Klaynos

Ok, can we stop for a moment. I want us to take what might seem like a big step backwards. Mike, I often ask these questions to PhD students, I would like you to think about them and perhaps have a go at answering them or discussing them in the context of this thread. 1. What question are you trying to answer? 2. What measurements of what observables will answer that question?

I like computer modern. There are some interesting things online on font readability that I've read in the past. You might want to try and find them. I would agree with CharonY examiners care more about the content, as long as it's not comic sans or wingdings....

You can't use the human eye as it's s nonlinear uncalibrated sending device. Cameras try and reproduce this so you can't use one of those either. You'll just make more poor measurements. You need a quantitative, reoroduceable method of measuring the beam centre.

That's not true. I have used many ccd and CMOS sensors during my time as a professional optical physicist with no attached lenses at all. The coolest was liquid nitrogen cooled to detect very low intensities. You also need something with really accessible and understood electronics to actually measure the intensities. Not some processed output as you get from a camera. Your set up as is is not good enough to find the centre of the beam.

A digital camera has a ccd or CMOS sensor but lots of other stuff too like lenses. That's not what you want. You want a sensor array with no optics to measure the beam power to try and find the beam centre.

You've failed to address any of my comments. Only emotionally responded to one part. Did you actual read or understand my concerns about beam divergence and measuring the power in a cross section of the beam?

Piskies, not fairies... They get very grumpy if you call them fairies...

An interaction mediated by virtual photons. No. Gravitons are the force exchange particles (assuming they exist). Similar to virtual photons in QED. Not elections. Electrons have charge they are not an exchange particle. This therefore makes sense. They're virtual. Really we don't know enough about gravitons to answer firmly but assuming they are similar to virtual photons their virtual existence is between interacting particles. Completely different.

That is not what is meant by virtual particles in this context. They only exist when the force is exchanged. I would strongly suggest that a starting point for trying to understand exchange particles would be to read about them, probably in the context of electromagnetism.

The field is gravity. It may have exchange particles called gravitons. It can be modeled as curved space time in many situations. It's not a field in anything.

What aspect of game development? The physics is one if the key areas and you'll need strong maths.

Don't be disheartened, it's good and can be fun to think about things like this in this way when you're 13. But, as Swansont says, you essentially have several steps which are "and then magic happens".

This isn't science. It's making up stories. Also, you really need to reread the wp article on gravitons and read the one on neutrinos.

You're not adding anything though. The discussion of the river implies a flowing medium. There's no evidence for such a medium. It might even be counter to things such as the MM experiment but you've not added a mathematical framework so it's impossible to say.

I don't like the flowing river analogy but otherwise you seen to be OK so far.

That's not how I'd describe it. We have no evidence for a flowing river the analogy. F=ma, if m is different and a is constant which Newtonian gravity shows us will be the case for the saucers or you at on a working surface, then F must be changing. Put in some numbers for a and m and see how F changes.

Your double action thing, as in f=ma when a is constant f must change with m? That's pretty standard classical mechanics. Any quantum theory will look like the classical in the classical domain.

They wouldn't pour. Gravitons are hypothetical force carriers for gravity. Potentially similar to virtual photons for qed. Did you read the wiki article?

Neutrinos have nothing to do with it. Gravitons might be the force particle but we don't have a quantum theory of gravity. The mass is the important thing. Even with gravitons, if we consider they are similar to photons in qed then pouring into the centre of the earth isn't the correct way of thinking about it. That's not how force exchange particles work. And as for whether that's actually happening or just a mathematical model that works, that's not good science works.

All anyone is going to say is what the maths says. You've already expressed your desire for something more and been told that that's not science. Therefore I'm sticking with the piskies.

The piskies take a step back and look at how heavy you/the saucer is before they start pulling. They do this by freezing time so you can't measure it.

That's more thorough than I was. Most of what I read was about increased occurrences of things like asthma with quite long term exposures. My thoughts would be to investigate mixing nitrogen evaporated from liquid nitrogen. With oxygen and co2 from tanks and ambient air to adjust them temp. Not easy to build or control though. I'm sure I've seen footage of a quite large enclosure (on top gear so large enough to fit a car) that could get down to -30 deg C I think. Might be worth finding out where it is and contacting them to see how they do it.

I've not watched the video. I did fear this might be the case. You can get "bright" spots off of thr beam path, and you'll be killed by any beam divergence or laser wobble. I don't really think this experiment is within the reach of a hobbyist. Although it looks simple as soon as you start actually thinking about it there are so many subtleties that will make your results meaningless. That's a terrible way to measure. You could do something similar with a camera sensor but where you measure the intensity from each pixel. But you'd need a large area CMOS or ccd and some clever way of removing ambient light.

Your intuition is wrong. It's just harmonic motion.

My masters was in optics, my PhD relief heavily on it. Swansont uses lots of optics everyday. So there are people around who can comment. I'd need to see a diagram of your optical set up and specs of the laser. For this kind of experiment there are lots of things that are going to mess with you. Ducting, scatter from turbulence, lack of collimaton, movement of the source or optics...