POVphysics

The surface of expanding gravitons are electromagnetic waves. They are virtual photons unless there is energy to make them real photons. How can you say the speed of light plays no role in inflationary physics? I didn't come here to get into any quarrels, but your proclamation is wrong.

The many world interpretation is not relatable to nature or to what we commonly experience with the outside physical world. The physics community always proclaims that QM is weird! Which means that you don't understand what's happening. But IMO, quantum mechanics is no more magical than just to realize that point particles are being bathed in a medium of expanding gravitons. I would make the argument that expanding gravitons are 4D point particles (unlike other mediums which are made of 3D particles - which is what the Michelson Morley experiment assumes.

But then how do you explain why the invariance of the speed of light is a phenomena of nature? How do you explain the inflationary epoch of the big bang? How do you explain dark energy? How do you explain the existence of quantum entanglements between particles? How do you explain the basic properties of wave functions? There are a lot of loose ends in physics, that if tied together, could lead to new deeper physics.

The problem with the accepted definition of a graviton is that it doesn't have properties that allow anyone anyone to recognize it as something that actually exists, something that we see scientific evidence for. That is why the scientific community doubts the existence of gravitons (because you don't know what it should look like). If you were looking for horses, but thought that they had six legs and smelled like cheese, you would also not believe that horses exist. Same with gravitons. To use a metaphor, the beach is made of sand particles, the ocean is made of water molecules, and the spacetime continuum is made of gravitons. But the difference between beaches/oceans AND the spacetime continuum, is that spacetime is not made of points in 3D. It's actually made of points in 4D, at least I will make that argument. Gravitons have to expand from a point into a sphere at the speed of light, with radius r = ct. There are three places in physics that suggest that r = ct expansion is necessary: big bang. Double slit experiment. Derivation of time dilation. The fact that time is so fundamental to physics, and the fact that the speed of light is so intrinsic to time that we can calculate time dilation, it means that the mechanism that handles time, must somehow observe an expanding geometry (expands at the speed of light). The radius of an expanding graviton is r = ct, which is equivalent to L = c \Delta t. The inflationary epoch can be explained if the spacetime continuum is made out of 10100 (some large number) of expanding gravitons, each of which are expanding as a sphere of radius r = ct, but the expansion across a large number of them combined is faster than light. The other advantage of expanding gravitons is that, their expansion can be related to dark energy. The energy to make a few gravitons (not expand) is so small it's not even measurable, But the energy of 10^200 (really large number) expanding gravitons, enough to embody the whole universe, than we can see that dark energy can be explained as the combined expansion energy of 10200 gravitons. So expanding gravitons can explain dark energy. Which approach to physics is better? A. the approach that leads to new experiments that haven't been tried before? B. Sustaining the original understandings and interpretations that people had about physics, 100 years ago?

There is a "right way" to do physics; it's the way that leads to new experimental data. As an example, the expectation values for momentum and position can be calculated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_value_(quantum_mechanics) If we were going to calculate the expectation value of a particle in a box, all we're trying to do is predict where it is or what is it's momentum. It's very similar to looking at a house and wondering where the home owner is; or maybe a better metaphor is fish in the ocean. What are the odds of catching a fish in any particular volume of ocean, moving at whatever velocity and direction (momentum), under the waves. The fish are not traveling between universes or creating new universes. They're just under the waves where we can't see them. Similarly, the Pilot Wave theory assumes they are just particles traveling about in the quantum waves. , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory

The expanding graviton looks like this. They start at a point, and expand at the speed of light into a sphere of radius r = ct. The odds that an expanding graviton will connect with a particle is unavoidable. When they do, they become what wave functions are describing. The become captured gravitons. Captured gravitons can escape and continue to get very large. When they do, they become part of the spacetime continuum. The surface of a graviton is a photon. It there is no energy, the surface of the graviton is a virtual photon. If there is energy E = hf, then a localized part of the outer sphere is a real photon; the rest is a virtual photon.

I think if we had the right way to imagine quantum mechanics, it would be easier to understand, even if it's still an object that behaves mathematically.

It's special because the expanding graviton = wave function = quantum entanglement. The quantum entanglement is a graviton that has been captured between two particles (photons in my experiment). You can very easily control the orientation of the quantum entanglement field by moving around the beam stops. The spacetime continuum is made of gravitons. If the spacetime continuum can curve in a way that produces a gravitational potential energy U = -GMm/r, then the graviton (the smallest unit of spacetime, must also be able to manifest a gravitational potential energy. If a quantum entanglement is a graviton, then a quantum entanglement should be able to store a gravitational potential energy. That is why entanglements are special.

If two particles have entangled spin, if one particle is measured to have spin up, then the other must have spin down. If that is not the essence of quantum entanglement, then what is? So I ask, can the experiment described above be performed easily? If so, can we talk about a quantum entanglement field existing between the two beam stops?

This is the idea of how to make a quantum entanglement field. I don't think the physics community has ever considered such an experiment.

Maybe I should have compared quantum entanglement to coin tosses. If one side is heads, the other side must be tails, even if the other side is some distance away.

I came to a physics forum Did you? 😉 I wanted to talk about the idea of creating a quantum entanglement field using a laser, crystal, some mirrors, two beam stops that are close to each other. But if you have some important information about quantum entanglement that is relevant to the conversation, than by all means, share you knowledge. This topic is really meant for people who are interested in steering physics towards more advanced technology. I really hope there are people out there who share this interest.

The top side of every 6 sided die equals 7 - the bottom side. So the top side/bottom side pairs are 1,6; 2,5; 3,4. If I can see the top side, I automatically know what the bottom side is. That is sufficient a metaphor to describe entanglement. And it very easy to understand because everyone has experience with dice. Right? Do you want interstellar drives? Or are you not interested in such things. Today it's science fiction. But with the right research & development, it could be possible withing 50 years.

Open your mind just a crack, and we can have a more interesting conversation about what is possible in physics.

The opposite faces of a die add to 7. If I roll a die, the bottom number equals 7 minus the top number. If I measure a spin down on one entangled particle, I know the other particle is the opposite, spin up. If you thought about it, you would see the similarity between a die and a quantum entanglement.

Going into space used to be science fiction. Today, it's reality.

Is there anyone out there who still believes that gravity field propulsion is still achievable to us? Is there anyone out there who still believes that we can travel to the stars, that we can one day invent the interstellar drive, and really travel out there? Is there anybody out there?

Well, the way I look at what spacetime is made of, the more a graviton that does everything, comes to mind. In that sense, it's parsimonious because the graviton is responsible for everything in physics. It's just the details of the graviton that are important to discover. But, it also means that a single graviton has QM/GR/SR everything else, built into it, then it's parsimonious (one additional particle), but very detailed and complicated. The important thing is that such an expanding graviton is everything you ever need to consider if you want to discover new experiments and technology. And we all day dream alot about new technology.

I've been watching episodes of Star Trek NG, and I wonder why we can't do some of those things. Technologies like the Alcubierre drive, tractor beams, and other forms of propulsion that seem to defy physics as we understand it, could be achieved if we understood the mechanisms that create spacetime, better. There is talk about unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity; but in my opinion, we should be unifying those things with big bang cosmology as well. I am an arch chair physics enthusiast who gets to think about these questions from a point of view of being very motivated to achieve the Star Trek kinds of technology. It is my opinion that what holds us back is that our interpretations of the various kinds of physics phenomena are insufficient to reveal the deeper patterns. So let me begin. I look at quantum mechanics, special/general relativity/big bang cosmology and I see grey areas that are not well understood, questions like: a need for a way to broadcast physics constants everywhere in space. a mechanism to create spacetime geometry in a way that is related to particles themselves, and a way to get a medium with the Invariance of Spacetime property so as to supercede the Michelson-Morley experiment with something reasonable to explain what spacetime is made of. You need a particle to explain why they exist at all. As a physics community, you have to address these question or you can claim no mastery of the subject of physics. My goals for this paper are to: Justify the need for a particle that creates spacetime, Assign physics constants to the new particle. Give this particle all the properties of physics that explain why the particle "generates" OUR universe. Then, the particle is released by EVENTS, starting at a point and expanding at the speed of light in all directions, like a very fast balloon. The balloon is the particle in question, and I call it the Expanding Graviton. I have to call it a graviton because it has to be the "thing" that spacetime geometry is made of. But it also has to be the "thing" that connects standard model particles to the fabric of spacetime. Depending on the particle, it could take 10^30 or more Gravitons to create the Quantum field that creates the given particle. These gravitons have to expand, at the speed of light, to some minimum radius (and time) to a maxium radius and ct time. Each kind of lepton or baryon field has it's own minimum and maximum radius and ct time. But the spacetime continuum itself is more than a particle field. It's the field that connects all particles together and is involved with relative positions, velocities, momentum (relative between particles) that account for its kinetic energy of motion, and whether or not particles will collide or pass over each other without transmissions of energy between the lasers. The layers are what separate bodies in motion from other bodies of motion. Yes, they're the expanding gravitons. The reason this interpretation is important is because it reveals a way to escape the laws of motion in ways that are more efficient for the broadcast universe to exist. That's pretty much why this interpretation of physics is better than what you have now. Because it leads to ways and methods for processing laws of motion that are more efficient, which means it's faster to go somewhere. Speed of light, c,... If you wanted to think of the universe as being a computer simulation, then the processors that process all physics information would be the expanding gravitons. But we're not going to gallup down that road,... because we're here to create gravity field generators. Generating a new quantum gravity field It is easy for you to generate a quantum entanglement field (two entangled photons) merely by taking a laser, shining it at a crystal that easy entangles photons. This will create two beams of photons, P1 and P2. In a very simple experiment, you will use mirrors, lenses and fiber optics to land P1 photons into BeamStop1 and P2 photons into beam stop 2. Beamstop 1 and 2 will be 10cm apart, facing each other. The situation looks very similar to a magnetic dipole. THe difference is that the P1 photons are sharing their quantum entangled P2 mates about 10cm away. Do I have to explain why there is a quantum entangled field between the 2 beam stops? Well, it's because we don't don't the nature of all of the entanglements between P1s and P2's. Quantum entanglement is sort of like rolling one six sided die, and knowing that if you roll a 5, there is a 2 on the other side, the bottom of the die. Now, imagine tanking a giant truck and dumping dice all over the parking lot. You know that whatever number is on top, the 7 minus whatever you see on the top, is what's on the bottom. Dice are basically like entanglements. But since gravitons can be quantum entanglements and wave functions, (and I'm rushing, I'll fill in later), then we can capture gravitons by creating entanglmeents, and we can describe gravitons by using the operators in quantum mechanics, and basically attributes of quantum mechanics are built into gravitons. I will tell you how to store gravitational potential energy inside of this quantum entanglement field, another night. I have pictures!

I'm not preaching. I am telling what the simplest of assumptions can lead to. You can only blame me for being excited about my approach. Please try to be open minded.

By parsimonious, I mean stingy. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parsimony The pieces have to fit in the most minimalist way. Properties have to explain experimental observations without creating impossible to test situations like the many world interpretations or wait 10^100 years for a black hole to evaporate or a proton to decay. If I'm right, this physics leads to experiments that can be tested right away.

I do not favor superstrings or quantum loops as a good model to describe what spacetime is made of. What I prefer is to take a parsimonious view, the minimalist way to achieve the laws of physics by using properties from quantum mechanics, SR/GR and big bang cosmology. I also prefer an experiment that looks at quantum entanglement in a new way. The luminferous aether would be replaced with a mechanism that "broadcasts" the physics constants from every EVENT (spacetime interval definition of EVENT). When I look at the derivation of special relativity and the spacetime interval, I see these carriers of the physics constants. I am interpreting "virtual particles" a little differently. The way I interpret these things, it's like assembling a puzzle in a way that looks like empirical physics. I also resolve the "spooky action at a distance" conundrum with an interpretation of what quantum operators really are. I will also make an argument that the holographic principle is not so different from the image created by an old fashioned projector reel. I'm going to make several very logical assumptions, enough to explain these physics carriers; what I get out of this approach will explain a lot of things that we don't understand now, and will result in an experiment that leads to all the fun technology we watched on Star Trek... except transporters; you'll just have to get used to a controlled drop from orbit to the surface using a tractor beam.

I actually have an interpretation of the underlying structures that cause physics to work, but tonight I'm tired and won't get around to explaining it until maybe this weekend. Perhaps I don't have enough appreciation for "fundamental symmetries" because I haven't encountered them that often in empirical physics. But I do have a very deep appreciation of the fundamental physics constants. Since no mechanism has been put forward to explain why they are what they are, then I just assume the physics constants are built into the "carriers of physics". And obviously if a carrier carries the speed of light c, then it has to behave accordingly and do "something" at the speed of light that is related to the progression of time and existence of distance. The only point I was trying to make was that, whatever mechanism has the speed of light built into it, it facilitates physics in both modern physics and general relativity.

The only way a MWI could ever exist would be in some virtual quantum state. In other words, if you were arguing that all possibilities exist because there are quantum waves that describe all possible futures, then it would sound very similar to some kind of metaphysical Astral plane which, is basically just asking for quantum waves to store a lot of information; that's not too tall of an order. But when you ask each quantum possibility to have 10^74 joules (the approximate energy of the universe), then you run into problems. The first big problem is a storage problem. Where do you put all these new universe? How do they not interact with established universes? Some people have argued that these MWI universes are a trillion light years away. But then you have to explain how a causal result of a choice can show up a trillion light years away, how it violates the speed of light. The MWI interpretation violates laws of physics; has storage issues, and is unpleasant to behold; aesthetically unpleasing. But if you wanted to say that information content of your choices can be stored in quantum waves, than that is far easier to accommodate. But I have no idea if there is a maximum amount of information that can be stored in quantum waves. I actually have my own interpretation of quantum mechanics. Similar to pilot theory. One of these days I'll start a topic.

In trying to figure out what space is made of, there is this interesting clue. The speed of light c shows up in special relativity equations, the Einstein equations, DeBroglie wavelength and the basic wave equation c = lambda*f. One might infer the existence of a mechanism that has the speed of light built into, in such a way, that it leads to modern physics equations and spacetime geometry.