Wulphstein

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

Recommended Posts

A photon, being a spin 1 boson, can occupy the same state as other bosons.  Fermions can't overlap the same quantum states.  And gravitons, which are never seen in nature, still don't keep time or measure geometry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You really don't know enough physics to make declarations. Particles don't keep time. You don't need any single type of particle  to have spacetime.

Any collection of particles of any type resides in spacetime. You don't need virtual photons for that.

Photons only mediate the electromagnetic field. Yet particles that do not interact with the EM field still experience gravity. 

Your also wrong in terms of action. Do you even know how the principle of least action applies to path integrals.

Go ahead try and prove me wrong and describe it with the math.

You will never be able to prove virtual photons are required to have spacetime.  Photons has the wrong properties to be the mediator for spacetime. Mainly spin.

 

Now as I stated the equation you posted was not the equation for a virtual photon

You yourself in the previous two posts showed it is the time dependent Schrodinger equation.

That is not how you model a photon virtual or otherwise. You don't take the Schrodinger equation and declare it is a particle wave function.

Not to repeat the fact that Schrodinger equations are NOT Lorentz invariant. 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


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

 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?

What experiment or experiments? 

We can also look at the scads of experiments that have been done. But "what stuff is made of" in this context is often metaphysics. Experiments tell us how nature behaves, not how it works.

3 hours ago, Wulphstein said:
 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. 
 

Again, metaphysics. Science investigates how nature behaves.

Quote

You have no grounds to make a claim that the space-time continuum doesn't need virtual photons. 

You haven't made a compelling case for why you need them.

Share this post


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

What experiment or experiments? 

We can also look at the scads of experiments that have been done. But "what stuff is made of" in this context is often metaphysics. Experiments tell us how nature behaves, not how it works.

Okay, I want to take entangled photons, p1 and p2.  I want to blueshift the p1 photons using centrifuges and redshift the p2 photons, just to see "how it behaves".  Don't ask me why I want to do it, because that would get us into metaphysics and we're not allowed to talk about that. :)

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Again, metaphysics. Science investigates how nature behaves. 

There has never been a spacetime without photons.  So Mordred cannot claim to know what happens.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

You haven't made a compelling case for why you need them.

According to you, I don't have to.  Because that would be engaging in metaphysics.

 

Swansot,

I am saying this in the nicest possible way.  But your reasoning is funny.  It's the kind of funny that blocks innovation. 

Edited by Wulphstein

Share this post


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

 

There has never been a spacetime without photons.  So Mordred cannot claim to know what happens.

 

Oh yes I can, if you like I can also calculate the number density of photons from a blackbody temperature.

 At 2.73 k the number density of photons is pretty miniscule per cubic metre.

Use the Bose Einstein statistics for that. You really shouldn't try and tell me what I do of don't know. I've been doing physics for over thirty years.

You can bet I've forgotten more physics than you currently know.

All particles virtual or real contribute to temperature little side note.

However even if photons are around that still does not mean photons cause as spacetime.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


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

Oh yes I can, if you like I can also calculate the number density of photons from a blackbody density.

 At 2.73 k the number density of photons is pretty miniscule per cubic metre.

Use the Bose Einstein statistics for that. You really shouldn't try and tell me what I do of don't know. I've been doing physics for over thirty years.

It proves nothing.  It is irrelevant to the conversation.  Furthermore, there is something "funny" about the reasoning of certain kinds of people who think that trying to explain how space and time work mechanistically is beyond the scope of physics, that it's metaphysics.  I don't want that kind of "funny" thinking to rub off on me.  It's the kind of thinking that flat earth people engage in. 

 

 

image.png

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

However even if photons are around that still does not mean photons cause as spacetime.

Prove it.

I am shocked that physicists don't want to understand how space and time actually work.  So how are you going to figure out how to curve spacetime without black holes?  You can't make black holes.  For that matter, you can't verify gravitons.  You can't verify superstrings.  You can't verify E8 crystals.  Half of the theoretical crap you physicists come up with is fantasy that has no foundation in reality.  And the one experiment that could be performed, you don't want to because explaining it gets us into "metaphysics".  You physicists have your heads on backwards. 

Just because you can write up some complicated mathematical model doesn't mean that nature implements the universe that way.  And if you're doing your own thing, and not modeling how nature counts time and measures distance, then your model will be pretty limited. 

Even an average person could figure this out.  "Hey, let's perform an experiment on something we find mysterious in a way that has never been tried before. "  But then a flat earther comes along and says, "No, you have to make it fit one of our crappy models before you can use the SCIENTIFIC METHOD"

Here is a refresher for you of what the scientific method is.

maxresdefault.jpg

You should watch this video.  It asks the question that I am trying to answer, the question that certain "funny" thinking people think is metaphysics.  Watch the first 2 seconds.

Edited by Wulphstein

Share this post


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

I am shocked that physicists don't want to understand how space and time actually work.

They do.

But scientists will do this by using science. Not throwing together a mish-mash of buzzwords that they don't fully understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Strange said:

They do.

But scientists will do this by using science. Not throwing together a mish-mash of buzzwords that they don't fully understand.

Does this science that you think you're doing include the scientific method?

Can you refer me to the experimental data that shows what happens well you artificially blueshift/redshift entangled photons?  You can do that.  It would be another way to understand quantum entanglement.  A reasonable person would want to try an experiment that has never been done before.

Edited by Wulphstein

Share this post


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

Even an average person could figure this out.

Here is what one average person (me) thinks. Trying to make big progress is good! But you reference concepts such as bosons, gravitons, entanglement, spin, black holes, invariant speed of light from currently accepted theories. That means you are working in the framework where those concepts makes sense and are applicable. Things that are inherently incompatible with these concepts will not impress on professionals. Example; faster than light travel and information exchange and anti gravity cannot work in the current theories of relativity and standard model of particles as far as I know. That means that your proposed ideas is not possible within the currently accepted theories and models as pointed out by members more skilled than me. And these theories are supported by loads of evidence. You need to find some way to make progress outside current theories.  Something completely new and novel is required by you. Not adjustments or adoptions of concepts in current theories, that is not enough to fundamentally change the basis for current theories. 

Edited by Ghideon
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gravitational+redshift.jpg

Do you think that redshift/blueshift and gravity might have anything to do with each other?  Maybe we should use the scientifiic method!!!

12 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Here is what one average person (me) thinks. Trying to make big progress is good! But you reference concepts such as bosons, gravitons, entanglement, spin, black holes, invariant speed of light from currently accepted theories. That means you are working in the framework where those concepts makes sense and are applicable. Things that are inherently incompatible with these concepts will not impress on professionals. Example; faster than light travel and information exchange and anti gravity cannot work in the current theories of relativity and standard model of particles as far as I know. That means that your proposed ideas is not possible within the currently accepted theories and models as pointed out by members more skilled than me. And these theories are supported by loads of evidence. You need to find some way to make progress outside current theories.  Something completely new and novel is required by you. Not adjustments or adoptions of concepts in current theories, that is not enough to fundamentally change the basis for current theories. 

Do you see that big picture of gravitational redshift?  I am going to make this clear.  I am asking if I can take two entangled photons; blue shift one, redshift the other.  If I do that, can I get back gravity.  I am sure that even a super genius PhD in physics can understand that this is step 1 of the scientific method.  Has that experiment been performed?  If not, then what is the problem?

Share this post


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

Can you refer me to the experimental data that shows what happens well you artificially blueshift/redshift entangled photons? 

This isn't a hypothesis (because it isn't based on any science). It is just a wild guess.

However, I would assume that it is impossible (but will happily defer to someone with more expertise).

25 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

It would be another way to understand quantum entanglement. 

Would it? 

7 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

Do you think that redshift/blueshift and gravity might have anything to do with each other?

Of course. Red/blue shift can be caused by a change in gravitational potential.

And, conversely, it changes the energy of the photons. And therefore changes their gravitational effect (in well understood ways). But this would not create antigravity, just different amounts of gravity. And being entangled or not would have no effect.

Share this post


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

This isn't a hypothesis (because it isn't based on any science). It is just a wild guess.

However, I would assume that it is impossible (but will happily defer to someone with more expertise). 

If you have to assume than do the !@#$% experiment!!!!

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Would it? 

If you have to ask, then it means you don't know.  Do the experiment!!!

 

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Of course. Red/blue shift can be caused by a change in gravitational potential.

And, conversely, it changes the energy of the photons. And therefore changes their gravitational effect (in well understood ways). But this would not create antigravity, just different amounts of gravity. And being entangled or not would have no effect.

You don't know what the spacetime continuum is made of.  You won't bother to use common sense.  If spacetime is made out of ???  and quantum entanglement is called spooky ???  action at a distance, is it really beyond your ability to think rationally that space-time could be made out of quantum entanglements?  Or is that too metaphysical for you?  Should you perform an experiment?  If you don't know, and it's never been performed before, then only an incompetent physicist would say:  don't do the experiment.

Share this post


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

Okay, I want to take entangled photons, p1 and p2.  I want to blueshift the p1 photons using centrifuges and redshift the p2 photons, just to see "how it behaves".  Don't ask me why I want to do it, because that would get us into metaphysics and we're not allowed to talk about that. :)

 

 Who is stopping you from doing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, moth said:

 Who is stopping you from doing this.

That is the most intelligent question I've heard all day from this sciforum community.  I can't do it myself because it involves a periodic burst of high energy laser of duration, about a microsecond, to travel through a beam splitter, and then travel to hit a fiber optic cable on a one meter radius disk spinning at over a hundred revolutions per second, come out the other end, get focused and directed to the next disk, and do this repeatedly.  It is far beyond my technical ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people here are trying to help you learn how to make a better argument that might help you persuade somebody who does have the equipment and skills to do this. 

Share this post


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

If you have to ask, then it means you don't know. 

I was asking why you think that is the case.

24 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

You don't know what the spacetime continuum is made of. 

Why does it have to be made of anything? It is just geometry. Why do metres and seconds need to be "made of" something?

25 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

and quantum entanglement is called spooky ???  action at a distance

Only by Einstein, as a derogatory description.

26 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

is it really beyond your ability to think rationally that space-time could be made out of quantum entanglements? 

If there were some evidence for that. But it seems bizarre and unnecessary to say a mile or an hour is made of "quantum entanglements" . And what is entangled? Entanglement doesn't exist by itself.

However, there is a lot of research on the suggestion that EP=EPR. Which is kinda like what you are saying (if you half-close your eyes and turn your head sideways).

29 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

If you don't know, and it's never been performed before, then only an incompetent physicist would say:  don't do the experiment.

I don't think you understand how competitive science is, and how strong a case you would need to get someone to spend scarce resources. It needs to be a lot more compelling than some ad-hoc idea, not based on any existing theory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have this rule when I make a declared statement I can back it up.

I mentioned that I can point to where photons would not exist. This is during times where they are strongly coupled. See here for Thompson scattering coupling of photons to baryons during recombination.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay127/kamionkowski-earlyuniverse-notes.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj64M_ByfHjAhXKrZ4KHZutBGk4ChAWMAF6BAgHEAE&usg=AOvVaw2dW3IOdotMZpSjdfT8ZZ_6

When a particle is coupled to another the two become indistinct from one another.

A modern example is Bose Einstein condensate state.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


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

Swansot,

Swansont

4 hours ago, Wulphstein said:

I am saying this in the nicest possible way.  But your reasoning is funny.  It's the kind of funny that blocks innovation. 

 

The rules of the forum require that you have a model, or some sort of evidence. Where is it? You don’t have anything that predicts that this centrifuge would have any effect. There’s no science here.

Hiding behind a misunderstanding of metaphysics isn’t going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

I am closing this in the absence of any actual evidence to support the ideas presented. 

Wulphstein, I have explained to you ad nauseam what we want from you in this regard. For your own information, your continued failure to understand and comply with the directions given to you will see you lose posting privileges. 

 

Share this post


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