Are [gravitational] waves traveling through some form of ' Fermion ' grid ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike, sometimes you seem quite poetic, but on those occasions I have no idea what you are asking! This is one of those occasions.

Sorry if I am not explaining myself clearly.

 

It has struck me for some time that there are a lot of TWO's

 

There is This and that , positive and negative , very small and very large, electrons and protons, fermionic - mass orientated, particles and baryonic field , wave , orientated particles.

 

Current 2 or pair being discussed.

 

So is no surprise to me that there things like photons , that are as light as a kite , pretty well massless , that hare off as electro-magnetic waves across the universe at the speed of light.

 

And it would not surprise me if this whole thing around gravity . If it is not the pair Partner . Namely

 

Mass , that is the bit we normally think of as matter. Earth bound , affected by the force of Gravity , and seemingly now in association with Gravity Waves ( just detected ) .

 

Now it follows , what are Gravity waves , what medium if any do the pass through , how is this related to ( Space-Time ) , what is space time , what actually is mass , etc .

 

I am suggesting that Space-Time, gravity, gravity waves , fermions of some sort, matter , Mass . Are all part of the same camp or family .

As

 

Electro magnetism, e.m waves , photons , ( electrons - not sure about that one ) , massless particles , bosons , are all part of the other camp or family .

 

I might have , or am rather sure of leaving out or missed a few members of the two families ( and not sure about electrons )

 

However this is about the gist of what I am currently trying to say .

 

This has been building up for some time . ( sounds like an illness)

 

Mike

Oops , Strange

 

We seem to have been posting at the same time. I will let you read my reply to AJB . Walk the dog . And come back to you .

 

Mike

 

Oops

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Gravitational waves are the classical counterpart (or aspect) of the graviton... which are spin-2 bosons and are massless (in quantum GR anyway).

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Gravitational waves are the classical counterpart (or aspect) of the graviton... which are spin-2 bosons and are massless (in quantum GR anyway).

Ok but do not fermions work in conjunction with bosons . Like photons with electrons / atoms .

 

Mike ( walking the dog , oops slipped into the canal ! )

Edited March 2, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Yes, but this is the gist of this thread question.

 

Could it not be that there are two sections of Atomic activity . Bosons orientated and Fermion orientated.

 

 

 

And this was soundly trounced as having no basis in physics. We've moved on from that, or so I thought.

 

Please realize what tends to happen to threads that keep covering the same ground because the originator keeps bringing up the same point over again and ignores responses. IOW, keep the thread moving along. This has nothing to do with Fermions vs Bosons. (edit: note carefully what ajb says below, "Gravitons will interact with all fermions/bosons that carry energy-momentum, so all particles/fields.")

[ajb]

Ok but do not fermions work in conjunction with bosons . Like photons with electrons / atoms .

Atoms can also be bosons...

 

It is true that some fundamental fermions, if they carry the right sort of charge interact with the particular gauge bosons in question.

 

So the electron interacts with the photon because the electron carries electric charge.

 

Gravitons will interact with all fermions/bosons that carry energy-momentum, so all particles/fields.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

And this was soundly trounced as having no basis in physics. We've moved on from that, or so I thought.

 

Please realize what tends to happen to threads that keep covering the same ground because the originator keeps bringing up the same point over again and ignores responses. IOW, keep the thread moving along. This has nothing to do with Fermions vs Bosons. (edit: note carefully what ajb says below, "Gravitons will interact with all fermions/bosons that carry energy-momentum, so all particles/fields.")

O.k. So it sounds all a bit interwoven and complicated .

 

When I have tried to make sense of the standard model . I though I picked up That :-

 

BOSONS were more involved with being messengers , having zero or very little mass , concerned with fields, and having one sort of spin say ( half internet spin )

And

FERMIONS were more involved with things that have mass , like quarks ( thus protons, neutrons ) and electrons , concerned more with mass , particles and say ( whole integer spin ) ( may have the spins the wrong way round )

 

 

So , I was proposing anything to do with mass like gravity , needed to be Fermion like , or work within a mass sensitive environment . Comparing to Electro Magnetic waves which work in association with things like charge and magnetism surrounding atoms .

 

But maybe that is not possible or in conflict with things , I do not yet understand , or am probing in a wrong direction ?

 

 

I thought Gravitons were only theoretical at this moment in time . I thought that is what LIGO was going to do , to detect a graviton .

 

May be I have that wrong too. But I was sure Mordreds quote on research was saying it would take a source the size of a black hole and a detector the size of Jupiter ?

 

Mike

Edited March 2, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

The W and Z bosons are very heavy in fact, 80 and 90 GeV. These are heavier than an iron atom. (Also you have the fractional spin thing the wrong way round.)

 

At this stage the notion of bosons and fermions has little to do with gravitational waves. There are no plans to build any detector that could pick up individual gravitons, gravity is just too weak.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The W and Z bosons are very heavy in fact, 80 and 90 GeV. These are heavier than an iron atom. (Also you have the fractional spin thing the wrong way round.)At this stage the notion of bosons and fermions has little to do with gravitational waves. There are no plans to build any detector that could pick up individual gravitons, gravity is just too weak.

.

 

So Fermions have the HALF INTEGER SPIN ( .5 , 1.5 , 2.5 .....) concerned with mass

 

And Bosons have the WHOLE INTEGER SPIN ( 0,1,2,3, 4.......) concerned with fields

 

Is that right .

 

So going back to ( space -time ) , as Einstein was saying this is a Gravitational Field , does that make it

 

Boson or Fermion orientated or is it just not relevant ?

 

And are we sure that ' Space - Time ' does not contain the energy which is supposedly maintained within the universe, in some form of strained, tense , field that constitutes Potential Energy across the whole of Space , ... As a MEDIUM which can flex when near planets and stars , and entertain waves such as the GRAVITY WAVES. Detected the other day by LIGO.

 

 

Mike

Edited March 2, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Not relevant. How many times does it need to be said?

 

Nobody knew what a Fermion was when Einstein developed GR. That wouldn't happen for another decade.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The thing is, if you are talking about waves, then you are really talking about the classical view of electromagnetic radiation (and gravitational waves). In which case, bosons and fermions are irrelevant.

 

On the other hand, if you want to talk about the quantum nature (which we don't yet know how to do for gravity) then bosons are the force carriers for electromagnetism as well as gravity.

 

In either case, electromagnetic waves and/or forces propagate through the medium of the electromagnetic field (and the corresponding boson, the photon). And gravitational waves and/or forces propagate through the medium of the space-time field (and the corresponding boson, the graviton). Fermions don't come into it.

.

So what you are saying , I have it the wrong way round . O.k.

 

.-----------------------------------

So is ( Space - Time ) :- 'Bosonic ' field ,which can entertain ( photons or gravitons ) this field existing as a medium ?

------------------------------------

 

Mike

Edited March 2, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

It has struck me for some time that there are a lot of TWO's

 

There is This and that , positive and negative , very small and very large, electrons and protons, fermionic - mass orientated, particles and baryonic field , wave , orientated particles.

 

It has struck me or a long time that there a lot of THREEs

 

There is This, that and the other; positive, neagtive and neutral; electrons, muons and tau; three flavours of neutrino; three types of quark colour charge; etc.

 

On the other hand, you missed Space and Time from your list.

BOSONS were more involved with being messengers , having zero or very little mass , concerned with fields, and having one sort of spin say ( half internet spin )

And

FERMIONS were more involved with things that have mass , like quarks ( thus protons, neutrons ) and electrons , concerned more with mass , particles and say ( whole integer spin ) ( may have the spins the wrong way round )

 

 

So , I was proposing anything to do with mass like gravity , needed to be Fermion like , or work within a mass sensitive environment . Comparing to Electro Magnetic waves which work in association with things like charge and magnetism surrounding atoms .

 

No. No. No. Things to do with fields and forces (electromagnetism and gravity, for example) are mediated by bosons. NOT fermions.

 

(Although we don't have any complete model of gravitons yet.)

Edited March 2, 2016 by Strange

[StringJunky]

 

....On the other hand, you missed Space and Time from your list....

Because they are not 'tangible' to him, methinks.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Not relevant. How many times does it need to be said?

Nobody knew what a Fermion was when Einstein developed GR. That wouldn't happen for another decade.

O.k so fermions and bosons are irrelevant . Hope you are right .

Earlier on someone suggested it might be like Electro magnetic waves !

 

I presume you do not actually mean actually , electro magnetic ? I will presume No.

 

Then to be like EM ( electro magnetic waves ) , the gravitational waves would need to be Made of Two different yet compatible forces or entities , To be self sustaining the forces would need to be self generating . ( as electro and magnetic forces do , magnetism coming from moving charge , and electricity coming from moving magnetism. )

The only hint we have is the the result of these two entities is the weak yet pervasive net force we have coming out of large objects like the Earth or the sun , or moon for that matter. They are all spinning by motion so maybe the two halves of gravity are to do with some net force of spinning . For the moment if we say that we are just dealing with the net force but like electro magnetism is self sustaining , so let us assume , that the two different forces of spin are self sustaining , and we are just detecting the NET force of Gravity.

 

Well maybe over the next period of time we can undo the two different , yet self sustaining forces , can be separated and analysed and reproduced in their distinct parts , as it is with Electro magnetism ( where we isolate static electric charge , and magnetic moment. )

 

We then need to think how this dual object could cause the effect Gravity has?

 

Mike

It has struck me or a long time that there a lot of THREEs

 

There is This, that and the other; positive, neagtive and neutral; electrons, muons and tau; three flavours of neutrino; three types of quark colour charge; etc.

 

On the other hand, you missed Space and Time from your list.

 

 

No. No. No. Things to do with fields and forces (electromagnetism and gravity, for example) are mediated by bosons. NOT fermions.

 

(Although we don't have any complete model of gravitons yet.)

O.k. I have taken most of that on the chin . That is O.k.

 

How do you feel about " gravity ,not being a single force but rather a mix of two forces ( similar to electricity and magnetism , working together to produce electro magnetism . ) ? Rather than Gravity being one force , it being a pair of forces together producing the force of Gravity we know ?

 

I have a sneaking feeling ' spin ' of some sort or another is at the root of gravity . Spin seems to come up all over the place , both at the sub atomic level, the atomic level and even the Earth level , and probably right up at a Universe scale .

 

Mike

Edited March 2, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

No with the spin, other than it has energy. But that pales in comparison to the mass, which has way more energy.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

No with the spin, other than it has energy. But that pales in comparison to the mass, which has way more energy.

When you say it has energy due to mass. Do you mean by Mass energy conversion ( e= mc to power 2 ) ?

 

Or what ?

 

Mike

[Strange]

Then to be like EM ( electro magnetic waves ) , the gravitational waves would need to be Made of Two different yet compatible forces or entities

 

They really wouldn't. Other waves are not made up of two components. And if you insist on saying there must be two components (for no good reason) then how about space and time.

 

 

The only hint we have ...

 

We have far more than a hint. We have a complete (within limits) and very accurate theory. You just need to get some sort of handle on it instead of making things up.

[StringJunky]

 

..We have far more than a hint. We have a complete (within limits) and very accurate theory. You just need to get some sort of handle on it instead of making things up.

Yes, Mike.

[ajb]

O.k so fermions and bosons are irrelevant

In standard general relativity spin is irrelevant.

 

Then to be like EM ( electro magnetic waves ) , the gravitational waves would need to be Made of Two different yet compatible forces or entities , To be self sustaining the forces would need to be self generating . ( as electro and magnetic forces do , magnetism coming from moving charge , and electricity coming from moving magnetism. )

It is really only one force here. If you decompose the electromagnetic field into an electric and magnetic part in one inertial frame then a Lorentz transformation will mix these components. You cannot really split the electromagnetic field in a meaningful way.

 

Interestingly you can do something similar with the gravitational field, or really the Riemann curvature tensor. Look up electromagnetic duality in general relativity.

 

 

 

I have a sneaking feeling ' spin ' of some sort or another is at the root of gravity . Spin seems to come up all over the place , both at the sub atomic level, the atomic level and even the Earth level , and probably right up at a Universe scale .

Spin could act as a source of torsion in theories like Einstein-Cartan theory. Torsion also appears in supergravity theories, and even super-Minkowski space-times has a non-vanishing canonical torsion.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

In standard general relativity spin is irrelevant.It is really only one force here. If you decompose the electromagnetic field into an electric and magnetic part in one inertial frame then a Lorentz transformation will mix these components. You cannot really split the electromagnetic field in a meaningful way.Interestingly you can do something similar with the gravitational field, or really the Riemann curvature tensor. Look up electromagnetic duality in general relativity.Spin could act as a source of torsion in theories like Einstein-Cartan theory. Torsion also appears in supergravity theories, and even super-Minkowski space-times has a non-vanishing canonical torsion.

O.k. .I have quite a lot to look in to here , and it sounds very interesting .

 

But when I looked up ' torsion and torsion tensor ' on the net , it was as if the top shelf of a college library in the maths section had just tipped over and dropped all its maths books on my head , as they cascaded to the floor , knocking me off the ladder as they descended.

 

Strange did mention earlier in the thread that he had come across some similar ideas in his personal research .

 

I will try to look up the " Riemann Curvature Tensor " , except this time I will wear a metal hat and grip onto the library ladder!

 

Mike

[Strange]

 

Strange did mention earlier in the thread that he had come across some similar ideas in his personal research .

 

Did I?

 

I have to say that the mathematics of GR is totally over my head, although I understand some of the simpler solutions derived from the Einstein Field Equations. I have a general understanding of [most of] the concepts involved (and I try not to extrapolate beyond what I have been told by sources I trust).

[swansont]

When you say it has energy due to mass. Do you mean by Mass energy conversion ( e= mc to power 2 ) ?

 

Or what ?

 

Mike

 

 

 

E=mc^2 says that mass is a form of energy. No conversion necessary. But yes, that's what I'm talking about.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

E=mc^2 says that mass is a form of energy. No conversion necessary. But yes, that's what I'm talking about.

 

.

" Mass is a 'Form of Energy' ". This could be integral in our understanding of ' Gravitational waves traveling through ..'

As you picked me up on my expression ' conversion of energy ' , I must be honest, there has been a bit of a void in my head where , 'energy' goes . I had thought of it in terms of ' Energy makes things happen ' and after that it was a matter of converting one form of energy to another ( eg letting something drop, converting potential energy to other forms of energy say electrical energy in a power station) . And the whole exchange of state....making the conversion? But I have always struggled with tracing it back to pure ' Energy '

 

If when we see ' Mass ' , you are saying we are seeing ENERGY. Then this helps explain this Big Bang ----- wooch----space time ---- matter ( mass ) being distributed ' space-time' , molecular clouds , stars , galaxies, clusters etc . Both the space- time and the contents by your statement are all ENERGY in very thin and thick conditions , spread across the entire universe.

 

So my wanting to know where ENERGY itself was , ' the whole shooting match ' in its entirety is ENERGY.

 

So the Einstein General theory of relativity is just that ! Everything all spread out including its nature , that , the more concentrated and amount of matter the more gravitational effect . But that would include the very fabric of ' space time '

 

I still leaves a bit of fathoming the transparent bit . But even though we cannot see it , when we look at it , there is energy in some form there. This in turn, can be " Rucked a bit " and can so spread out waves in ' space-time .?

 

Is this what you are saying , or have I picked up on the wrong thing ?

 

Mike

Edited March 3, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

" Mass is a 'Form of Energy' ". This could be integral in our understanding of ' Gravitational waves traveling through ..'

As you picked me up on my expression ' conversion of energy ' , I must be honest, there has been a bit of a void in my head where , 'energy' goes . I had thought of it in terms of ' Energy makes things happen ' and after that it was a matter of converting one form of energy to another ( eg letting something drop, converting potential energy to other forms of energy say electrical energy in a power station) . And the whole exchange of state....making the conversion? But I have always struggled with tracing it back to pure ' Energy '

 

If when we see ' Mass ' , you are saying we are seeing ENERGY. Then this helps explain this Big Bang ----- wooch----space time ---- matter ( mass ) being distributed ' space-time' , molecular clouds , stars , galaxies, clusters etc . Both the space- time and the contents by your statement are all ENERGY in very thin and thick conditions , spread across the entire universe.

 

So my wanting to know where ENERGY itself was , ' the whole shooting match ' in its entirety is ENERGY.

 

So the Einstein General theory of relativity is just that ! Everything all spread out including its nature , that , the more concentrated and amount of matter the more gravitational effect . But that would include the very fabric of ' space time '

 

I still leaves a bit of fathoming the transparent bit . But even though we cannot see it , when we look at it , there is energy in some form there. This in turn, can be " Rucked a bit " and can so spread out waves in ' space-time .?

 

Is this what you are saying , or have I picked up on the wrong thing ?

 

Mike

 

 

You're probably picking up on the wrong thing. Mass is a form of energy, but there is no such thing as pure energy, since energy, and mass, and charge, etc. are properties of things. So you can't trace anything back to pure energy.

 

One of the difference between Newtonian gravity and GR is that Newtonian gravity is only due to mass, whereas GR depends on energy, so it accounts for gravity that's from sources not in the form of things with mass.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You're probably picking up on the wrong thing. Mass is a form of energy, but there is no such thing as pure energy, since energy, and mass, and charge, etc. are properties of things. So you can't trace anything back to pure energy.

 

One of the difference between Newtonian gravity and GR is that Newtonian gravity is only due to mass, whereas GR depends on energy, so it accounts for gravity that's from sources not in the form of things with mass.

Well that is the bit with me historically , I found it difficult other than to the Big Bang to trace back through energy. To pure energy . Which you are suggesting is un obtainable.

 

At least the part that does shed some relevant picture to me personally is where :-

 

The fabric of space time itself is energy ? So gravity is energy ? Is that bit right ?

 

Could it be that the energy density in open space time , is more dense in energy than the equivalent volume of say inside a planet , star , moon , . there would be an inward " pull in " due to the effective force developed toward the object ( star, planet, moon or whatever ) . So in this case , it's a sort of push in toward the less energy density .

 

 

Mike

Edited March 3, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

The fabric of space time itself is energy ? So gravity is energy ? Is that bit right ?

 

No, space-time is not energy. However, it is possible to interpret some part of the curvature of space time (aka gravity) as having energy. And that, in part, accounts for the non-linear nature of gravity in GR (because the energy of the gravitational field also contributes to space-time curvature).