New interpretations of physics that lead to experiments

[POVphysics]

15 minutes ago, joigus said:

Number of photons is not a conserved quantity. The point is not a single photon; the point is individual photons; namely, multi-photon states for which the number of photons can be counted.

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.

1. 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. 
2. Wave functions are describing gravitons.
3. The quantum entanglement between two photons can be described by a wave function (in principle) and is identically a graviton.
4. 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.

15 minutes ago, joigus said:

They do indeed give you everything. The problem is they give you more than you bargained for. In particular, they give you dilatons, due to the conformal invariance of the theory (you can stretch it and squish it, and squash it, and the theory remains the same.)

They also give you ambient space-times that are difficult to deal with, called Calabi-Yau manifolds. They are complexified, and they are Ricci-flat, which is the next best thing after being flat.

Technical problems appear when trying to compactify the fields in 26 dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds, because there are astronomical numbers of ways to compactify. Compactifying means reducing most of those dimensions to little loops that cannot be seen from our perspective, in a cooling universe.

I've tried to be as helpful as possible, but you should really start reading what you're told and slowing down on the lecturing everybody else part of your present discourse.

Some of my points, and those from others, you've chosen to simply ignore. It's quite irritating.

Edit: Another problem with string theory is the difficult to get predictions that can be confirmed in the laboratory, as the main features show up at the Planckian scale.

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:

1. time
2. position in space
3. spacetime
4. gravity
5. standard model particles
6. wave function solutions to quantum systems
7. geodesics
8. Gravitational force and potential energy
9. Quantum entanglementns
10. lasers
11. physics constants
12. The big bang
13. gravitational redshift
14. gravitational time dilation
15. invariance of the speed of light
16. leptogenesis
17. baryogensis
18. Quantum operators and expectation values.
19. dark energy
20. 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. 

Edited November 29, 2020 by POVphysics

[zapatos]

34 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

What is string theory based on?  Vibrating spaghetti?

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.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, POVphysics said:

If you're going to criticize, criticize me for what I actually affirm.

We have and you have ignored everything.

If you stuggle to receive information, you have to at least acknowledge you're not the smartest here...

[POVphysics]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

38 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

What is string theory based on?  Vibrating spaghetti?

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.

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We have and you have ignored everything.

If you stuggle to receive information, you have to at least acknowledge you're not the smartest here...

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? 

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

But then don't expect me to believe the scientific authority when they affirm facts that are not based on experimental data.

Again, this is about the science, not you. Quit making it personal. No one cares what you believe. They care about the science.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

 If you think I ignored something, what was it? 

Your education...

I'm sad to say...

[POVphysics]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

8 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

But then don't expect me to believe the scientific authority when they affirm facts that are not based on experimental data.

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.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

10 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

 If you think I ignored something, what was it? 

Your education...

I'm sad to say...

I'm sad you had to drag the conversation into the gutter.

[dimreepr]

I'd accept your neg rep, if it taught you a lesson...

[POVphysics]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'd accept your neg rep, if it taught you a lesson...

This topic was killed by trolls.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

This topic was killed by trolls.

Trolls are people too...

[joigus]

32 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

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. 

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.

(*) It's a dimensionless number.

You calling me, or anybody else here, "troll" won't have much of an effect.

Edited November 29, 2020 by joigus

[POVphysics]

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

34 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

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. 

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.

14 minutes ago, joigus said:

You calling me, or anybody else here, "troll" won't have much of an effect.

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.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

We disagree on what a graviton is.

Imagine that...

[POVphysics]

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

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

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.

That's why I'd rather work on other, more easy to grasp, aspects of physics. Maybe some day you can explain to me what a graviton is.

In the meantime, I'll tell you that the fact that,

\[\frac{\alpha_{\textrm{grav}}}{\alpha_{\textrm{em}}}=10^{-44}\]

means that it's 10^-44 times less likely to scatter a graviton than to scatter an electron off the same scatterer. If you don't know that and don't care for it, don't think has any bearing on your problem, I can't help you.

Giving neg reps every which one who offends you by not agreeing with you, won't help your idea along either.

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'd accept your neg rep, if it taught you a lesson...

In fact, I'd accept several...

And hope...

[swansont]

14 hours ago, POVphysics said:

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. 

I asked what was entangled. Can you answer that question, instead of a different one?

 

14 hours ago, POVphysics said:

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.

How do you “trap” photons “between the electron energy levels of the crystal”?

 

14 hours ago, POVphysics said:

There are quantum mechanics operators p_x and x.  They are applied to the wave function PSI. 

This would give you p and x. What is the relevance?

14 hours ago, POVphysics said:

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.

This is mostly word salad. 

59 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

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.

1. 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. 

There is no evidence that gravitons exist, and no evidence that they expand.

 

 

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

I asked what was entangled. Can you answer that question, instead of a different one?

 

 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

How do you “trap” photons “between the electron energy levels of the crystal”?

These are very good questions, and I must say I've been thinking about asking both. One of them I did: "What is this entanglement field?" But I also was kept thinking for a while, how do you trap photons between the energy levels of a semiconductor?

 

 

[POVphysics]

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

Giving neg reps every which one who offends you by not agreeing with you, won't help your idea along either.

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. 

 

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

hat's why I'd rather work on other, more easy to grasp, aspects of physics. Maybe some day you can explain to me what a graviton is.

In the meantime, I'll tell you that the fact that,

 

αgravαem=10−44

 

means that it's 10^-44 times less likely to scatter a graviton than to scatter an electron off the same scatterer. If you don't know that and don't care for it, don't think has any bearing on your problem, I can't help you.

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?

[joigus]

1 minute ago, POVphysics said:

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. 

You're confusing Klein bottles with Kaluza-Klein unified model of EM/gravitation.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

You're confusing Klein bottles with Kaluza-Klein unified model of EM/gravitation.

Let's just accept, he's confused... 

[joigus]

10 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

Do you think that gravitons are point particles?

Massless bosons cannot be considered point particles, neither can they be considered spherical waves. Localisation for massless particles is a tricky thing. They register their "going through" so to speak, but it's not consistent to consider them at point \( x \).

For gravitons, to make things worse, the number that controls how strongly they couple to energy is extremely tiny at the energies presently available. Your gravitons as entangled photons would not work as actual gravitons should, among other things because they would couple with charged particles too strongly --10⁴⁴ times more strongly than required.

You really must go back to the drawing board.

Edited November 29, 2020 by joigus
minor correction

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, joigus said:

Giving neg reps every which one who offends you by not agreeing with you, won't help your idea along either.

I’ve gone back and reversed the ones I could 

There are, however, a few left 

[POVphysics]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

I asked what was entangled. Can you answer that question, instead of a different one?

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. 

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

This would give you p and x. What is the relevance?

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).

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

There is no evidence that gravitons exist, and no evidence that they expand.

If gravitons don't expand, then why does the derivation of time dilation suggest that something is expanding at the speed of light?

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

You're confusing Klein bottles with Kaluza-Klein unified model of EM/gravitation.

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.

Edited November 29, 2020 by POVphysics

[iNow]

2 hours ago, POVphysics said:

So your deflecting a simple question

2 hours ago, POVphysics said:

So your content to being told

* you’re