New interpretations of physics that lead to experiments

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, POVphysics said:

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?

What makes it special???

[POVphysics]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

What makes it special???

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.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

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).

Aren't gravitons and photons mass less? 

[POVphysics]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Aren't gravitons and photons mass less?

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. 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

The expanding graviton looks like this.  They start at a point, and expand at the speed of light

So, what makes them special?

[swansont]

6 hours ago, POVphysics said:

I've been watching episodes of Star Trek NG, and I wonder why we can't do some of those things. 

Because it’s science fiction, and concepts are chosen based on plot considerations rather than technical validity.

[Moontanman]

There are some interesting speculations in physics, some are actually based on science fiction concepts and some science fiction concepts are based in actual physics. Most of the really wild stuff is just speculations that take mathematical concepts and try to apply them in real life. Personally, even with my minimal understanding of physics, I would be surprised if some break through totally overturned  physics as we know them and allowed things like FTL or alternate realities but it can't be ruled out and there are scientists who are pushing the boundaries. Sabine Hossenfelder and Michio Kaku are like opposite ends of the spectrum of speculation. Michio Kaku is more of a sensationalist and Sabine Hossenfelder is a bit more down to Earth. I wouldn't say science is not looking into wild possibilities but i don't think wildly spending money to try and make a science fiction concept work without some prospect rooted in reality is a good idea. 

I always cringe when I hear someone question why science isn't looking into some wild concept, usually the reason is the concept was just plucked from where the sun don't shine instead of some odd observation or evidence...   

[MigL]

I am a Trekky, so I will not put down Star Trek: TNG.
( Heisenberg compensators in the transporter … nice )

However …
Entanglement is similar, but not quite the same as a 6sided die, a coin, or a pair of shoes.
The difference is that once you see a 1 on the side of the die, the other side was always a 6, once you see heads, or a left shoe, the other side was tails, or a right shoe, even before you saw heads , or the left shoe.
Entanglement is not like that, spin up, or down, is undefined in the observed particle, or its sister entangled particle, until the common wave function is collapsed by the observation on one particle.
So, although similarly a type of correlation, in practice it is very different.

Your OP postulates the 'graviton' being responsible for space-time.
I'm not sure you are using the accepted science definition of 'graviton', or your own made-up definition.
( you should clarify, we only use accepted definitions; makes it easy to understand each other )
Space-time is the geometric field of gravity, and excitations of the field give rise to virtual or real particles ( depending on a threshold of action ) in any quantum field theory. In accepted Physics, the quantum particle generated by excitations of a quantized space-time field is given the name 'graviton'; with very specific properties.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, POVphysics said:

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

You aren’t the first to make this appeal (“open your mind” or “think outside the box”) but it’s misguided. You own the burden of proof. Such appeals are typically used as a smokescreen to cover gaps in whatever is being proposed. 

More science, less hand-waving. 

[POVphysics]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Your OP postulates the 'graviton' being responsible for space-time.
I'm not sure you are using the accepted science definition of 'graviton', or your own made-up definition.

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:

1. big bang.
2. Double slit experiment.
3. 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.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

More science, less hand-waving. 

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?

[MigL]

24 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

because you don't know what it should look like

On the contrary, we know exactly what it should look like.
Spin 2, chargeless, massless and therefore, of energy related to their frequency.

Unfortunately, you don't type in 'graviton' into a search engine at the LHC, and its track magically appears.

If they  exists, their interaction with massive matter has an extremely low cross section, making their detection almost impossible.

Edited November 28, 2020 by MigL

[POVphysics]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

On the contrary, we know exactly what it should look like.
Spin 2, chargeless, massless and therefore, of energy related to their frequency.

Unfortunately, you don't type in 'graviton\ into a search engine at the LHC, and its track magically appears.

If they  exists, their interaction with massive matter has an extremely low cross section, making their detection almost impossible.

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.

[swansont]

28 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

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?

This is both a) not physics and b) a false dichotomy 

You really think there have been nothing new in understanding physics since 1920? You exclude much of QM, for starters. The approach we have has led to plenty of new experiments that haven’t been tried before. 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

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 quantum states of spherical waves (s waves) are not monochromatic plane waves like the ones you're writing.

 

3 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

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?

The speed of light in vacuum plays no role in inflation or in present expansion. The cosmological constant is a free parameter of the theory that must be measured independently.

[POVphysics]

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

The quantum states of spherical waves (s waves) are not monochromatic plane waves like the ones you're writing.

The surface of expanding gravitons are electromagnetic waves.  They are virtual photons unless there is energy to make them real photons.

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

The speed of light in vacuum plays no role in inflation or in present expansion. The cosmological constant is a free parameter of the theory that must be measured independently.

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.

[joigus]

46 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

The surface of expanding gravitons are electromagnetic waves.  They are virtual photons unless there is energy to make them real photons.

The fact that spherical waves are not monochromatic has nothing to do with whether they are electromagnetic or not. The waves you put in your picture are inconsistent with the symmetry.

Gravitons are spin 2, and photons are spin 1. Gravity cannot be built from spin 1 particles or spin 1/2. That's charted territory, and known not to work.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-a-graviton-(if-it-exists)-has-spin-2

MigL has given you the lowdown: The cross section would have to be many orders of magnitude bigger than it actually is.

That's why gravitons haven't been detected, not because "physicists don't believe in them". Were gravitons made of photons they would have been detected many decades ago. It's kinda like trying to say that a neutrino is made of electrons.

If what you say were right, scattering electrons gravitons would be very easy. You could do it in a garage.

Edited November 29, 2020 by joigus

[POVphysics]

Any questions about where the physics constants came from should be directed to the justifiable existence of Expanding Gravitons.  What causes the physics constants?  They are characteristics of gravitons. 

One of the characteristics of bosons is that they overlap.  The same is true of gravitons.  In fact, they pretty much do nothing but overlap.  The existence of virtual particle fields is, I would firmly speculate,  the effect of gravitons overlapping.  But only the subset of gravitons that have an age between t1 and t2 (and radius r1 and r2).

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

The fact that spherical waves are not monochromatic has nothing to do with whether they are electromagnetic or not. The waves you put in your picture are inconsistent with the symmetry.

Gravitons are spin 2, and photons are spin 1. Gravity cannot be built from spin 1 particles or spin 1/2. That's charted territory, and known not to work.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-a-graviton-(if-it-exists)-has-spin-2

MigL has given you the lowdown: The cross section would have to be many orders of magnitude bigger than it actually is.

That's why gravitons haven't been detected, not because "physicists don't believe in them". Were gravitons made of photons they would have been detected many decades ago. It's kinda like trying to say that a neutrino is made of electrons.

If what you say were right, scattering electrons would be very easy. You could do it in a garage.

The surface area of Expanding Gravitons are photons.  The interior of the graviton are the quantum states (particularly for position and momentum).  The Spin 2 property of gravitons is what relates it to the stress energy tensor, a matrix which is a rank 2 tensor.  There is a way to show that momentum quantum states in the interior of gravitons can be used to induce forces. I can explain how expanding gravitons can be used to account for gravitational forces.

 

[swansont]

Justifiable implies you have a model, making testable predictions. Evidence to back up your claims.

Without that, it’s not justifiable.

[MigL]

56 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

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.

Those were all valid reasons for Religion, many years ago.
Some of us have moved on, and try to do real Physics.

It's a hard, time consuming process, that doesn't simply rely on guesses.

[joigus]

21 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

One of the characteristics of bosons is that they overlap.  The same is true of gravitons.  In fact, they pretty much do nothing but overlap. 

Bosons do many more things than "overlap" --whatever that means. They scatter charged particles, at very high energies they can even scatter each other, they form Bose condensates, they can form aggregates that travel as solitons through non-linear media, they flip spins, and some of them can even acquire mass.

x-posted with MigL.

Edited November 29, 2020 by joigus

[POVphysics]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Justifiable implies you have a model, making testable predictions. Evidence to back up your claims.

Without that, it’s not justifiable.

No, what I did was I looked for patterns in QM/GR/SR/big bang cosmology/physics constants/what is time/what is spacetime, and I looked for the simplest explanation to explain all those phenomena.  I built my model out of well established physics.  And out popped an experiment.

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Those were all valid reasons for Religion, many years ago.
Some of us have moved on, and try to do real Physics.

It's a hard, time consuming process, that doesn't simply rely on guesses.

What are guesses?  Guesses are insights that can be tested.  If physics is not about experiments, then it's not better than astrology.

Edited November 29, 2020 by POVphysics

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

No, what I did was I looked for patterns in QM/GR/SR/big bang cosmology/physics constants/what is time/what is spacetime, and I looked for the simplest explanation to explain all those phenomena.  I built my model out of well established physics.  And out popped an experiment.

What experiment? How does it uniquely establish your hypothesis?

[POVphysics]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

What experiment? How does it uniquely establish your hypothesis?

If expanding gravitons exist, then they have gravitational potential energy built into them as characteristics.  Quantum entanglements between two photons are gravitons.  If that is so, then I can take a laser, and split the beam into two beams of entangled photons P1 and P2 (by using the appropriate quantum entanglement crystal).  I can use mirrors to send P1 beam into beam stop1, and P2 into beam stop 2.  Beam stops 1 and 2 are separated by a few inches.  I can accumulate a quantity of entangled photons between the two beam stops.  I believe there exists a quantum entanglement field between those two beam stops.  Are you ready for the second part of the experiment?

34 minutes ago, joigus said:

Bosons do many more things than "overlap" --whatever that means. They scatter charged particles, at very high energies they can even scatter each other, they form Bose condensates, they can form aggregates that travel as solitons through non-linear media, they flip spins, and some of them can even acquire mass

Overlap means that bosons can share the same space.  It's important to my hypothesis because overlapping expanding gravitons is fundamental to explaining what spacetime is, and how it's different from the virtual particle fields of the standard model.  I'm not that familiar with solitons, other than to know that solitons are made of many waves.

Edited November 29, 2020 by POVphysics

[swansont]

36 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

If expanding gravitons exist, then they have gravitational potential energy built into them as characteristics.  Quantum entanglements between two photons are gravitons. 

There is no evidence this is true. Photons interact via the electromagnetic interaction, and there is currently no evidence for the existence of gravitons.

 

36 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

 

If that is so, then I can take a laser, and split the beam into two beams of entangled photons P1 and P2 (by using the appropriate quantum entanglement crystal).  I can use mirrors to send P1 beam into beam stop1, and P2 into beam stop 2.  Beam stops 1 and 2 are separated by a few inches.  I can accumulate a quantity of entangled photons between the two beam stops.  I believe there exists a quantum entanglement field between those two beam stops. 

What, exactly, is entangled? A beam stop absorbs photons. 

 

36 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

Are you ready for the second part of the experiment?

Not until you have a first part.

 

[POVphysics]

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So, what makes them special?

Because they can tie so many loose ends in physics together.  They would explain length contraction and time dilation as being an interaction between two gravitons with a relative velocity.  We would be able to answer the question:  what is spacetime made of.  We can answer the question:  how are the physics constants introduced into our universe.  What are wave functions. How does gravity work.

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

There is no evidence this is true. Photons interact via the electromagnetic interaction, and there is currently no evidence for the existence of gravitons.

Wait a minute.  You're argument against my theory is based upon the inaccurate conclusion of the Michelson Morley experiment.  You assume that since MM measured no movement of the earth in the "luminiferous aether" then therefore no medium of any kind, regardless of its properties can exist. 

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

What, exactly, is entangled? A beam stop absorbs photons. 

The entanglement field exists until the laser is switched off.  Then, presumably the entanglements would decay.  But what we're really after, is that we have good reasons to believe the quantum entanglement field can be used to store gravitational potential energy in those momentum quantum states. 

If the beamstops are replaced with peices of Gallium Aluminum Arsenide, then the photons would be trapped between the electron energy levels of the crystal.  If the photons are trapped, then the quantum entanglement field would have a slower decay rate.

There are quantum mechanics operators p_x and x.  They are applied to the wave function PSI.  Gravitons behave like objects that are made out of mathematics and physic constants. So the quantum operators are therefore, just characteristics of expanding gravitons.  When they collide with particles, they can become part of the quantum field around the particles, that is described by wavefunctions.  In this way, gravitons are wave functions.  Eventually, the graviton can escape the quantum system, expand, and become part of the spacetime continuum.  It's a way of recycling gravitons for other uses.  This is to imply that spacetime itself is made of objects that have quantum states for position/momentum built into them.

Edited November 29, 2020 by POVphysics