POVphysics

If the universe was designed somehow, there would probably be some engineering parameters that can't be explained; they're just built into the universe.

I'm done. You're deliberately trying to prevent innovation. We could literally develop the interstellar drive if it wasn't for all the effort being put into stalling.

I am restricted from telling you why those theories have holes in them, other than what I've already said. If you want to start a new thread, you can. It is your free will and it is the physics community's free will to focus on things like 1) how long does it take for a proton to decay 2) how long does it take for a black hole to evaporate 3) how long will the universe last 4) we don't have to think about physics constants 5) spacetime exists, but we don't know what it's made of, and don't care. You folks can decide what you think is important. But just don't ask me to care what your views about reality are.

The topic is about WHAT IS SPACETIME MADE OF. I have answered the problem by proposing a model for a quanta of spacetime. I am calling it an expanding graviton. I am happy to oblige your concerns that spacetime is not made of particles; spacetime is made of things that behave like spacetime geometry, behave like the mathematical objects called wavefunctions, and things that are carriers of the physics constants. Wave functions describe the interaction between gravitons and particles. When I say that wave functions are gravitons, please permit me the linguistic freedom to make the shorthand statement: gravitons = wavefunctions, so that I can express a thought or an idea freely without getting into an argument over semantics. Wave functions are the mathematical solution to Schrodinger equation; but the universe behaves this way because gravitons are the fundamental quanta of spacetime that make physics work (according to the model). I will not introduce any other particles; you have my word. When you say, don't introduce new physics, I assume you mean that any more discussion about a quantum entanglement field should be in another thread. I understand. Expanding gravitons are the proposed model to describe what spacetime is made of and are the objects that wave-functions are describing. In this sense, expanding gravitons are also a proposed model to describe a theory of quantum gravity.

The graviton part is your conjecture. I was asking about the experiment itself, and YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION. One of the unwritten rules here is that getting someone to clarify their speculation shouldn;t be like pulling teeth. The system you described, using a crystal, entangles polarizations. If you want to entangle some other properties, you need a different setup. I am not that familiar with the experimental process of creating quantum entanglements and verifying their existence. I have looked online, but haven't been able to find a good book that really gets into the specifics of the procedure. Thus, I cannot answer your question about the specifics of quantum entanglements, other than referring to an expanding graviton as a model. If you have a favorite quantum entanglement book, I would take a look at the link if you post one. No, it's not really like having a string attached to it. That's a pop-sci explanation. What is the specific interaction with the beam stop that preserves the entanglement? To answer this, you need to state what properties are entangled. Entanglement is not a magic description you can use to conjure up some physics. We have a fundamental disagreement. I have posited a graviton to explain what spacetime is made of. This expanding graviton is intended to replace superstrings and quantum loop gravity which do not explain anything, they only add more confusion and make physics more difficult to understand. The expanding graviton is based on several phenomena in physics that behave in a similar way; which I have listed above. If you are going to condemn my model because I have not explained the details of which property is entangled, then I ask you for a little bit of patience. All polarization is, is the angled of the vibrating electric field (of the E&M field). Gravitons are allowed to rotate in space as they expand. OK, then how are you entangling these momentum states and how is this entanglement preserved during the absorption process? The momentum states already exist in every graviton. They loosely look like psi = Ae^i(k_x x - \omega t). I believe that the momentum states can be arranged into a linear state as a function of x, \omega(x) = mx + b. If that occurs, it will exert a force on any particle that occupies those momentum states. How do we know that the entanglement will survive the absorption process? That would take experimental research to prove it. Since gravitons will expand if they escape a quantum system (not be destroyed), then it will be necessary to figure out how to prevent the graviton from escaping its attachment to the molecular crystal; in other words, it's experiments, research and using the right materials. In your drawing you have P1 and P2 taking different paths. If that's the case, they aren't entangled - you know whatthe momentum states are. If they are entangled, you don't know what the momentum state of a photon is. You would have to have both momentum states present in any beam. Higher momentum and lower momentum. I'm not trying to retain knowledge of the momentum. I'm trying to store energy in the entanglement, by making the momentum states obey \omega(x) = mx+ b. Normally, quantum entanglements are thought of as information; I'm not doing that. I am treating quantum entanglements as captured gravitons with available momentum states. I'm treating a graviton like a gravitational potential energy battery. Good for you. Answer the question HERE. A centrifuged photon passes through the optical fiber attached along the radius of a disk that is spinning rapidly. The effect is to simulate a gravity field (Equivalence Principle). By blueshifing the p1 photon, redshifting the P2 photon, it would store gravitation potential energy in the graviton.When the P1 photons are directed into P1 beamstop, P2 photons into P2 beamstop, P1 beamstop would be at x=-3cm and P2 beamstop would be at x = +3cm. The entanglement field would be oriented along the x-axis. Ah, it's more made-up crap. There's a lot to unpack in "the surface of a graviton is a photon" (considering that they're both moving at c, that's a lot to explain) If the surface of the graviton is expanding at the speed of light, then anything under the surface is expanding slower than the speed of light. Therefore, the photon has to be the part of the graviton that is moving at the speed of light. If it's not energized, it's just a virtual photon. There's not much to unpack. You just have to remember that photons travel at the speed of light. Attached to the radius? How do you attach a photon to anything? Attach the optical fiber to the radius of the disk. The hardest part of all of this is to target the photons into whatever small apeture there is on the optical fiber, and then catch the photons that come out the other side. This is the hardest part of the experiment. But gravitons move at c, so how can it be "between" the electrons? Gravitons expand at the speed of light. The center of the event that generated the graviton is probably attached to a particle or a field that generated the graviton. Gravitons don't move at the speed of light, they expand at the speed of light. Thank you for looking at what I have to say. I hope I haven't frustrated you. I am sincerely trying to answer your questions with complete honesty.

Correct. Quantum waves have volumes. I've already defined gravitons as the objects that have quantum states built into them; that is to say, gravitons are wave functions. Therefore, when gravitons expand from a point, they collide with particles and become part of the quantum system. So, an expanding graviton is a wave function; it belongs in the standard model, even if it doesn't remain a point particle.

Each graviton broadcasts the speed of light and other physics constants, continuously. That's why their values don't drift over time. I don't know if you looked at the pictures of the double slit experiment waves. That was another clue that lead me to believe that spacetime is broadcast, from a point, by expanding gravitons. Why do we have to write 1 for the physics constants? That's exactly the same as sweeping them under the rug. Are physicists afraid of the physics constants? I hope not. Because I really want humanity to get past these obstacles so that we can contemplate interstellar travel and also meet other races from other worlds that have overcome these challenges.

Did you see the picture I posted of the 2 slit diffraction pattern? That conclusion does not follow, and even the premise is somewhat faulty - gravitons, were they real, would only mediate changes in the gravitational field. Setting String Theory and other unproven conjectures aside for now, no elementary particle has any kind of volume; they behave as point-like objects. It is appropriate to set string theory aside because it is not empirically based. When you say that particles don't have volume, what do you call this? Maybe you don't see it, so I'll tell you what I see. From every point along the distance "a" there is a wavefront that starts from a point. All these wave fronts undergo interference patterns. Here is another picture with interference patterns. What is special about the 2 slit experiment is that individual photons land on the screen as if they were waves. I am arguing that gravitons are those waves that behave like spacetime geometry because they are spacetime geometry. Do you notice the geometry of distance D, theta and y? They would be point-like objects, just as all other elementary particles - these entities do not possess a property such a ‘volume’. Markus, I have to ask you: do wave functions have volume?

That conclusion does not follow, and even the premise is somewhat faulty - gravitons, were they real, would only mediate changes in the gravitational field. Setting String Theory and other unproven conjectures aside for now, no elementary particle has any kind of volume; they behave as point-like objects. It is appropriate to set string theory aside because it is not empirically based. When you say that particles don't have volume, what do you call this? Maybe you don't see it, so I'll tell you what I see. From every point along the distance "a" there is a wavefront that starts from a point. All these wave fronts undergo interference patterns. Here is another picture with interference patterns. What is special about the 2 slit experiment is that individual photons land on the screen as if they were waves. I am arguing that gravitons are those waves that behave like spacetime geometry because they are spacetime geometry. Do you notice the geometry of distance D, theta and y? The gravitons are moving so fast, that the interference patterns are really like film projections. Instead of slides passing in front of a light, the interference pattern is really created by a constant supply of gravitons that expand like a spherical wave front.

You're more familiar with the mathematics of gravitons than I am. If you say it doesn't work, I believe you. But the difference between the gravitons that you are using in your calculation and the expanding graviton that I am proposing, is that my gravitons expand, just like the whole universe did at the big bang. Do you remember how the Michelson-Morley experiment convinced the whole physics community that no spacetime medium is possible? Well, I am proposing a medium that has the derivation of time dilation built into it. Instead of spacetime being made of a single object that expands from a point, there were 10^100 gravitons all expanding at the speed of light. You don't have to believe what I say. You only have to look at the physics itself. I got the idea from the big bang, causality traveling outwards at the speed of light from an event, time dilation derivation, line cone, two slit experiment.

Like I said in my previous comment, trying to quantise gravity in terms of the usual quantum field theoretic framework doesn’t work, so the entire concept of ‘graviton’ is highly suspect at best. The mathematics simply don’t work. But even if they did, then gravitons would be elementary particles subject to all the usual rules that apply to spin-2 bosons, so they wouldn’t have a volume that could somehow ‘expand’. Then we have a problem. The universe actually occupies a very large volume. The universe is expanding since it was a point at the big bang. Gravity is a fact. Gravity is caused by curvature of spacetime geometry. Gravitons are the carriers of gravity; since gravity is caused by curvature of spacetime, I simply drew the conclusion that gravitons have volume. Gravitons overlap in a way that produces spacetime. You said there was a problem with spin-2 bosons not being able to fill all space; can you please help me understand what the problem is? Because I got the idea that gravitons expand from the whole universe expanding from a point. The Many World Interpretation is not an empirically based interpretation. Why shouldn't the whole thread be moved to the Speculation section? This is a picture of the hydrogen electron orbital probability distribution that is calculated using quantum mechanics. Can someone please point to where the other infinite universes are in the many world interpretation?

The difference between entangled photons and entangled electrons is that the electrons exist with a graviton between them. In the case of two entangled photons, the photons are excitations of the graviton, on opposite sides. When the photon is absorbed by a crystal, the energy is used to excite a crystal electron to a higher energy shell, but the graviton remains attached to the crystal until it breaks free or is absorbed by the crystal

The light cone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone also suggests that an expanding graviton is the best building block for spacetime. Gravitons are the very epitome of causality. Events cause gravitons, and there effects spread spherically outward at the speed of light. The reason that photons are the surface area of gravitons is because photons travel at the speed of light, relative to the point of the event. Everything inside of the sphere has to do with wave functions quantum states. Events cause gravitons.

Your list of graviton features is correct but IMO incomplete. I'm glad you noticed the list of loose ends. By adding just three additional features, gravitons are carriers of physics constants (because something has to account for them), gravitons are wave functions (which is how we unify QM with GR by broadcasting quantum states so densely that they become geodesics and spacetime geometry) They expand from a point, a sphere of radius r = ct (got the idea from the right triangle derivation of time dilation; also, wave expand from a point in the two slit experiment; also, the big bang expanded from a point; also the recognition that causality would begin from a point event and spread its effects at the speed of light in all directions. There was a minor assumption that the surface area of the graviton is the virtual photon but the interior of the graviton is the quantum states that, en masse, become spacetime geometry. Since the graviton is a boson, then the overlap of a large number of gravitons produces spacetime geometry. But to make things simple, since each graviton expands over a very wide range of radiuses r = ct, in a small time, it seemed like we could create the quantum fields for leptons, baryons, HIggs field, just by assigning the fields existence to be based upon some range between r1 = ct1 and r2 = ct2; that is more of a creative guess on my part based upon the inclination to be parsimonious (tight fisted) with more particles. Why do we need more particles? In addition, there are grey areas about the speed of light, but contradictions like the inflationary epoch that seem to violate the speed of light restriction. Instead of one spacetime geometry with a speed of light restriction, would it be better to have a spacetime made of 10^200 gravitons, where each graviton has it's own speed of light restriction, geometry, clock, ruler, etc., and leave the interaction properties of multiple gravitons to the physics community to sort out. In the spirit of parsimony, 10^100 gravitons (at the big bang) would have interactions that, for each graviton would be limited to the speed of light, but together, would expand faster than the speed of light, but also explain the inflationary epoch without anything new beyond the graviton.

In my expanding graviton hypothesis, the graviton causes everything else to behave the way we observe it (in terms of physics). There are 3 spatial dimensions because that's the way gravitons are. I dare not say they were made that way! They just are that way. A graviton will obey the equation X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 - (ct)^2 = 0.

I think you're trying to keep track of all the combinations. All I want from the entanglements is those momentum and position quantum states. I believe that if I blueshift the P1 photons, redshift the P2 photons, that the momentum states will align in a way that acts like a force of gravity. The position states will align in a way that is similar to spacetime curvature. Any particles that occupy one of those quantum states will experience the gravity field. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful in understanding entanglement entropy. I think it was you who didn't like my 6 sided die analogy. LOL. So, what if we compare entangled photons to pennies. One side is heads, other side is tales, they are spinning so we don't know which side is which.

If a charge can interact with a quantum entanglement field, then it seems to me that a creative person could do something useful with that? I was going to argue that a quantum entanglement field does exist and if you went to the LHC and caused a beam of ions to travel through a quantum entanglement field, you would have to include the wave function of the field in the calculation to figure out what might happen. It actually does make sense, I'll have to draw you a picture.

If I take a laser and point it at a crystal that is known to create quantum entanglements, then there would be pairs of photons that are entangled. I was under the impression that this could be done experimentally very easily. How do you “trap” photons “between the electron energy levels of the crystal”? When an electron in an atom, in a crystal, absorbs a photon, the electron jumps to the next highest energy band. The photon is confined to the energy bands of the crystal. Because I believe that if you split a laser into two entangled beams P1 and P2, I believe there is a quantum entanglement field between them that can be described by a wave function. Wave functions have momentum states. I think that if you blueshift the P1 photons and Redshift the P2 photons, the result will be a frequency that varies as \omega(x). If gravitons don't expand, then why does the derivation of time dilation suggest that something is expanding at the speed of light? Yes I am. Sorry I don't feel like either of those things is really helpful to the physicists in developing gravity field generators or unifying QM with GR.

I'm such a terrible person for giving neg reactions to people who derail the conversation with extraneous nonsense. I never give neg reactions to people who disagree with me on the physics, like you have. Maybe we're just not going to see eye to eye. The Michelson-Morley experiment created the impression that NO MEDIUM IS NEEDED. I'm sure you believe that too. But the question I'm trying to answer is, what is spacetime itself made of? Actually, I've created several lists of things that expanding gravitons are needed to explain. I've challenged superstrings as something that is NOT ABLE to answer a great many questions. And it comes with Kaluba Klein bottles that are not experimental things, an infinte set of universes that are not experimentally verified and there is no way to isolate a superstring. Do you think that gravitons are point particles?

Does anyone here think that a graviton is a point particle? If so, how does it create spacetime geometry which is 4D?

The gravitational fine structure constant is the number that controls coupling of gravitons to energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant It's the order of 10-45 in international units. Would you be as kind as to tell me where in your "calculations" is the faintest inkling of how you would evidence this from a purely electromagnetic model? Thank you. Although the non-answer I can only predict. We disagree on what a graviton is. If I cannot convince you that a graviton is a 4D point in space, that expands at the speed of light, is a carrier of physics constants, and that overlaps with other gravitons in a way that results in quantum fields for all other other standard model particles, and is also filled with quantum states for momentum/position/etc., then I am not going to be able to convince you that two entangled photons have a graviton between them, and redshifting one, blueshifting the other will result in a stored gravity potential between them. I haven't the feigntest idea what I'm supposed to do with the gravitational coupling constant for two electrons. And using Planck coefficients to set all the physics constants to 1 is sweeping them under the rug. You may be a perfectly proficient physicist, but you won't be able to figure out the deeper layers of physics until you get a correct model for the graviton. You and I are talking about physics. That's why I came to this forum. You and I just have a disagreement about how to achieve deeper levels of physics. The trolls are the people who are trying to derail the conversation away from physics.

This topic was killed by trolls.

Again, this is about the science, not you. Quit making it personal. No one cares what you believe. They care about the science. It is truly a tragedy that there are not creative people in the physics community who can use experiments to lead humanity to the stars. Instead, there are people here who want to create friction. Your education... I'm sad to say... I'm sad you had to drag the conversation into the gutter.

You are coming across as a bit of an ass. Dial down the anger and just discuss the science. This is not a contact sport. I am willing and eager to answer any questions, just direct me to them. I have no wish to come across as an ass. But then don't expect me to believe the scientific authority when they affirm facts that are not based on experimental data. Do you mean like how the Caluba Klein model is not experimentally verifiable? Or that a photon frequency can change as it travels along a gravity well? If you think I ignored something, what was it?

It's like your answering questions that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If you're going to criticize, criticize me for what I actually affirm. Gravitons exist. They expand at the speed of light into a sphere of radius r = ct. Expanding gravitons are the carriers of the physics constants. Wave functions are describing gravitons. The quantum entanglement between two photons can be described by a wave function (in principle) and is identically a graviton. Using a laser, an entanglement crystal, you can split the beam into two entangled beams, you can target the beams to two points P1 and P2 that are a short distance away, and there will be a Quantum Entanglement Field between the two points. We can discuss details later. I don't mean to be irritating. But there is a laundry list of normal physics things that don't seem to have anything to do with superstrings. Experimentalists don't deal with Calabi Yau manifolds, 26 dimensions, dilatons. This is the laundry list of things that are experimentally verified to actually exist: time position in space spacetime gravity standard model particles wave function solutions to quantum systems geodesics Gravitational force and potential energy Quantum entanglementns lasers physics constants The big bang gravitational redshift gravitational time dilation invariance of the speed of light leptogenesis baryogensis Quantum operators and expectation values. dark energy dark matter So, I'm going off of this list and trying to explain everything as being caused by expanding gravitons. I am not introducing other univeses or 26 dimensions or manifolds that don't actually relate to experimental data. And like I said, it's possible (easy) to capture a graviton.