Virtual particles and fields

[swansont]

I am easily confused how can a graviton be the "heaviest boson", and massless.?

Explained here:

 

Sorry, I tend to use mass/energy for eV ( probably GeV for gravitons ) even though they are massless.

( they would have to be or gravity wouldn't have infinite range )

IOW, from using mass and energy terminology interchangeably. Which physicists sometimes do (often giving masses in terms of energy, with the E=mc^2 conversion left as an exercise). e.g. saying the mass of a proton is ~938 MeV, or an electron is 511 keV

[imatfaal]

I am easily confused how can a graviton be the "heaviest boson", and massless.?

Mass-Energy equivalence. It will have no mass as it will travel at c - but it could have a very high mass energy. Actual Gravitons ie gravitational waves will, I guess, have an energy related to the frequency just like light

 

x-posted

At the risk of displaying my density; what's the difference between the higgs boson and the graviton boson?

 

https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/

 

Prof Matt Strassler to the rescue -- he is always a good read

[Strange]

At the risk of displaying my density; what's the difference between the higgs boson and the graviton boson?

 

 

A lot of people seem to be confused by this. Oversimplified explanation follows ...

 

The Higgs field / mechanism (with its associated particle, the Higgs boson) gives particles mass (or, at least, some particles some of their mass!) but that does not give them gravity.

 

The space-time field is what causes things with mass (or energy) to have gravity, and the particle associate with that field would be the graviton (if it exists).

 

So, in short, the Higgs gives things mass, and the graviton means that mass causes gravity. Simples.

[dimreepr]

 

 

A lot of people seem to be confused by this. Oversimplified explanation follows ...

 

The Higgs field / mechanism (with its associated particle, the Higgs boson) gives particles mass (or, at least, some particles some of their mass!) but that does not give them gravity.

 

The space-time field is what causes things with mass (or energy) to have gravity, and the particle associate with that field would be the graviton (if it exists).

 

So, in short, the Higgs gives things mass, and the graviton means that mass causes gravity. Simples.

 

I'm generally confused by gravity, but thanks for trying; imatfaal, via Matt Strassler has come closest to explaining it to a simple fool like me.

Edited June 22, 2017 by dimreepr

[Strange]

 

I'm generally confused by gravity, but thanks for trying; imatfaal, via Matt Strassler has come closest, to explaining it to a simple fool like me.

 

 

Well, not surprisingly, his answer is waaaay better than my attempt. (But it is what I was trying to get at )

[dimreepr]

 

(But it is what I was trying to get at )

 

I get it, simples

[Mordred]

I always loved Prof Strasslers site. Its great for simple heuristic explanations that I only wish I had the talent to simplify as well as he does.

[Handy andy]

If a graviton exists and is a boson, what special property does it have that enables it to escape a black hole.

Why is gravity considered to be transmitted at light speed? When considering the quantum foam concept and entropy are both virtual particles and waves not included in the gravity field.

 

Does the term MASS add to the confusion when thinking of waves and particles of any shape or form in space? Is it better to just think in terms of energy and momentum (accelerated inertia), in a volume of space.

 

I am still studying all the links which could as stated take a life time to understand, and disturbingly once understood may in fact be shown to be wrong when compared to other gravitational theories. By wrong I mean in terms of newtons theories compared to einsteins theories, both being very good approximations one better than the other for certain applications.

 

@ Mordred did you intend to post two different links above.

 

I need to pull some of my old sum books out of storage, to understand exactly what has been posted but I may be getting the gist of it. The gozzintas are slowly coming back to me .

 

Each time I read the links posted and follow up ideas more ideas and questions spin two me, which make me doubt the existence of the graviton.

 

Virtual particles in a quantum foam can be any shape or form depending on the proximity of other particles or waves interacting with each other, all of which will stretch and distort space around them. I think the graviton is an idealized idea and tries to make a mathematical nicety of random virtual particles or quantum foam, which must have random spin effects also.?

 

The gravitational entropy link I posted above does away with the need for dark matter. There are many hits when you google this subject, does any one think this idea is rubbish or has merit in the same way the other ideas have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

Edited June 23, 2017 by Handy andy

[imatfaal]

If a graviton exists and is a boson, what special property does it have that enables it to escape a black hole.

 

Why is gravity considered to be transmitted at light speed? When considering the quantum foam concept and entropy are both virtual particles and waves not included in the gravity field.

 

Does the term MASS add to the confusion when thinking of waves and particles of any shape or form in space? Is it better to just think in terms of energy and momentum (accelerated inertia), in a volume of space.

 

I am still studying all the links which could as stated take a life time to understand, and disturbingly once understood may in fact be shown to be wrong when compared to other gravitational theories. By wrong I mean in terms of newtons theories compared to einsteins theories, both being very good approximations one better than the other for certain applications.

 

@ Mordred did you intend to post two different links above.

 

I need to pull some of my old sum books out of storage, to understand exactly what has been posted but I may be getting the gist of it. The gozzintas are slowly coming back to me .

 

Each time I read the links posted and follow up ideas more ideas and questions spin two me, which make me doubt the existence of the graviton.

 

Virtual particles in a quantum foam can be any shape or form depending on the proximity of other particles or waves interacting with each other, all of which will stretch and distort space around them. I think the graviton is an idealized idea and tries to make a mathematical nicety of random virtual particles or quantum foam, which must have random spin effects also.?

 

The gravitational entropy link I posted above does away with the need for dark matter. There are many hits when you google this subject, does any one think this idea is rubbish or has merit in the same way the other ideas have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

 

The idea of keeping threads simple and to the point didn't really sink in did it?

 

If a graviton exists and is a boson, what special property does it have that enables it to escape a black hole.

Virtual particle - strange rules apply to virtuals. Actual gravitons are what you get in gravitational radiation and that can be considered as created by the specific change in spacetime curvatue outside any event horizon

 

Why is gravity considered to be transmitted at light speed?

Theoretically it should be, and experimentally it is (as close as we can measure). The mass of the graviton has been pegged as very very small ( we expect zero but you can never measure that).

 

When considering the quantum foam concept and entropy are both virtual particles and waves not included in the gravity field.

Quantum foam is a completely unproven hypothesis - I am not sure how to relate it to a thermodynamic model nor qft. I would suggest getting a firmer grouding in non-cutting edge science before attempting this level.

 

Does the term MASS add to the confusion when thinking of waves and particles of any shape or form in space? Is it better to just think in terms of energy and momentum (accelerated inertia), in a volume of space.

No mass is very important - you can have any sort of particle with a set energy or momentum some of these would be massless and some massive; to determine speed of particle you need to know mass (ie c or less than c). And what the hell does accelerated inertia mean - a particle has momentum without needing accleration

 

Virtual particles in a quantum foam can be any shape or form depending on the proximity of other particles or waves interacting with each other, all of which will stretch and distort space around them. I think the graviton is an idealized idea and tries to make a mathematical nicety of random virtual particles or quantum foam, which must have random spin effects also.?

Please lose the word salad. an "idealized idea" ?

 

 

The gravitational entropy link I posted above does away with the need for dark matter. There are many hits when you google this subject, does any one think this idea is rubbish or has merit in the same way the other ideas have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

 

Please keep to one topic. And again - try to get the basics steady in your head before heading off into such strange territory

[swansont]

Virtual particles in a quantum foam can be any shape or form depending on the proximity of other particles or waves interacting with each other, all of which will stretch and distort space around them. I think the graviton is an idealized idea and tries to make a mathematical nicety of random virtual particles or quantum foam, which must have random spin effects also.?

Not a question. Do you have a model for this? (If no, then don't bring it up)

[Handy andy]

 

The idea of keeping threads simple and to the point didn't really sink in did it?

 

Virtual particle - strange rules apply to virtuals. Actual gravitons are what you get in gravitational radiation and that can be considered as created by the specific change in spacetime curvatue outside any event horizon

 

Theoretically it should be, and experimentally it is (as close as we can measure). The mass of the graviton has been pegged as very very small ( we expect zero but you can never measure that).

 

Quantum foam is a completely unproven hypothesis - I am not sure how to relate it to a thermodynamic model nor qft. I would suggest getting a firmer grouding in non-cutting edge science before attempting this level.

 

No mass is very important - you can have any sort of particle with a set energy or momentum some of these would be massless and some massive; to determine speed of particle you need to know mass (ie c or less than c). And what the hell does accelerated inertia mean - a particle has momentum without needing accleration

 

Please lose the word salad. an "idealized idea" ?

 

 

Please keep to one topic. And again - try to get the basics steady in your head before heading off into such strange territory

 

The thread is "Could gravity be caused by virtual particles or virtual waves stretching space." I did not think I was off thread.

 

I prefer to look at cutting edge and think for myself, and not look at stuff that is old hat or be told what to think. Thanks for the advice, I am sure you think you are correct in your approach?

 

The quantum foam concept is just as valid as the other cutting edge theories until proven wrong. As far as I understand, the graviton has not been proven to exist. Quantum foam ideas are inline with some of my ideas, so it has drawn my interest, and I think it is worth discussing.

 

Virtual particles in a quantum foam can be any shape or form depending on the proximity of other particles or waves interacting with each other, all of which will stretch and distort space around them. What part of this is salad? Can you can dispel the quantum foam concept in some simple way that can be understood.

Not a question. Do you have a model for this? (If no, then don't bring it up)

 

cross posted

 

see previous link on quantum foam not my idea, but interesting.

 

I will stop asking questions. The moderators are after me again.

[Sensei]

I will stop asking questions. The moderators are after me again.

 

You can ask questions in the mainstream physics section. But you cannot make assertions, claims, hypothesis, theories.. Otherwise such thread will be moved here, to speculations.

And you will learn nothing, because you will be bombarded with questions about your theory (that you obviously don't have, when you don't understand things enough to make theory).

[swansont]

see previous link on quantum foam not my idea, but interesting.

 

 

So when you wrote "I think the graviton is an idealized idea and tries to make a mathematical nicety of random virtual particles or quantum foam" you were referencing an article? I find that to be unlikely. Why would there be an article about what you think?

[Mordred]

Yes I did mean to link two different articles. However I can't recall what the other one was now.

[MigL]

Quantum foam, IIRC, was a term coined by J A Wheeler, to describe what happens at extremely small separations during extremely small periods of time. In these conditions, uncertainty allows extremely massive virtual particles to appear for infinitely small periods of time, so massive in fact, that Einstein-Rosen bridges ( wormholes ) were created during those infinitesimal time periods.

It was this aspect of space-time, that it was 'holed' by a multitude of inter-connecting tubes/bubbles, at this limit, which suggested an analogy to 'foam'.

 

How this does away with the requirement for a graviton in Quantum Gravity, or how it relates to gravity in general is what you need to explain; If you want your assertions ( and associated tangents ) to be taken seriously.

[Handy andy]

@ all

 

I have not speculated anything of note on this thread, I have restricted myself to asking questions ref other peoples theories. Entropic Gravity is an existing theory, it is not mine. I had hoped a discussion on various gravitational theories based around virtual particles would be of interest to more than just myself.

 

@ Migl your description of entropic gravity bears no resemblance to what is written in the link I posted above, I think you are talking about something else.

 

@ Swan

The graviton is a theoretical particle, it is not a fact of science. There is no evidence that it exists, how can you argue that some one should put forward an argument that it doesn't exist. This is not speculation, it is speculation to claim it does exist and has magical properties that get it out of a black hole and can be its own antiparticle existing in the same space.

[StringJunky]

@ all

 

I have not speculated anything of note on this thread, I have restricted myself to asking questions ref other peoples theories. Entropic Gravity is an existing theory, it is not mine. I had hoped a discussion on various gravitational theories based around virtual particles would be of interest to more than just myself.

 

@ Migl your description of entropic gravity bears no resemblance to what is written in the link I posted above, I think you are talking about something else.

 

@ Swan

The graviton is a theoretical particle, it is not a fact of science. There is no evidence that it exists, how can you argue that some one should put forward an argument that it doesn't exist. This is not speculation, it is speculation to claim it does exist and has magical properties that get it out of a black hole and can be its own antiparticle existing in the same space.

There's enough conventional science to keep you going for many years on the subject. I am of the thinking that one should fully understand that before looking for alternative explanations.

[swansont]

@ Swan

The graviton is a theoretical particle, it is not a fact of science. There is no evidence that it exists, how can you argue that some one should put forward an argument that it doesn't exist. This is not speculation, it is speculation to claim it does exist and has magical properties that get it out of a black hole and can be its own antiparticle existing in the same space.

Your assertion that gravity can all be accounted for with quantum foam instead of gravitons is a big speculation. You might have noticed that people have been able to say what the properties of a graviton would be if it is found to exist. That's based on models. So any discussion of gravitons fulfills the requirement of making testable predictions (and not just in principle — as Mordred pointed out, the detection of gravitational waves is entirely consistent with gravitons being spin-2). Your speculation, however, is hand-waving, with no models backing it up, contrary to what the rules demand.

[MigL]

You realize that quantum foam is a 'speculation' and only a quantum gravity theory will give a detailed picture at those scales.

 

And my description was NOT of entropic gravity, but of the term quantum foam which you have misused on several occasions on this thread.

( simply google quantum foam to verify the accuracy of my description, which was taken from one of J A Wheeler's books )

[Mordred]

Aporopriate as quantum spin foam relies on the Wheeler-Dewitt equations. What is the textbook title. I'm interested in adding it to my collection

[MigL]

Not a textbook, Mordred, but his autobiography. I consider J A Wheeler one of the top ten physicists of the past century.

I still have it, but I don't recall the exact title; and finding it would be a chore.

[StringJunky]

Not a textbook, Mordred, but his autobiography. I consider J A Wheeler one of the top ten physicists of the past century.

I still have it, but I don't recall the exact title; and finding it would be a chore.

Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics

[imatfaal]

Not a textbook, Mordred, but his autobiography. I consider J A Wheeler one of the top ten physicists of the past century.

I still have it, but I don't recall the exact title; and finding it would be a chore.

 

Along with Eddington one of the great explainers - but top ten overall? Sorry shouldnt have responded - reply is too offtopic even for me

[Mordred]

Thanks Migl no prob. I've always been an avid collector of textbooks. (lol my wife would say hoarder)

[Handy andy]

There's enough conventional science to keep you going for many years on the subject. I am of the thinking that one should fully understand that before looking for alternative explanations.

 

Thanks all for the input, it is actually really appreciated even though I may not understand it all yet. You have all given me some interesting things to think about, and things to chase up.

 

If I was looking to start out on a career in physics and had a lifetime in front of me to study every established theory, there still would still not be enough time to learn everything, I am interested in.