Could Particles with intrinsic Properties Explain Quantum Gravity?

[pcalton]

Particles may contain properties like multiple forces, vibrations, or wobbles that could cause them to cluster with particles with similar properties. These clustered particles might together create a force and/or a push/pull on other particles. Perhaps, these particles, are connected by a medium that transfers vibrations/information and helps them stay together.

I've become aware that theoritical scientist are working theories of quantum gravity and I thought how these ideas may offer effects to consider.

 

I'm sure you'll let me know if this is posted in the correct place and if my idea is absurd, nothing new, or just hogwash. I'm thick skinned, so fire away.

[timo]

I don't quite see how you are saying anything more specific than "maybe something causes something else via some mechanism". I'm pretty sure people came up with an idea of this caliber before . No offense meant, but you have to admit you are not particularly specific (not to mention the lack of quantitative predictability of your text). For a start, and admittedly only in reference to your thread title and not the post text, you could well consider "mass" or "momentum" an intrinsic property of a particle. So, the question about the validity of a particle picture aside, mainstream physics already has particles with "intrinsic properties".

[mississippichem]

Particles may contain properties like multiple forces, vibrations, or wobbles that could cause them to cluster with particles with similar properties. These clustered particles might together create a force and/or a push/pull on other particles. Perhaps, these particles, are connected by a medium that transfers vibrations/information and helps them stay together.

I've become aware that theoritical scientist are working theories of quantum gravity and I thought how these ideas may offer effects to consider.

 

I'm sure you'll let me know if this is posted in the correct place and if my idea is absurd, nothing new, or just hogwash. I'm thick skinned, so fire away.

 

+1 for leaving open the possibility that you might be mistaken. You have no idea how much that is appreciated around here considering many that post speculations seem unwilling to be falsified.

 

Seriously, no sarcasm; I appreciate it. I see you have relatively few posts so welcome to SFN if no one has welcomed you yet.

[pcalton]

I don't quite see how you are saying anything more specific than "maybe something causes something else via some mechanism". I'm pretty sure people came up with an idea of this caliber before . No offense meant, but you have to admit you are not particularly specific (not to mention the lack of quantitative predictability of your itext). For a start, and admittedly only in reference to your thread title and not the post text, you could well consider "mass" or "momentum" an intrinsic property of a particle. So, the question about the validity of a particle picture aside, mainstream physics already has particles with "intrinsic properties".

 

Thank you. I'm cautious in my wording and in keeping within the rules of the forum. Knowing that even in this speculation forum the ideas need to have some scientific evidence backing it up. Knowing that what some scientific-minded folks don't always agree. I do agree I was very non-specific and it was my intention. I will become more specific gradually.

Mainstream-physics is not without naysayers.

Intrinsic properties of particles, how they may connect, how they group and ungroup are areas where I will become more detailed.

[swansont]

We have models of how fundamental particles interact, and the models work quite well. Each interaction has an exchange boson; for E&M this is the photon, which is massless and allows for an infinite range. For the color force in the strong interaction it's gluons. For the weak interaction it's the W and Z bosons.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson

[EquisDeXD]

We have models of how fundamental particles interact, and the models work quite well. Each interaction has an exchange boson; for E&M this is the photon, which is massless and allows for an infinite range. For the color force in the strong interaction it's gluons. For the weak interaction it's the W and Z bosons.

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Gauge_boson

 

I know there's certain gauge bosons that don't have an infinite range, and have a finite range due to their mass and that their mass is somehow proportional to how long they exist for, but how does having mass cause this relationship? Is it because there's a square root in the equation and after a certain point the value becomes imaginary? Or is it something to do with mass only being able to borrow a specific amount of energy and going past a certain range requires a greater amount of energy to get to that potential? But where's the mechanism for this potential field when virtual photons have no charge? Or just what is it?

 

+1 for leaving open the possibility that you might be mistaken. You have no idea how much that is appreciated around here considering many that post speculations seem unwilling to be falsified.

 

Seriously, no sarcasm; I appreciate it. I see you have relatively few posts so welcome to SFN if no one has welcomed you yet.

 

What? The only reason anyone ever posts here in "speculation" is because they know its a speculation and know that it could easily be wrong, and if they didn't think it was wrong they would post it in something like theoretical physics or whatever respective subject it is and those people are usually religious fanatics who get banned, I don't think I've made a single post in the speculation section where I didn't doubt by at least 30% that I was right. I notice that a lot of times certain staff/experts members seem to get "fed up" with longer topics, but it doesn't seem most people think they are super geniuses to me, and you would get mad a lot less often if you didn't assume everyone thought they were.

Edited October 18, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[pcalton]

+1 for leaving open the possibility that you might be mistaken. You have no idea how much that is appreciated around here considering many that post speculations seem unwilling to be falsified.

 

Seriously, no sarcasm; I appreciate it. I see you have relatively few posts so welcome to SFN if no one has welcomed you yet.

 

Many thanks for the welcome. I intend to be open and learn here.

[swansont]

I know there's certain gauge bosons that don't have an infinite range, and have a finite range due to their mass and that their mass is somehow proportional to how long they exist for, but how does having mass cause this relationship? Is it because there's a square root in the equation and after a certain point the value becomes imaginary? Or is it something to do with mass only being able to borrow a specific amount of energy and going past a certain range requires a greater amount of energy to get to that potential? But where's the mechanism for this potential field when virtual photons have no charge? Or just what is it?

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Having mass doesn't allow for arbitrarily small energy, so the time the particle can exists can't be arbitrarily long.

 

What? The only reason anyone ever posts here in "speculation" is because they know its a speculation and know that it could easily be wrong, and if they didn't think it was wrong they would post it in something like theoretical physics or whatever respective subject it is and those people are usually religious fanatics who get banned, I don't think I've made a single post in the speculation section where I didn't doubt by at least 30% that I was right. I notice that a lot of times certain staff/experts members seem to get "fed up" with longer topics, but it doesn't seem most people think they are super geniuses to me, and you would get mad a lot less often if you didn't assume everyone thought they were.

Not to sidetrack anything, but: while this may be true, a good many Speculations threads are moved here from mainstream sections. So what we end up with is a lot of posts involving people who are convinced they are right, and not doubting or open to the possibility that they are wrong. But we have several threads touching on this, so any discussion on the phenomenon can be made there.

[EquisDeXD]

Not to sidetrack anything, but: while this may be true, a good many Speculations threads are moved here from mainstream sections. So what we end up with is a lot of posts involving people who are convinced they are right, and not doubting or open to the possibility that they are wrong. But we have several threads touching on this, so any discussion on the phenomenon can be made there.

I agree that there are some extreme threads, but looking at the threads that were moved myself, it seems more like people just didn't see that there was a speculation section or didn't know that it belonged there.

Edited October 19, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[pcalton]

"What? The only reason anyone ever posts here in "speculation" is because they know its a speculation and know that it could easily be wrong, and if they didn't think it was wrong they would post it in something like theoretical physics or whatever respective subject it is and those people are usually religious fanatics who get banned,"

 

....."Only reason" ...like you can read minds?

....."...know that it could easily be wrong." Yes, I'm not absolutely sure and besides I would hate to be looked at as a Know-It-All.

....I can imagine how religious fanatics could spoil or hijack a potentially productive forum, them damn nit-picking fundamentalistic know-it-alls!

 

"I don't think I've made a single post in the speculation section where I didn't doubt by at least 30% that I was right. I notice that a lot of times certain staff/experts members seem to get "fed up" with longer topics, but it doesn't seem most people think they are super geniuses to me, "

 

....My head spins when you use double negatives.

....Reversed-Referential-Index: often identified by sentences ending with the word "Me."

 

"and you would get mad a lot less often if you didn't assume everyone thought they were."

 

....I think I agree with that. The more I think I know the less open I am. Often I remind myself that things may different than they appear and that in the quantum world the seemingly impossible happens.

 

"This post has been edited by EquisDeXD: 17 October 2012 - 08:20 PM"

 

I don't quite see how you are saying anything more specific than "maybe something causes something else via some mechanism". I'm pretty sure people came up with an idea of this caliber before . No offense meant, but you have to admit you are not particularly specific (not to mention the lack of quantitative predictability of your text). For a start, and admittedly only in reference to your thread title and not the post text, you could well consider "mass" or "momentum" an intrinsic property of a particle. So, the question about the validity of a particle picture aside, mainstream physics already has particles with "intrinsic properties".

 

Nothing unreal exists. Space is unreal. Void is unreal. Time is unreal. Massless particles are unreal.

If gravity exists (probably) it would be made of matter and real.

Light is made of particles and real. Light particles and other particles move in a curvature trajector.

Particles in motion are real. The insides of particles are full of stuff. Particles are connected to other particles by stuff that have vibrations, tension, tortion, and trajectories. Particles and the stuff connecting them are in motion mostly together. Many particles seemingly match up with similar particles and are in motion together. These moving particles push/pull other groups of particles causing gravity-like effects.

Edited November 3, 2012 by pcalton

[ACG52]

Vaugeries compounding vaugeries.

[pcalton]

Vaugeries compounding vaugeries.

 

Vaugeries you see, I see clarity. I would clarify more if you wish.

[pcalton]

Who among you believe the Big Bang as the beginning, the creation?

[Mellinia]

Nothing unreal exists. Space is unreal. Void is unreal. Time is unreal. Massless particles are unreal.

Who among you believe the Big Bang as the beginning, the creation?

 

on a side note, ......Have someone hacked your account? But I digress...

 

Most of us do believe Big Bang as the beginning...

Space and time are virtual concepts, but they fit in nature. Yes, they are not real, but they exist....

Photons, among other massless particles, can be detected by your eyes. Are they unreal? I hope not.....

 

In response to the OP, um, that's why they proposed gravitons to link them together.......

 

 

[pcalton]

I have hacked myself and do so hourly.

There was beginning nor will there be an ending. They are thing that happen that appear as such but they are only illusions.

Anything that is both vertual concepts and exists are illusions, not real, magic and preposterous.

If photons could be threatened they would be unreal.

Photons if real must have atomic/sub-atomic particles.

 

Atoms are connected to all other atoms. Those connectors cause a push/pull effect of what we call "Gravity."

[pcalton]

The temperature it can/may create Gravity ?

 

 

System by ... Thermo_Fusion_Attractive

 

Makes sense that the rope-like connectors of atoms would carry heat as well as tortion, vibrations, etc...