The problems with current gravitational theory.

[Peter Dunn]

It is becoming increasingly clear that the current model we have of gravitation needs serious revision. So much so that a newer version: one that can accomodate critical density, dark energy and matter and the integration of forces at the macrocosmic and quantum levels of scale, might be unrecognisable to the original version's progenitors: Newton and Einstein.

 

What I am going to attempt here is to disprove two of the fundamental tenets of the current model: the first being - gravity is generated by mass; and the second - gravitational effects are transmitted via the graviton.

 

If gravity were simply generated by mass certain solar phenomena, ie the solar wind and coronal mass ejections, would not occur.

 

This is why. The escape velocity required for an object (spacecraft - whatever) to break free of the Earth's gravitational embrace is 6.94 miles per second. Now the Sun's mass has been calculated at 333,400 times that of the Earth's so to calculate the corresponding escape velocity for the Sun we can simply multiply 6.94 by 333,400 which gives a speed of two million, three hundred and thirteen thousand, seven hunderd and ninetysix miles per second or, to put it another way, an impossible to achieve velocity that is a shade under twelve and a half times the speed of light. Material (in the form of the solar wind: calculated at 400mps, and coronal mass ejections: calculated at 600mps) is, however, streaming outward from the Sun all the time. Some might argue that this material does not really escape the Sun's gravity as it forms the heliosphere but, come on, a gravitational field of such intensity would not allow material to be thrown out beyond Mercury's orbit let alone Pluto's.

 

I would like, now, to turn to the proposed bearer of gravitational force: the graviton - the discovery of which is crucial to the future viability of both gravitational and particle theory (the standard model). If it were proven that the graviton does not, or - indeed - could not, exist then the entire house of cards comes tumbling down.

 

There are, at this moment in time, attempts being made to trap gravitons in huge water tanks situated down mineshafts deep underground. So far this method has not produced any results. Why is this? Surely for the graviton to achieve all that it does: bringing forth order and structure out of chaos and holding celestials bodies firmly within their orbits, it would have to be one of the most numerous entities in the Universe and possess more than a modicum of mass (how else could it carry an effect?). Wouldn't this mean that we should be, quite literally, tripping over them at every turn; not finding them impossible to detect?

 

Then there is the question of their behaviour. Is it proposed that gravitons remain in situ somewhere and project their power across the intervening astronomical distances between bodies? If so where are they? Are they bound up within mass; within the structure of the atom?

 

If it is thought that they are actually emitted by one celestial body to zoom across space and impact on, and somehow attach themselves to, another body and then attempt to drag their target back from whence they came then another question needs to be answered: wouldn't this imply that gravitons must either possess some form of memory ie they remember where they came from or carry a signature that makes them unique to their point of origin?

 

Then there is the problem of their mass (it must be suspected that gravitons possess mass otherwise why employ water tanks to trap them?). Any massive body emitting gravitons must, in accordance with the conservation law, give up some of its mass in the process; this would mean that, over time, celestial bodies would evaporate and that, over the eons, the Universe would ultimately become populated by one species of entity: the graviton.

 

Lastly there is the sad, for the graviton, fact that the speed of gravitational effect propagation has been successfully calculated and found to be, as Einstein suspected, the same as the speed of light which would make it impossible for such propagation to be achieved via a material particle.

 

All that can safely be said about gravity is that its effects can only be observed in the presence of mass.

 

As for the graviton, well, I am forced to the conclusion that any money spent trying to isolate this fictional particle is money wasted.

 

If there is, out there, any open minded, bona fide physicists, cosmologists (including advanced students) etc that would like to learn more about my version of quantum reality please feel free to e-mail me.

 

Peter Dunn

[Skye]

I thought that gravitons were defined as massless and chargeless.

[JaKiri]

You're very confused.

 

Actually, you're very very confused.

 

There's not much that's right in that post at all.

 

For a start, even under newtonian mechanics, the escape velocity of the sun would only be in ratio with the ratio of masses if the radii of them were the same.

 

Secondly, I'd learn about special relativity (sticky in the relativity board).

 

Thirdly, the underground chambers are to detect NEUTRINOES, not gravitons. Attempts at graviton detection are done in particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider which is being built at CERN.

 

Fourthly, gravitons have no mass and no charge (as was stated).

 

Fifthly, gravitons fly EVERYWHERE! (They're the exchange particle).

 

Sixthly, gravitons travel at the speed of light (exactly the same speed as the propagation of gravity in GR).

 

Seventhly, this thread deserves to be in pseudoscience.

 

I could continue. I won't.

[Star-struck]

The existence of gravitons is highly speculative and nothing more than conjecture. Why one would speak of them so matter-of-factly evades me. Newtonian gravity is flawed. It fails to take into account the law of conservation of energy. Einstein's theories are losing credence, with many, as more and more thought is given to redefining our understanding of gravity. Is it a simple matter of mass? Probably not. Is it magical little particles? Probably not. Is it an electomagnetic field, created by objects in motion, in which positively and negatively charged particles attract and repel each other? Maybe. I'm glad people are giving this some serious thought and I hope nay-sayers don't discourage them. It is about time we find a better understanding of gravity!

[Dave]

Originally posted by Star-struck

The existence of gravitons is highly speculative and nothing more than conjecture.

 

So were neutrinos at the time. When people discovered particles not recoiling in the direction they should have, they assumed it was another particle that was causing this; although it took a while to prove, they turned out to be right in the end.

 

Likewise with the graviton - there is a possibility that it is totally a fiction of our imagination, but we need to find out either way. Until we come up with some more experiments for detecting (or disproving) the graviton, we're not going to find out either way.

[Star-struck]

Yes sir, Dave, you are correct. It is entirely possible that gravitons exist as some say they may. I would not go so far as to rule out other possibilities based on the chance that they exist. At this point, gravitons are to scientists what Santa Claus is to a 5 year old. It is a possibility that would help to explain a lot, but we may find out that it was our parents the whole time

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Star-struck

Einstein's theories are losing credence

 

Of his theories, only GR might be losing ground, but then any theory would be a developement rather than a replacement, as there's so much empirical evidence for it.

 

The way that GR is assumed to be correct and the Standard Model of QM is assumed to be wrong for all the 'new' theories I've heard about might be taken to be a bit of an affirmation of GR.

 

ps.

 

To (possibly misquote) Einstein, when he was asked what he would have done if Lord Rutherford's experiments at the time of the solar eclipse (the first test of GR) hadn't shown the required results, he replied something along the lines of 'Well, I'd have to say sorry to the dear Lord, for the theory is correct!'

[Star-struck]

That is a great quote I think that we need to back up and tackle gravity. It's as if we are trying to get to "B" by going around "A", vice confronting it, in hopes that we will work our way back around to figuring out "A". Figuring out gravity would answer so many other questions along the way.

[JaKiri]

Superstring theory has a nice getout clause on the conflict between them, but at the moment we're still trying to correct a spelling mistake by building a new library, if you see what I mean. (At least in terms of the work required)

[Peter Dunn]

Firstly

Gravitons have never been detected: they are still only a postulated particle; whereas neutrinos have (and they do possess mass) even though they are very weakly interactive and zoom through planetary masses without slowing down.

 

Secondly

If gravitons are massless and carry no charge they couldn't interact with anything.

 

Thirdly

For the present model to work it must be accepted that:

 

1) There is just the right amount of matter in the universe exerting just the right amount of gravitational force for it to exist at all (critical density).

 

Juxtaposed with

 

2) 96% of this matter is missing, dark (whatever) and although we cannot experience this missing material directly it must still contribute to the sum total of, say, a galaxy's mass.

 

3) Over long, as yet unspecified, distances gravity either ceases to be an attractive force and becomes repulsive or is counteracted by some other force (dark energy).

 

Fourthly

Gravitons are thought to be particles: not massless photons, which renders them incapable of travelling around at light speed.

 

To finish: everybody is aware that there is some pretty radical revision required to bring gravitational theory in line with the empirical evidence so I would strongly recommend, to all concerned, do not write anything out of the equation; get constructive not deconstructive.

[JaKiri]

First (there's no such word as 'firstly', if we're being strictly correct. But, then given your posts, we aren't), that's true, except it doesn't change the fact that you were talking about NEUTRINO detection, not GRAVITON detection.

 

Secondly.

 

Photons, and all other carrier particles, are massless and carry no charge.

 

Can you see things?

 

Well, I think that implies that massless, chargeless particles can interact.

 

Thirdly: Whut?

 

Fourthy, you're just wrong. Very wrong. Photons are just ONE EXAMPLE of a luminal particle (as it were). All the other carrier particles travel at light speed TOO.

[Star-struck]

Peter,

Some people are much more interested in discrediting other people than in partaking in the type of creative thinking that really solves problems. Don't waste your time arguing with them. They already know everything. This being the case I'm not sure why they haven't solved all the worlds problems yet. Seems the responsible thing to do if one knows everything.

[Sayonara]

It has nothing to do with discrediting anybody.

 

If you're wrong, you're wrong.

[JaKiri]

There's one thing being 'possible', another being 'demonstrateably incorrect'.

 

This falls squarely into the latter. Most definitely.

[JaKiri]

(Addendum)

 

It's not me discrediting ANYBODY, it's me highlighting incorrect assumptions/'understandings' of the current model.