MrGamma Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 (edited) Please understand that I have only a rudamentary understanding of physics. ( most likely below the high school level ) I understand the Energy Spectrum is classically defined as ( in descending order ) gamma xray UV visible Infrared microwave radio waves I think it's correct to say that these energies are made of photons and they travel with a "wave" behavior. Einstein seems to think Gravity should be traveling at the same speed as light. Gravity waves do exist and NASA is developing LISA to act as the Hubble equivalent for monitoring the phenomenon. I do realize that Gravitons are theoretical but I also assume that they exist to fill the void being unable to really "see" that spectrum yet. And I am almost certain they are nearly identical in nature to photons. If Gravity travels in "waves" and there are theoretical constructs such as the graviton to explain it's characteristics. This makes me think that physics is leaning towards placing Gravity as an energy as my rudimentary grasp on physics as whole is making the connection between ( wave and energy ) and ( gravitons and photons ) Is this a correct assumption or conclusion? If so... Why isn't gravity listed in the Energy Spectrum? If not... where did I jump to the wrong conclusion? Edited August 4, 2008 by MrGamma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 The fact that both exhibit wave-like behavior and travel at the same speed does not mean they are the same thing. In fact, that's about all they have in common. One is the transmission of electromagnetic energy, the other is the curvature of space. You can't put in on the scale because it's a different scale - gravitational waves can exist at any frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGamma Posted August 4, 2008 Author Share Posted August 4, 2008 (edited) The fact that both exhibit wave-like behavior and travel at the same speed does not mean they are the same thing. In fact, that's about all they have in common. One is the transmission of electromagnetic energy, the other is the curvature of space. You can't put in on the scale because it's a different scale - gravitational waves can exist at any frequency. Okay... That makes absolute sense. The electromagnetic spectrum is described in frequencies. Which essentially is the different forms of electromagnetic energies. But because gravity can travel in any frequency it cannot be considered "frequency". Frequency being the length of the wave rather than the speed at which it travels. Does Gravity have it's own spectrum of waves or is it more likely to behave differently ( increase/decrease in force??? ) as it changes frequencies? Could Gravity be the opposite of energy and perhaps be the anti-energy spectrum? If not... Where did I go wrong? Edited August 4, 2008 by MrGamma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 We don't have a solid theory about quantum gravity yet so it's hard to address issues like this. However, just because gravitons are (possibly) gauge bosons you shouldn't assume they're nearly identical to photons. And what's the void in the spectrum you're talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGamma Posted August 4, 2008 Author Share Posted August 4, 2008 (edited) And what's the void in the spectrum you're talking about? I was just looking at the electromagnetic energy spectrum and I noticed that Gamma Rays are the highest frequency. I also associate the radiation waves as being the product of fusion. The point at which matter changes to energy within the sun. At the lowest end of the radiation spectrum is Radio... But the fact that gravity also travels in waves made me want to put it into an energy frequency. From a laymans perspective I see high frequency the result of an explosion. I see low frequency Gravity as an implosion. Which makes me think that perhaps it's the point at which "energy" could transform into matter... I have read a bit on black holes and hawking radiation ( which is over my head - most of this stuff is ) but the basis of the theory appears to be that intense gravity fields produce matter... If Suns are changing matter to light... I am making the assumption that perhaps gravity creates matter from trapping energy... but I guess energy trapping itself to produce matter doesn't make sense. I still have to figure out what a seismic wave is anyways and how that differentiates from all the other "waves". I am trying to understand the mechanisms behind everything... that's all... I am just learning... One is the transmission of electromagnetic energy, the other is the curvature of space. How can the curvature of space which would be a property of the medium be considered to travel at the speed of light? This makes no sense. If light is traveling through the medium of space-time. How can the actual medium itself be traveling at the same speed? I will assume the curvature of the medium is a way to say that perhaps light can be observed as bending as it passes through it. But how can the curve itself be traveling at the same speed as light if a black hole prevents it from escaping... very strange. Edited August 4, 2008 by MrGamma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Changes in the curvature of space travels at the speed of light. I think we should take a step back here. Gravitons are mediator particles, as are virtual photons. I think it'd be worth your time reading: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html We know gravity has potential energy, similar to EM fields, that's how hydroelectric systems work... Or why rivers flow down hill... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 You can roughly classify classical gravitational waves into two bands, low frequency [math] 10^{-7} [/math] to [math]10^{5}[/math] Hz and high frequency [math] 10^{5} [/math] to [math]10^{10}[/math] Hz. Typical amplitudes measured as fraction of squeezing and stretching of an objects is less than [math] h \approx 10^{-20}[/math]. Gravitational waves should be thought of as linear perturbations (small fluctuations) about a fixed space-time. The graviton is then thought of as the particle associated with these perturbations, just as the photon is associated with electromagnetic waves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 (edited) Okay... That makes absolute sense. The electromagnetic spectrum is described in frequencies. Which essentially is the different forms of electromagnetic energies. But because gravity can travel in any frequency it cannot be considered "frequency". Frequency being the length of the wave rather than the speed at which it travels. Ok, stop right there. Any wave has a frequency, be it an electromagnetic wave, a gravity wave, a sound wave, an ocean wave, anything. It is not the length of the wave (that would be wavelength) but the number of waves per unit time. Frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional for waves traveling at the same speed. So you see why it's a bit silly to talk about gravity waves as if they're the same thing as EM waves - that's like saying the waves crashing on the beach must be some kind of EM energy just because they are also a kind of wave. The EM spectrum is just the range of possible frequencies of EM radiation. There is nothing fundamentally different about each "kind" of radiation, any more than there is between high-pitched sounds and low-pitched sounds. They're just names we give to different parts of the spectrum. Radio waves are just "low-pitched" light waves, and gamma rays are just "high-pitched" light waves. How can the curvature of space which would be a property of the medium be considered to travel at the speed of light? This makes no sense. If light is traveling through the medium of space-time. How can the actual medium itself be traveling at the same speed? I will assume the curvature of the medium is a way to say that perhaps light can be observed as bending as it passes through it. But how can the curve itself be traveling at the same speed as light if a black hole prevents it from escaping... very strange. It's not the medium which is traveling, it's the curvature in the medium. Just like with sound waves: when I'm talking to you, there isn't a 700mph wind coming out of my mouth and towards your ears, but that is nonetheless how fast the sound waves are traveling through the air. Edited August 4, 2008 by Sisyphus remove double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGamma Posted August 7, 2008 Author Share Posted August 7, 2008 when I'm talking to you, there isn't a 700mph wind coming out of my mouth and towards your ears, but that is nonetheless how fast the sound waves are traveling through the air. I see... I am lumping things together to the same concept rather than breaking things down to their elementary state. A frequency is inversely proportional to a wave. The frequency being different than the wave. The wave being the medium through with the frequency is measured. Not entirely sure. But it's start. I have read that a graviton has no mass. But a photon theoretically has no mass either... but to work with it's measurements... it needs a rest mass. For anything to be calculated in "the real world" it needs a rest mass but as light it could actually have no mass depending the state it's in? Is there any truth in the way I have interpreted this? Is there a Physics cheat sheet? Like a periodic table of elements which lists the measurements and units of physics? I would rather not waste anybodies time until I've had a chance to go over more of the basics. Gravitational waves should be thought of as linear perturbations (small fluctuations) about a fixed space-time. I think I need to see things for what they really are. And this sounds to me what gravity indeed is. If I could hear it, it might be painful... but I can't so my best chance would be to feel it in my inner ear and possibly twitch for a moment and lose my balance all-together. Or so I have read. Thank you for the Hertz and Amps stuff... We know gravity has potential energy, similar to EM fields, that's how hydroelectric systems work... Or why rivers flow down hill... Energy which can be mathematically manipulated so long as it works with the proven structures of physics. Sounds good. Thank you for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I have read that a graviton has no mass. But a photon theoretically has no mass either... but to work with it's measurements... it needs a rest mass. For anything to be calculated in "the real world" it needs a rest mass but as light it could actually have no mass depending the state it's in? Is there any truth in the way I have interpreted this? You are right in saying that the graviton is massless. (Well, it is usually considered as such because gravity is a long range force.) Why does the photon need a rest mass? Please explain your reasoning for this. There are situations where the photon does have a mass, but this is related to breaking gauge symmetry in the Ginzburg–Landau model of superconductors (for example). Usually, due to what we call gauge symmetry the photon and graviton are massless. Any mass would violate this symmetry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGamma Posted August 7, 2008 Author Share Posted August 7, 2008 We don't have a solid theory about quantum gravity yet so it's hard to address issues like this. However, just because gravitons are (possibly) gauge bosons you shouldn't assume they're nearly identical to photons. And what's the void in the spectrum you're talking about? I looked this up... There are no other bosson except gravitons ( thoeretical )... so essentially these are the wrappers which are used to pad the mathematics so that things "work"... Why is a photon not a candidate for a "natures force" wrapper? Also... The Standard model says Photons are te actual wrapper themselves... I imagine this would mean there are different models in use to deal with more complex situations... I think it's interesting how the more complex it gets the more the names strive to sound "grand unifying"... and such... Is there a specific programming language physics modeling uses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I don't understand your language here. wrappers? What do you mean that there are no other bosons except gravitons? Do you mean the only (fundamental) boson "expected" that has not yet been seen? Of course there is also the Higgs, but that could be composite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGamma Posted August 7, 2008 Author Share Posted August 7, 2008 Why does the photon need a rest mass? Please explain your reasoning for this. There are situations where the photon does have a mass, but this is related to breaking gauge symmetry in the Ginzburg–Landau model of superconductors (for example). Usually, due to what we call gauge symmetry the photon and graviton are massless. Any mass would violate this symmetry. I am learning the conditions required to theoretically produce energy from matter. I was just a liitle worried that theoretically it was deemed impossible but after reading a cheat sheet I realized everything is open for possibility so long as it's works. Ha ha... laugh now... but I'm certainly allowed to be inspired... no law of physics against that is there... maybe just a few years... huh? Guage symmetry reads as if its fundamental rules of space and time like trigonometry, and geometry. Commonly observed mathematical laws of physical ( tangible ) properties. Super conducting by definition is the process of dropping resistance to zero allowing current to flow freely. I'mnot sure how that applies to how I'm interpreting Superconducting. What is breaking gauge Symmetry. I don't understand your language here. wrappers? As in something to put you gum in so you can pick it up wnd have control over it without having to touch the actual gum yourself. If I wanted to protect a piece of code yet still have control over it I would make a wrapper and use that to interface with it. This is all really over my head... If I were to calculate the displacement of water to learn which direction it travels in relation to the displacement space. I assume I would need to calculate weight, volume and somehow I would have to apply gravity, and then direction. What would be a good physics "model" to read up on and learn about regarding this. My understanding of physics is below the high school level so any guidance would be helpful regarding this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 The same way NDIS wrapper lets you use a Windows driver under Linux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 [math]E=mc^{2}[/math] is only valid for massive particles and refers specifically to the rest frame. Maybe this is confusing you. For massless particles we have [math]E = c p[/math]. Gauge symmetry is basically a symmetry that explicitly depends on where you are. I mean, the parameters are now functions of space-time. It is in fact very much rooted in geometry. Breaking gauge symmetry is exactly that. Some dynamical or spontaneous breaking of the symmetry. Phenomenologically, it can manifest itself as giving mass to the otherwise massless gauge bosons. Look up Higgs-Kibble mechanism. You can apply this to a non-relativistic model of superconductivity. In effect here electromagnetism become a short range force, thus the photon is massive! I don't see how your meaning of wrappers has anything to do with quantum field theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 MrGamma, there is a book, which will teach you the basics of quantum electrodynamics, and cover a bit of mediating particles, it'd probably be a good place for you to start... QED by Richard Feynman It's under 200 pages and doesn't leave out important bits of understanding.... http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691125759/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218116126&sr=8-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGamma Posted August 8, 2008 Author Share Posted August 8, 2008 (edited) Maybe this is confusing you. It certainly is... but I'm learning... I don't see how your meaning of wrappers has anything to do with quantum field theory? It was a mis-interpretation on my part. Until now... I didn't realize that Quantum theories are specifically made to avoid wrappers... the science deals directly with real things and makes no attempt to "wrap" things in an extra layer at all... rather the quantum field has been built to explain things which cannot be explained Newtonian physics. If Newtonian physics extended it model and made special rules to deal with the quantum field then I could say Newtonian physics was using wrappers... but it's not... Breaking gauge symmetry is exactly that. Some dynamical or spontaneous breaking of the symmetry. My understanding that is that gravity is defined as a force... so is electromagnetism. The superconductivity model which essentially breaks gauge symmetry shows an object "locked in orbit" for a lack of a better term. ( the magnet floating at zero resistance ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity If I am visualizing this correctly... could this "breaking" of the guage symmetry in electromagnetism be related to the orbital distances of the planets from the sun? If so... is there an equivalent phenominon in electromagnetism which locks objects along a horizon? Much like the planets around the sun orbit on the same horizontal plane? QED by Richard Feynman I have heard this name quite a few times before. He has apparently made great contributions to science. Thank you for the reference. Edited August 8, 2008 by MrGamma multiple post merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 There is no breaking of the gauge symmetry of general relativity. Well, certainly not at the scale of the solar-system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGamma Posted August 11, 2008 Author Share Posted August 11, 2008 (edited) There is no breaking of the gauge symmetry of general relativity. Well, certainly not at the scale of the solar-system. I've been doing my research regarding the history of modern physics. I came across an experiment which attempted to detect the aether. The Michelson-Morley experiment. I have come to a premature assumption that the experiment detected gravity interference rather than an aether. The Michelson Interferometer pattern shown on the wiki page has made me think that the pattern and gravitational force are somehow linked. This along with the assumption that perhaps a laser is an interferometer which focuses light to a point where it escapes gravity. Is General Relativity used to phase out the interference of gravity on earth and perhaps Quantum Physics "scale" to meet any situation regardless of interference? Is breaking of the gauge symmetry somehow related to the aether? If not... Where is the mistake in my thinking? Edited August 11, 2008 by MrGamma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 If I might make a friendly observation, it seems like you're consistently getting way ahead of yourself. Why do you feel it's necessary to make all these "premature assumptions," as you call them? You haven't even given a reason for why you think, for example, "a laser is an interferometer which focuses light to a point where it escapes gravity," so it's impossible for anyone to answer where the mistake is in your thinking, because you haven't told us your thinking. I guess your "mistake" is assuming something that isn't true, or even sensical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGamma Posted August 11, 2008 Author Share Posted August 11, 2008 Is wasn't my intention to not make sense. I am only trying to figure out the nature of the experiment. Some people have told me they didn't find anything while the wiki says an interference measurement was found which lead to the invention of lasers. "In recent times versions of the Michelson–Morley experiment have become commonplace. Lasers and masers amplify light by repeatedly bouncing it back and forth inside a carefully tuned cavity, thereby inducing high-energy atoms in the cavity to give off more light." I drew a premature assumption because I do not fully understand the concept. I am only trying to understand the dynamics of physical things and how they translate to physics. I thought that the interference pattern was a "shift" in the angles of light. It is also mentioned in this thread that gravity is the curvature of space time. I thought perhaps the shift in the light was focusing of beams so they adjust for that shift and bend "straight" and the interference which was phased out was not an aether but rather the gravity interference of the sun. What did he find in the experiments? A wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum? Interference caused by the suns electromagnetic radiation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now