Galilean Principle of Galilean relativity

Now in the Lorentz case one must use the law of relativistic velocity addition rules.

Now the consequence of the relativistic velocity addition

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

This link has both forms the form below has a third observer described above.

[latex]w=\mu+\nu[/latex]

It is the velocity addition rules that sets the speed limit at c. If you exceed c the time coordinate changes sign. It sets the limit of times arrow forward.

Now recall I mentioned mass is resistance to inertia change ?

All massive particles couple to their fields us is the strength of that coupling that determines its mass. Massless particles do not couple. They have no rest mass as a consequence. So they are not delayed in going from a to b.

It is very similar to propogation delay when a signal goes past a magnet  it gets delayed by its coupling strength 

Photons and gluons do not couple hence no rest mass hence delay in getting from a to b. However still limited by c (speed of information exchange)

Massless particles therefore follow null geodesics while massive particles follow spacetime geodesics. Different spacetime paths.

Now entangled particle states don't exchange information. The correlation function is already set by how the entangled pair is prepared and the experimental apparatus used in there measurement. The superposition state applies to the two bags (apple,orange) just as it does under QM probability functions. All particles entangled or not,virtual or not are limited by c. There is no FTL information exchange under spooky action at a distance as one must know how the particles are correlated to even determine the state of the other particle. The particle state does not contain this information. The correlation function is a seperate probability function.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still at work,  but I'm going to make a claim.  I will prove it when I get home.   

Virtual photons of the form [latex]\psi = e^{i(k_x x + k_y y + k_z z - \omega t)} are being radiated out from a point (possibly the Planck scale). They are radiated from every point in spacetime. They radiate out, from t=0 to t=for ever. They spread out at the speed of light, and get large very quickly. The fill spacetime with quantum states. They effectively transmit information at the speed of light.  This is the mechanism that establishes the time, space, momentum,  electromagnetic field environment upon which other standard model particle fields can be built upon.  Looking forward to defending this claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Your claim better have a VERY strong defense because I can easily dispute the last post. Simply by the conservation laws.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Your claim better have a VERY strong defense because I can easily dispute the last post. Simply by the conservation laws.

Spacetime+interval.jpgMinkowski-Diagram-Invariant-Spacetime-In4-pi-r-squared.jpg

 

Hi Mordred,

Above, you will see three diagrams.  The spacetime interval is the proof that virtual photon spheres begin at a point and expand outwards at the speed of light.  That's why the spacetime interval is used.  Do you notice in the second diagram, where the x-ct and x'-ct' reference frames experience an event at origin 0?  The clock/ruler of the x-ct frame and the clock/ruler of the x'-ct' are both related to the same spacetime interval.  How can that be unless the clock and ruler come from virtual photons that were emitted from the origin.  One went with the x-ct frame, the other went with the x'-ct' frame.  Both virtual photons are moving at the speed of light.

The giant orange sphere is the wavefront of a virtual photon as it expands from a point.  Eventually, it will contribute its quantum states to the spacetime continuum as it expands indefinitely into a sphere many light years across.  The wavefunction of a virtual photon is [latex] \psi = e^{i(k_x x + k_y y + k_z z -\omega t)} [/latex].  But I have stated the reasonable assumption that the wavefunction of a virtual photon is actual the virtual photon.  The quantum states are necessary to create space and time.  The virtual photon has another built in constant, the Planck constant, so that the frequency states are calibrated to be energy states as well.  

Conservation of energy and momentum are an inevitable consequence of a spacetime system that is made operational by virtual photons being emitted (from events?) continuously and everywhere in space.  The energy/frequency states are places to put energy (whatever energy is available).  These energy states are like glasses of water made to contain water, or bookshelves to contain books.  The energy/frequency states are a place to put energy/frequency, made available by the virtual photon quantum states (which are the actual fundamental things that actually exist).

The whole point I am arguing as that the virtual photon is the best mechanism to explain the spacetime interval, the invariance of the speed of light, time, geometry.  Gravitons were never detected or verified to exist; that eliminates the graviton. 

By the way, the mechanism that creates spacetime geometry should be abundant.  That rules out the Higgs boson.  But virtual photons are very abundant. 

Rebuttal?

Incidentally, virtual photons are units of action.  There is no conservation of action.  So conservation of energy/momentum arguments are baseless.

Edited by Wulphstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No definitely not that sphere is showing the volume of a sphere which your wave equation does not represent. So how can your sphere represent a virtual photon ?

Secondly spacetime can exist without virtual photons. Photons virtual or otherwise has spin statistics of 1. Spacetime displays spin statistics two Ie gravity waves are quadrupole.

 Action is in units of quanta however it is a relation between potential energy and kinetic energy. (EVERY FIELD CAN CAUSE ACTION ) The entirety of the Standard model of particles through the Langrene applies action. 

Action does not violate the conservation of energy/momentum it follows that conservation law just as the everything else does.

The wave equation you keep posting does not describe the wavefunction of a photon. It does not have the left and right handedness components of a spin 1 particle and does not reflect the two polarity states of a photon. Virtual or otherwise.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No definitely not that sphere is showing the volume of a sphere which your wave equation does not represent. So how can your sphere represent a virtual photon ?

Secondly spacetime can exist without virtual photons. Photons virtual or otherwise has spin statistics of 1. Spacetime displays spin statistics two Ie gravity waves are quadrupole.

 Action is in units of quanta however it is a relation between potential energy and kinetic energy. (EVERY FIELD CAN CAUSE ACTION ) The entirety of the Standard model of particles through the Langrene applies action. 

Action does not violate the conservation of energy/momentum it follows that conservation law just as the everything else does.

 

The holographic principle says that all the information encoded within a region is encoded on it's boundary.  What I have is a virtual photon with a spherical wavefront, containing quantum states, that gets larger at the speed of light.  I think we're getting closer to the truth.

The virtual photon is (terribly) misunderstood in physics.  All that is said about it, is that it obeys the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of the form [latex]\Delta E \Delta t > \frac{ \hbar}{2} [latex].  I was looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle  when I noticed a mistake that illustrates my point. 

" The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles": it is not; rather, "real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. "

Virtual photons cannot be the temporary excitation of the underlying field because they have to be the underlying field.  I must remind you that the spacetime continuum, spacetime interval, time and geometry are all ASSUMED to exist by unknown mechanisms (magic?).  That is the problem I am trying to correct.  The only particle that is known to exist, that has a virtual ruler and clock, which are needed to provide a mechanism for time and geometry, is the virtual photon.  The equation I showed you previously, [latex] \psi = e^{i(k_x x + k_y y + k_z z - \omega t)} is the solution to the time dependent Schrodinger equation for a photon.  

I found this from the same link.  "

The Planck–Einstein and de Broglie relations illuminate the deep connections between energy with time, and space with momentum, and express wave–particle duality. In practice, natural units comprising ℏ=1{\displaystyle \hbar =1}\hbar = 1 are used, as the De Broglie equations reduce to identities: allowing momentum, wave number, energy and frequency to be used interchangeably, to prevent duplication of quantities, and reduce the number of dimensions of related quantities. For familiarity SI units are still used in this article.

Schrödinger's insight,[citation needed] late in 1925, was to express the phase of a plane wave as a complex phase factor using these relations:

Ψ=Aei(k⋅r−ωt)=Aei(p⋅r−Et)/ℏ{\displaystyle \Psi =Ae^{i(\mathbf {k} \cdot \mathbf {r} -\omega t)}=Ae^{i(\mathbf {p} \cdot \mathbf {r} -Et)/\hbar }}\Psi =Ae^{i(\mathbf {k} \cdot \mathbf {r} -\omega t)}=Ae^{i(\mathbf {p} \cdot \mathbf {r} -Et)/\hbar }"
 
Proving that this equation describes a virtual photon will take a little more time to accomplish.
 
You said that the spacetime continuum can exist without photons.  But that is not valid.  You don't have a mechanism for time or space.  YOu don't know why the speed of light is invartiant. YOu have all this mathematics, but no mechanism.  You have no grounds to make a claim that the space-time continuum doesn't need virtual photons. 
 
There is no conservation of action law. 
 
There is more to say, but it's getting late.  You physicists need to do better than just assuming the existence of time and geometry.  The great downfall of string theory is that it says that strings exist in 10 spacial dimensions, but just assumes their existence as if by magic!  No!  You need to explain how geometry and time can exist mechanistically. 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.