New interpretations of physics that lead to experiments

[POVphysics]

18 minutes ago, joigus said:

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.

If a charge can interact with a quantum entanglement field, then it seems to me that a creative person could do something useful with that?  I was going to argue that a quantum entanglement field does exist and if you went to the LHC and caused a beam of ions to travel through a quantum entanglement field, you would have to include the wave function of the field in the calculation to figure out what might happen.

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

14 hours ago, POVphysics said:

Gravitons behave like objects that are made out of mathematics and physics 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.

It actually does make sense, I'll have to draw you a picture.

Edited November 29, 2020 by POVphysics

[joigus]

To give you an example of something that would make sense to me, and I'm sure to @swansont too, if you were able to define an entanglement entropy as a function of space time, then you would have an entanglement field.

For a system with two degrees of freedom maximally entangled, entanglement entropy is,

\[-\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{1}{2}=\log2\]

For a more general 2-DOF system with spatial dependence added to the broth, it'd be something like*,

\[s\left(x\right)=-\left|c_{1}\left(x\right)\right|^{2}\log\left|c_{1}\left(x\right)\right|^{2}-\left|c_{2}\left(x\right)\right|^{2}\log\left|c_{2}\left(x\right)\right|^{2}\]

But you're being very vague about what this entanglement field is. Is something like that what you mean?

* The \( c_1 \) and \( c_2 \) would be the amplitudes (equivalent to your A's). Well, to your A's if you corrected the spatial dependence in the wrong place!

Edited November 29, 2020 by joigus
Addition

[studiot]

16 hours ago, POVphysics said:

I'm not that familiar with solitons, other than to know that solitons are made of many waves.

I'll say 

FYI the term 'soliton' is a contraction of the full definition 'solitary wave'

 

[joigus]

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’ve gone back and reversed the ones I could 

There are, however, a few left 

LOL. I've done my best to lessen the carnage too.

[POVphysics]

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

To give you an example of something that would make sense to me, and I'm sure to @swansont too, if you were able to define an entanglement entropy as a function of space time, then you would have an entanglement field.

For a system with two degrees of freedom maximally entangled, entanglement entropy is,

\[-\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{1}{2}=\log2\]

For a more general 2-DOF system with spatial dependence added to the broth, it'd be something like,

\[s\left(x\right)=-\left|c_{1}\left(x\right)\right|^{2}\log\left|c_{1}\left(x\right)\right|^{2}-\left|c_{2}\left(x\right)\right|^{2}\log\left|c_{2}\left(x\right)\right|^{2}\]

But you're being very vague about what this entanglement field is. Is something like that what you mean?

I think you're trying to keep track of all the combinations.  All I want from the entanglements is those momentum and position quantum states.  I believe that if I blueshift the P1 photons, redshift the P2 photons, that the momentum states will align in a way that acts like a force of gravity.  The position states will align in a way that is similar to spacetime curvature.  Any particles that occupy one of those quantum states will experience the gravity field. 

I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful in understanding entanglement entropy.  I think it was you who didn't like my 6 sided die analogy.  LOL.  So, what if we compare entangled photons to pennies.  One side is heads, other side is tales, they are spinning so we don't know which side is which. 

[studiot]

56 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

If I cannot convince you that a graviton is a 4D point in space

Space has 3 dimensions.

Can you explain why we expect to observe 3 dimensions in space and do in fact observe 3, rather than 2 or 4 ?

[POVphysics]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Space has 3 dimensions.

Can you explain why we expect to observe 3 dimensions in space and do in fact observe 3, rather than 2 or 4 ?

In my expanding graviton hypothesis, the graviton causes everything else to behave the way we observe it (in terms of physics).  There are 3 spatial dimensions because that's the way gravitons are.  I dare not say they were made that way!  They just are that way. 

A graviton will obey the equation X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 - (ct)^2 = 0.

Edited November 29, 2020 by POVphysics

[joigus]

Your two-photon gravitons would not satisfy the equivalence principle either, as photons couple to electric charge, not to energy.

There are many, many issues with your idea. I think it's time you give it a rest.

[MigL]

1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

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

A photon or electron can be ( at times ) considered point particles.
Yet the Kaluza-Kline theory is a 5dimensional theory ( GR with one added dimension ) which produces classical gravity AND electromagnetism.

You gave a list ( 2 pages back ) of all the 'loose ends' your theory attempts to 'fix'.
Theories are simply models, and by definition, cannot be the reality.
There are always loose ends, or areas where the model is not applicable.

If the standard model, which is largely based on observational evidence, suggests that the graviton is a spin 2, chargeless, massless quantum particle, what evidence do you base your description of the graviton on ?

[swansont]

5 hours ago, POVphysics said:

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.

Yes, it can. Via parametric downconversion.

Is this your answer? The photons are entangled? In this system, the polarization states are entangled.

But you have a beam block that seems to be a prominent feature of your experiment. No more photons, if they hit a beam block.

Quote

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. 

No, the photon is destroyed. There is no photon anymore.

 

Quote

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).

But the polarization is entangled. Not the momentum.

 

Quote

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

I’m not aware that it suggests this, but even if it does, it says nothing about gravitons 

 

5 hours ago, POVphysics said:

could

 

What is a centrifuged photon? How would you do this to a photon? How would you “place” it along the x axis?

Why would its frequency be a function of x?

 

 

At some point soon, you need to answer with actual physics, i.e. without making stuff up

[POVphysics]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

A photon or electron can be ( at times ) considered point particles.
Yet the Kaluza-Kline theory is a 5dimensional theory ( GR with one added dimension ) which produces classical gravity AND electromagnetism.

You gave a list ( 2 pages back ) of all the 'loose ends' your theory attempts to 'fix'.
Theories are simply models, and by definition, cannot be the reality.
There are always loose ends, or areas where the model is not applicable.

If the standard model, which is largely based on observational evidence, suggests that the graviton is a spin 2, chargeless, massless quantum particle, what evidence do you base your description of the graviton on ?

Your list of graviton features is correct but IMO incomplete.  I'm glad you noticed the list of loose ends.  By adding just three additional features,

1. gravitons are carriers of physics constants (because something has to account for them),
2. gravitons are wave functions (which is how we unify QM with GR by broadcasting quantum states so densely that they become geodesics and spacetime geometry)
3. They expand from a point, a sphere of radius r = ct (got the idea from the right triangle derivation of time dilation; also, wave expand from a point in the two slit experiment; also, the big bang expanded from a point; also the recognition that causality would begin from a point event and spread its effects at the speed of light in all directions.

There was a minor assumption that the surface area of the graviton is the virtual photon but the interior of the graviton is the quantum states that, en masse, become spacetime geometry.  Since the graviton is a boson, then the overlap of a large number of gravitons produces spacetime geometry.  But to make things simple, since each graviton expands over a very wide range of radiuses r = ct, in a small time, it seemed like we could create the quantum fields for leptons, baryons, HIggs field, just by assigning the fields existence to be based upon some range between r1 = ct1 and r2 = ct2; that is more of a creative guess on my part based upon the inclination to be parsimonious (tight fisted) with more particles.  Why do we need more particles?

In addition, there are grey areas about the speed of light, but contradictions like the inflationary epoch that seem to violate the speed of light restriction.  Instead of one spacetime geometry with a speed of light restriction, would it be better to have a spacetime made of 10^200 gravitons, where each graviton has it's own speed of light restriction, geometry, clock, ruler, etc., and leave the interaction properties of multiple gravitons to the physics community to sort out. In the spirit of parsimony, 10^100 gravitons (at the big bang) would have interactions that, for each graviton would be limited to the speed of light, but together, would expand faster than the speed of light, but also explain the inflationary epoch without anything new beyond the graviton. 

 

 

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, it can. Via parametric downconversion.

Is this your answer? The photons are entangled? In this system, the polarization states are entangled.

There are many ways to entangle photons; but ALL entanglements are just a graviton between two particles.  One would have to consult an experimental expert on the specifics of what kind of entanglement.  So it follows that there are different kinds of entanglement fields. 

But you have a beam block that seems to be a prominent feature of your experiment. No more photons, if they hit a beam block.

No, the photon is destroyed. There is no photon anymore.

If a single/regular photon is absorbed by the electron in a valence band, and jumps to the conduction band, there is nothing tied to the photon, it's lost.  But if the photon P1 is entangled to another photon P2, it's like having a string attached to it.  That string is the entanglement, and ALL entanglements are gravitons.  So you would end up with a graviton that is attached to the P1 crystal (or beam stop) and the other end attached to the P2 crystal (beam stop).  The result would be a quantum entanglement field that spans between P1 and P2.

But the polarization is entangled. Not the momentum.

All gravitons have polarization states and momentum states.  But the momentum states are what we're looking at.  The idea is that a particle will occupy one of those momentum states in the quantum entanglement field.  But by blueshifting the P1 photons and redshifting the P2 photons, we expect to create a linear change in the momentum states, a Delta p/Delta x, which will cause the occupying particle to change its momentum as it moves along the x-direction.  The x-direction is between P1 and P2 beam stops.

I’m not aware that it suggests this, but even if it does, it says nothing about gravitons 

Do you see that arrow?  You could put a photon there and the photon would travel along the path.  But we know it's not a photon.  We know that it's a mechanism that travels at the speed of light.  That mechanism is responsible for creating spacetime geometry.  If there was a mechanism that created spacetime geometry, why wouldn't you call it a graviton? A graviton is the carrier of the gravitational force.  But gravity is caused by curvature of spacetime geometry.  Therefore, the mechanism should contribute to spacetime geometry.  The only kind of mechanism that can contribute to spacetime geometry is one that is itself made of spacetime geometry.

What is a centrifuged photon? How would you do this to a photon? How would you “place” it along the x axis?

I wrote a paper.  https://www.scribd.com/document/484351155/Core-Knowledge-2

Don't be put off by the glitter, it helps me grasp the concepts.

Why would its frequency be a function of x?

The surface of a graviton is a photon.  The interior quantum states are the history of what the photon has done.  What we're going to do before we put the P1 and P2 photons into a beam stop, we're going to put them through an optical centrifuge.    

If we were to aim a laser at the center of a nearby black hole, the photons would blueshift as they approach the event horizon.   If a photon were to escape a photon along the radial axis, it would redshift as it climbed the potential energy well.  This is just gravitational redshift. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

But we don't live near any black holes.  So we're going to try to simulate a black hole by running photons along an optical fiber that is attached to the radius of a spinning disk.  I got the idea from the Equivalence Principle.  Granted, even if the disk was several meters in diameter and spinning as fast as the materials of the disk can endure, the momentum (direction) of the photons would only change slightly.   You would have to do this several million times to sufficiently blueshift/redshift the entangled photons AND create the change in the frequency/momentum states along the x=axis.

At some point soon, you need to answer with actual physics, i.e. without making stuff up

I want to thank you for the opportunity to express these ideas.  As I have argued, one Expanding Graviton will explain most of what the physics community still doesn't understand, with a very small number of assumptions.  Furthermore, it comes with an experiment, something that the leading physics theories do not.  The experiments that I have proposed were inspired by gravitational redshift, gravitational time dilation, and an oversight that physicists don't talk about (what is the connection between a photons frequency/E=hf AND gravity)? 

 

[POVphysics]

The light cone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone also suggests that an expanding graviton is the best building block for spacetime.  Gravitons are the very epitome of causality.  Events cause gravitons, and there effects spread spherically outward at the speed of light.  The reason that photons are the surface area of gravitons is because photons travel at the speed of light, relative to the point of the event.  Everything inside of the sphere has to do with wave functions quantum states. 

Events cause gravitons. 

Edited November 30, 2020 by POVphysics

[POVphysics]

The difference between entangled photons and entangled electrons is that the electrons exist with a graviton between them.  In the case of two entangled photons, the photons are excitations of the graviton, on opposite sides.  When the photon is absorbed by a crystal, the energy is used to excite a crystal electron to a higher energy shell, but the graviton remains attached to the crystal until it breaks free or is absorbed by the crystal

[swansont]

9 hours ago, POVphysics said:

Yes, it can. Via parametric downconversion.

Is this your answer? The photons are entangled? In this system, the polarization states are entangled.

There are many ways to entangle photons; but ALL entanglements are just a graviton between two particles.  One would have to consult an experimental expert on the specifics of what kind of entanglement.  So it follows that there are different kinds of entanglement fields. 

The graviton part is your conjecture. I was asking about the experiment itself, and YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

One of the unwritten rules here is that getting someone to clarify their speculation shouldn;t be like pulling teeth.

The system you described, using a crystal, entangles polarizations. If you want to entangle some other properties, you need a different setup.

Quote

But you have a beam block that seems to be a prominent feature of your experiment. No more photons, if they hit a beam block.

No, the photon is destroyed. There is no photon anymore.

If a single/regular photon is absorbed by the electron in a valence band, and jumps to the conduction band, there is nothing tied to the photon, it's lost.  But if the photon P1 is entangled to another photon P2, it's like having a string attached to it.  That string is the entanglement, and ALL entanglements are gravitons.  So you would end up with a graviton that is attached to the P1 crystal (or beam stop) and the other end attached to the P2 crystal (beam stop).  The result would be a quantum entanglement field that spans between P1 and P2.

No, it's not really like having a string attached to it. That's a pop-sci explanation.

What is the specific interaction with the beam stop that preserves the entanglement? To answer this, you need to state what properties are entangled. Entanglement is not a magic description you can use to conjure up some physics.

 

Quote

But the polarization is entangled. Not the momentum.

All gravitons have polarization states and momentum states.  But the momentum states are what we're looking at. 

OK, then how are you entangling these momentum states and how is this entanglement preserved during the absorption process?

 

Quote

 

The idea is that a particle will occupy one of those momentum states in the quantum entanglement field. 

Can you point to any established physics that says there is such a field, or is this something you've made up?

 

Quote

 

But by blueshifting the P1 photons and redshifting the P2 photons, we expect to create a linear change in the momentum states, a Delta p/Delta x, which will cause the occupying particle to change its momentum as it moves along the x-direction.  The x-direction is between P1 and P2 beam stops.

In your drawing you have P1 and P2 taking different paths. If that's the case, they aren't entangled - you know whatthe momentum states are. If they are entangled, you don't know what the momentum state of a photon is.

You would have to have both momentum states present in any beam. Higher momentum and lower momentum. 

 

 

Quote

I’m not aware that it suggests this, but even if it does, it says nothing about gravitons 

Do you see that arrow?  You could put a photon there and the photon would travel along the path.  But we know it's not a photon.  We know that it's a mechanism that travels at the speed of light.

Well, it's a light clock, so we know it's a photon.

 

Quote

  That mechanism is responsible for creating spacetime geometry.  If there was a mechanism that created spacetime geometry, why wouldn't you call it a graviton?

 

because we've reserved that name for the force carrier of gravity, should we end up having a quantum theory of gravity.

 

 

 

Quote

What is a centrifuged photon? How would you do this to a photon? How would you “place” it along the x axis?

I wrote a paper.  https://www.scribd.com/document/484351155/Core-Knowledge-2

Good for you. Answer the question HERE.

 

Quote

Why would its frequency be a function of x?

The surface of a graviton is a photon.  The interior quantum states are the history of what the photon has done.  What we're going to do before we put the P1 and P2 photons into a beam stop, we're going to put them through an optical centrifuge.    

Ah, it's more made-up crap. There's a lot to unpack in "the surface of a graviton is a photon" (considering that they're both moving at c, that's a lot to explain)

 

Quote

If we were to aim a laser at the center of a nearby black hole, the photons would blueshift as they approach the event horizon.   If a photon were to escape a photon along the radial axis, it would redshift as it climbed the potential energy well.  This is just gravitational redshift. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

But we don't live near any black holes.  So we're going to try to simulate a black hole by running photons along an optical fiber that is attached to the radius of a spinning disk.  I got the idea from the Equivalence Principle.  Granted, even if the disk was several meters in diameter and spinning as fast as the materials of the disk can endure, the momentum (direction) of the photons would only change slightly.   You would have to do this several million times to sufficiently blueshift/redshift the entangled photons AND create the change in the frequency/momentum states along the x=axis.

Attached to the radius? How do you attach a photon to anything?

 

 

4 hours ago, POVphysics said:

The difference between entangled photons and entangled electrons is that the electrons exist with a graviton between them.  In the case of two entangled photons, the photons are excitations of the graviton, on opposite sides.  When the photon is absorbed by a crystal, the energy is used to excite a crystal electron to a higher energy shell, but the graviton remains attached to the crystal until it breaks free or is absorbed by the crystal

But gravitons move at c, so how can it be "between" the electrons or "attached" to the crystals?

[POVphysics]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

9 hours ago, POVphysics said:

 

Yes, it can. Via parametric downconversion.

Is this your answer? The photons are entangled? In this system, the polarization states are entangled.

There are many ways to entangle photons; but ALL entanglements are just a graviton between two particles.  One would have to consult an experimental expert on the specifics of what kind of entanglement.  So it follows that there are different kinds of entanglement fields. 

The graviton part is your conjecture. I was asking about the experiment itself, and YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

One of the unwritten rules here is that getting someone to clarify their speculation shouldn;t be like pulling teeth.

The system you described, using a crystal, entangles polarizations. If you want to entangle some other properties, you need a different setup.

I am not that familiar with the experimental process of creating quantum entanglements and verifying their existence.  I have looked online, but haven't been able to find a good book that really gets into the specifics of the procedure.  Thus, I cannot answer your question about the specifics of quantum entanglements, other than referring to an expanding graviton as a model.  If you have a favorite quantum entanglement book, I would take a look at the link if you post one.

 

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Quote

But you have a beam block that seems to be a prominent feature of your experiment. No more photons, if they hit a beam block.

No, the photon is destroyed. There is no photon anymore.

If a single/regular photon is absorbed by the electron in a valence band, and jumps to the conduction band, there is nothing tied to the photon, it's lost.  But if the photon P1 is entangled to another photon P2, it's like having a string attached to it.  That string is the entanglement, and ALL entanglements are gravitons.  So you would end up with a graviton that is attached to the P1 crystal (or beam stop) and the other end attached to the P2 crystal (beam stop).  The result would be a quantum entanglement field that spans between P1 and P2.

No, it's not really like having a string attached to it. That's a pop-sci explanation.

What is the specific interaction with the beam stop that preserves the entanglement? To answer this, you need to state what properties are entangled. Entanglement is not a magic description you can use to conjure up some physics.

We have a fundamental disagreement.  I have posited a graviton to explain what spacetime is made of.  This expanding graviton is intended to replace superstrings and quantum loop gravity which do not explain anything, they only add more confusion and make physics more difficult to understand.  The expanding graviton is based on several phenomena in physics that behave in a similar way; which I have listed above.  If you are going to condemn my model because I have not explained the details of which property is entangled, then I ask you for a little bit of patience.  All polarization is, is the angled of the vibrating electric field (of the E&M field).  Gravitons are allowed to rotate in space as they expand.

 

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Quote

But the polarization is entangled. Not the momentum.

All gravitons have polarization states and momentum states.  But the momentum states are what we're looking at. 

OK, then how are you entangling these momentum states and how is this entanglement preserved during the absorption process?

The momentum states already exist in every graviton.  They loosely look like psi = Ae^i(k_x x - \omega t).  I believe that the momentum states can be arranged into a linear state as a function of x, \omega(x) = mx + b.  If that occurs, it will exert a force on any particle that occupies those momentum states.  How do we know that the entanglement will survive the absorption process?  That would take experimental research to prove it.  Since gravitons will expand if they escape a quantum system (not be destroyed), then it will be necessary to figure out how to prevent the graviton from escaping its attachment to the molecular crystal; in other words, it's experiments, research and using the right materials.

 

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

Quote

But by blueshifting the P1 photons and redshifting the P2 photons, we expect to create a linear change in the momentum states, a Delta p/Delta x, which will cause the occupying particle to change its momentum as it moves along the x-direction.  The x-direction is between P1 and P2 beam stops.

In your drawing you have P1 and P2 taking different paths. If that's the case, they aren't entangled - you know whatthe momentum states are. If they are entangled, you don't know what the momentum state of a photon is.

You would have to have both momentum states present in any beam. Higher momentum and lower momentum. 

I'm not trying to retain knowledge of the momentum.  I'm trying to store energy in the entanglement, by making the momentum states obey \omega(x) = mx+ b.  Normally, quantum entanglements are thought of as information; I'm not doing that.  I am treating quantum entanglements as captured gravitons with available momentum states.  I'm treating a graviton like a gravitational potential energy battery.

 

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

Quote

What is a centrifuged photon? How would you do this to a photon? How would you “place” it along the x axis?

I wrote a paper.  https://www.scribd.com/document/484351155/Core-Knowledge-2

Good for you. Answer the question HERE.

A centrifuged photon passes through the optical fiber attached along the radius of a disk that is spinning rapidly.  The effect is to simulate a gravity field (Equivalence Principle).  By blueshifing the p1 photon, redshifting the P2 photon, it would store gravitation potential energy in the graviton.When the P1 photons are directed into P1 beamstop, P2 photons into P2 beamstop, P1 beamstop would be at x=-3cm and P2 beamstop would be at x = +3cm.  The entanglement field would be oriented along the x-axis.

 

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

Quote

Why would its frequency be a function of x?

The surface of a graviton is a photon.  The interior quantum states are the history of what the photon has done.  What we're going to do before we put the P1 and P2 photons into a beam stop, we're going to put them through an optical centrifuge.    

Ah, it's more made-up crap. There's a lot to unpack in "the surface of a graviton is a photon" (considering that they're both moving at c, that's a lot to explain)

If the surface of the graviton is expanding at the speed of light, then anything under the surface is expanding slower than the speed of light.  Therefore, the photon has to be the part of the graviton that is moving at the speed of light.  If it's not energized, it's just a virtual photon.  There's not much to unpack.  You just have to remember that photons travel at the speed of light.

 

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

Quote

If we were to aim a laser at the center of a nearby black hole, the photons would blueshift as they approach the event horizon.   If a photon were to escape a photon along the radial axis, it would redshift as it climbed the potential energy well.  This is just gravitational redshift. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

But we don't live near any black holes.  So we're going to try to simulate a black hole by running photons along an optical fiber that is attached to the radius of a spinning disk.  I got the idea from the Equivalence Principle.  Granted, even if the disk was several meters in diameter and spinning as fast as the materials of the disk can endure, the momentum (direction) of the photons would only change slightly.   You would have to do this several million times to sufficiently blueshift/redshift the entangled photons AND create the change in the frequency/momentum states along the x=axis.

Attached to the radius? How do you attach a photon to anything?

Attach the optical fiber to the radius of the disk.  The hardest part of all of this is to target the photons into whatever small apeture there is on the optical fiber, and then catch the photons that come out the other side.  This is the hardest part of the experiment.

 

51 minutes ago, swansont said:

4 hours ago, POVphysics said:

The difference between entangled photons and entangled electrons is that the electrons exist with a graviton between them.  In the case of two entangled photons, the photons are excitations of the graviton, on opposite sides.  When the photon is absorbed by a crystal, the energy is used to excite a crystal electron to a higher energy shell, but the graviton remains attached to the crystal until it breaks free or is absorbed by the crystal

But gravitons move at c, so how can it be "between" the electrons?

Gravitons expand at the speed of light.  The center of the event that generated the graviton is probably attached to a particle or a field that generated the graviton.  Gravitons don't move at the speed of light, they expand at the speed of light.

Thank you for looking at what I have to say.  I hope I haven't frustrated you.  I am sincerely trying to answer your questions with complete honesty.

[joigus]

5 hours ago, POVphysics said:

Wait a minute.  Are you really proclaiming that the frequency of a photon can NEVER change along the x-axis? 

Maybe you never had a chance to learn about gravitational redshift or gravitational time dilation. 

I had not seen this objection of yours. Sorry.

First, I'm not proclaiming anything. I don't use exclamation marks, capitals, etc. Or I rarely do.

You represented what should be a spherical wave by what looks like a plane monochromatic wave. That was my main objection.

Now, it is possible in principle to treat a photon falling in a gravitational field the way you suggest, but it's more involved than what you suggest. It's called the eikonal approximation for optics, and it's only justified in certain cases. It will take me more time to get to it.

[swansont]

58 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

I am not that familiar with the experimental process of creating quantum entanglements and verifying their existence.  I have looked online, but haven't been able to find a good book that really gets into the specifics of the procedure.  Thus, I cannot answer your question about the specifics of quantum entanglements, other than referring to an expanding graviton as a model.  If you have a favorite quantum entanglement book, I would take a look at the link if you post one.

So this is all a hand-wave.

 

58 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

We have a fundamental disagreement.  I have posited a graviton to explain what spacetime is made of.  This expanding graviton is intended to replace superstrings and quantum loop gravity which do not explain anything, they only add more confusion and make physics more difficult to understand.  The expanding graviton is based on several phenomena in physics that behave in a similar way; which I have listed above.  If you are going to condemn my model because I have not explained the details of which property is entangled, then I ask you for a little bit of patience.  All polarization is, is the angled of the vibrating electric field (of the E&M field).  Gravitons are allowed to rotate in space as they expand.

The details of entanglement do not rely on your model, though. If you can't base your conjecture on already-established physics, then that's where you need to focus your effort. Without the existence of this "entanglement field" you have nothing to base your idea on, and the "entanglement field" is based on a notion that you can create entanglement between these two crystal beam stops. But you can't explain how this physics works, so your conjecture is based on nothing.

That's not physics.

58 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

The momentum states already exist in every graviton.  They loosely look like psi = Ae^i(k_x x - \omega t).  I believe that the momentum states can be arranged into a linear state as a function of x, \omega(x) = mx + b.  If that occurs, it will exert a force on any particle that occupies those momentum states.  How do we know that the entanglement will survive the absorption process?  That would take experimental research to prove it.  Since gravitons will expand if they escape a quantum system (not be destroyed), then it will be necessary to figure out how to prevent the graviton from escaping its attachment to the molecular crystal; in other words, it's experiments, research and using the right materials.

The photons are absorbed by your beam stop. That's the interaction I'm interested in.

And while an experiment would be great, you still need a theoretical basis for this to happen. Entanglement requires the option of two different states existing. What are the two states in the crystal, that could absorb a photon in one state vs the other state?

These details matter. You can't ignore them. 

 

58 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

I'm not trying to retain knowledge of the momentum.  I'm trying to store energy in the entanglement, by making the momentum states obey \omega(x) = mx+ b.  Normally, quantum entanglements are thought of as information; I'm not doing that.  I am treating quantum entanglements as captured gravitons with available momentum states.  I'm treating a graviton like a gravitational potential energy battery.

You're treating it like you're just making up what you don't really understand.

 

58 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

A centrifuged photon passes through the optical fiber attached along the radius of a disk that is spinning rapidly.  The effect is to simulate a gravity field (Equivalence Principle).  By blueshifing the p1 photon, redshifting the P2 photon, it would store gravitation potential energy in the graviton.

Nothing I'm asking deals with your motivation, so discussion of your graviton is moot. This was a question about the experiment and the established physics it's based on, not your conjecture.

 

 

58 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

If the surface of the graviton is expanding at the speed of light, then anything under the surface is expanding slower than the speed of light.  Therefore, the photon has to be the part of the graviton that is moving at the speed of light.  If it's not energized, it's just a virtual photon.  There's not much to unpack.  You just have to remember that photons travel at the speed of light.

How can something move at c and also expand at c? And also have the surface be a photon, which also move at c?

If something is "expanding at c" doesn't this mean that the opposite sides are moving at 2c with respect to each other? You say that radius r = ct, so the other side must be at r = ct as well, but in the opposite direction. How can that work?

And the surface "is a photon" but photons move at c and your sphere is actually expanding faster than the photon can move.

 

58 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

Attach the optical fiber to the radius of the disk.  The hardest part of all of this is to target the photons into whatever small apeture there is on the optical fiber, and then catch the photons that come out the other side.  This is the hardest part of the experiment.

So the photons are sent into a fiber that's along the radius. 

 

58 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

Gravitons expand at the speed of light.  The center of the event that generated the graviton is probably attached to a particle or a field that generated the graviton.  Gravitons don't move at the speed of light, they expand at the speed of light.

Thank you for looking at what I have to say.  I hope I haven't frustrated you.  I am sincerely trying to answer your questions with complete honesty.

If you're going to use the term "graviton" you are stuck with the properties of a graviton. They are massless, move at c and have spin 2. If you don't like this, make up a new name. 

[MigL]

13 hours ago, POVphysics said:

Your list of graviton features is correct but IMO incomplete.  I'm glad you noticed the list of loose ends.

Notice I wrote 'loose ends', meaning some are works in progress, some are incomplete, and some are already adequately explained.
I did not have the time to sort out your list.

13 hours ago, POVphysics said:

gravitons are carriers of physics constants (because something has to account for them),

If information is carried by something moving ( or even expanding ) at the speed of light, it follows that in an expanding universe, at a certain distance, you have causality violation. If the speed of light cannot cover the distance to a far-away point because of the finite sped of light, how does that far-away point know to have the exact same constants ???
( this was one of the original reasons for the A Guth inflationary universe; at some point in the past, ALL the universe had to be in causal contact )

13 hours ago, POVphysics said:

gravitons are wave functions

Earlier, I told you that you don't understand the meaning of 'interpretation', apparently you don't understand the meaning of mathematical model either.
The model ( wave function ) describes properties and actions of the real, to a certain extent.
But there are areas where it fails.
( and why interpretations like Copenhagen, or ManyWorlds, become non-sensical at some scales )

 

13 hours ago, POVphysics said:

They expand from a point, a sphere of radius r = ct ... that causality would begin from a point event and spread its effects at the speed of light in all directions.

See above regarding causality violation with distance.
You tie this expansion with the universe's expansion from a point ( ? ), but no one, other than the first conjectures of the Big Bang, have ever claimed the universe started from a point. That would imply infinite original density, which, to anyone who understands a little Physics, means that the model we use to get to that infinite density, is way past its area of applicability ( and why most people are waiting for a quantum gravity model, which may be more applicable to the reality of such situations )
Have you even suggested a mechanism for your 'graviton's expansion ?
( like the inflationary universal expansion caused by the 'injection' of energy into the universe as it rolled from a false zero vacuum energy point, to a lower ( true ? ) zero point due to the Electroweak symmetry break )
And if graviton already has a well defined meaning within the Physics community, why do you insist on using the same name for your conjectured phenomenon ?
Call it something else, post it in Speculations, and be willing to support it.

Edit
Wasted post
At least for 3 days.

Edited November 30, 2020 by MigL

[joigus]

Just for further clarification,

Parametric down conversion involves feeding one photon at a time into the crystal and getting two salient coherent photons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion

Not an ultrashort high-intensity beam, which is made of many photons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrashort_pulse

Quote

Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (also known as SPDC, parametric fluorescence or parametric scattering) is a nonlinear instant optical process that converts one photon of higher energy (namely, a pump photon), into a pair of photons (namely, a signal photon, and an idler photon) of lower energy, in accordance with the law of conservation of energy and law of conservation of momentum. It is an important process in quantum optics, for the generation of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by joigus