What is the graviton? Please place your definitions

[sol2]

1. A quantizied gravitational wave...
2. They travel at the speed of light
3. They have never been experimentally proven to exist.
4. They have been theoretically proven?
5. They permeate all dimensions.

I have some ideas fixed in my head that need to be corrected.

In another thread Nigel point out the scattering that would take place from photon interaction in such a bulk teaming with these theoretical massless particles.

This is a fair statement.

Yet from another perspective if any quantized version of the gravitational waves are considered, it can never represent the whole wave per say but represents part of the wave, meaning, each graviton would be describing differing values of that wave, so scattering would have been specific to each graviton?

One thing that also materialize in this respect is the relationship to a holographical feature each graviton is describing?

Please feel free to throw in pros and cons.

 

[sol2]

Think of a pendulum(the source and it furthest swings)

The same phenomenon is more dramatically seen in the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 where the periastron advances by about 4.2 degrees per year.

If we quantize the graviton, what amount of energy can each graviton contain? Would we consider the gathering of gravitons as describing each point of the wave, so such a wave would need to describe not only the energy released from the oscillatory nature of http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/courses/astro201/images/merc_adv.gif ?

This should help one learn what is at stake here in the graviton determnations.

 

[sol2]

What Did Webber Teach us?

If the aluminum bar allows gravitational waves to http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/waves/Twave.gif through it ,what is happening to the bar?

Will the bar ring?

Will the density of the matters, allow different sounds to be expressed through it?

In a transverse wave the particle displacement is perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation. The animation below shows a one-dimensional transverse plane wave propagating from left to right. The particles do not move along with the wave; they simply oscillate up and down about their individual equilibrium positions as the wave passes by. Pick a single particle and watch its motion.

http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html

 

[kurious]

Because a graviton is expected to have very low energy it could be the building block for all other particles.Dark energy may be increasing in its total energy as the universe expands, because graviton energy is being used to construct dark energy.

 

[sol2]

Because a graviton is expected to have very low energy it could be the building block for all other particles.Dark energy may be increasing in its total energy as the universe expands, because graviton energy is being used to construct dark energy.

Do you think the graviton is the energy that is leaking into extra dimensions?

 

[sol2]

Blackhole creation in the Colliders

I thought it important to bring this post from Blackhole Creation in the Colliders here.

The biggest gap of them all and it is found in the most unlikely place?

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/mplanck.gif

High energy particles have extremely small wavelengths and can probe subatomic distances: high energy particle accelerators serve as supermicroscopes:

To see What?

The structure of matter

(atoms/nuclei/nucleons/quarks)

http://hep.uchicago.edu/cdf/smaria/ms/aaas03_ms.pdf

With Marcus's introduction to Words of Stephen Hawking and "predictions" what might we find from such a talk? We know well this could all be dismissed very easily when the time comes?

If jpierre can ask such a question then where should we focus if not in black holes for consideration?

Physics at this high energy scale describes the universe as it existed during the first moments of the Big Bang. These high energy scales are completely beyond the range which can be created in the particle accelerators we currently have (or will have in the foreseeable future.) Most of the physical theories that we use to understand the universe that we live in also break down at the Planck scale. However, string theory shows unique promise in being able to describe the physics of the Planck scale and the Big Bang.

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/why.htm

What shall the complexity of this information look like if we do not consider some of the philosphical considerations. Where such theoretical plateaus have developed from strings and LQG. How much more straight forward can we become if we do not consider the complexity of the large and small?

Many cal it speculation. No dimension at all? Maybe call it something else?

So here we are talking about information and we have this gap in our thinking, and for me hidden dimension seems relevant if you do not know what exists in a certain place? Can't describe it, yet have formulated a mathematical structure that exceeds the minds of the majority of this planet.

You can see how you could be pulled in two ways. From a energy standpoint to a cosmological one. It just seemed appropriate at such energy levels that if you lack the ability in the high energy area that you move it to another place for consideration?

Sol, take something of profound interest in your many dimensional quests, here:http://physicsweb.org/objects/world/13/11/9/pw1311091.gif

and go ask a string theorist what are the paramiters of 'Distance' and 'Length', how does one define a distance of a single string(from its nearest neigbour), with one of its own individual total length (compared to any other string)?

In such a compactified state how would we coordinate anything?

Given the dearth of knowledge about gravity in the subcentimeter range, the group is looking for any kind of deviation from expectations, not just extradimensional effects, he says. Nonetheless, the excitement about extra dimensions helps spur the group on, Price says.

If the strength of gravity takes a sharp turn upward at around 1 TeV, as the Stanford-Trieste scenario implies, an opportunity opens for testing this theory also in accelerators. Collisions at such energies could produce gravitons in large numbers, and some of these particles would immediately vanish into the extra dimensions, carrying energy with them. Experimenters would look for an unusual pattern of so-called missing energy events.

This and more subtle effects of extra dimensions could show up at existing accelerators, such as LEP and the Tevatron at Fermilab, only if the dimensions have scales nearly as big as a millimeter. The powerful LHC will greatly improve the chances for detecting missing energy events and other prominent extradimension effects.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000219/bob1.asp

(bold emphasis my own)


Sometimes it seems incomprehensible how such thoughts could have ever gotten where they are and when one speaks, of what "realm(dimension)" are they speaking?

On what journey could any photon take and its interaction not make one wonder? Had it gone somewhere and re-appeared? Would it have been as simpe as looking at the tracks and knowing that some event had taken place and there is a gap?

http://www-egs.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/egsdemo/newshower.html

What kind of Quantum "geometry" is going to explain Quantum Gravity?


'There comes a time when the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap. The important thing is not to stop questioning.'

Albert Einstein
(1879- 1955)

 

[sol2]

Welcome to the Cern Simulation Applet

http://sciencenews.org/20000219/bob1a.jpg

CERN theorists Keith R. Dienes, Emilian Dudas, and Tony Gherghetta wondered what would happen if they uncurled one or more of the extra dimensions in string theory to 10–19 m, the largest size that would not already have been detected. To their surprise, they discovered that the three nongravitational forces could unify in the energy range of 1 TeV. This unification could then be observed directly in LHC and indirectly in less-powerful colliders.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000219/bob1.asp

So have we now discovered where the limits of LQG has gone in terms of TEV measures? I would say so, having realized Glast's limitations.

Nearly a century after the inception of special relativity, high energy energy gamma ray observations have confirmed its validity up to electron energies of 2 TeV, photon energies of 20 TeV and , indirectly, up to electron energies in the PeV range. These results indicate an abscence of evidence for proposed violations of Lorentz violations as predicted by some phenomenological quantum gravity and large extra dimension models. Thus high energy astrophysics has provided important empirical constraints on Planck scale physics.

arXiv:astro-ph/o3o8214 v2 21 Aug 2003

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=255354&postcount=2


hmmmmmm?

 

[sol2]

A lot of people are having a hard time of understanding the significance of the graviton and are willy nilly garbage heaping, with outgiving it further thought.

So I thought I would add a scalable feature pictorially to this undertanding, for people so they understood the significance of the dimensional relationship to the graviton as it exists in this bulk.

Look at the range the graviton can exist in., Do you understand the significance of this?

Can the graviton live below Planck length? Because we have reached a limit does not remove the nature of the gravitational forces. Supergrvaity has made its appearnce for us in this dynamical relation

Of course I am open to corrections

 

[sol2]

If the Glasses are Put on What is apparent at Supersymmetrical levels?

The area of a triangle is computed by multiplying the magnitude of one side with the distance from its opposite vertex. But two of the sides can be changed in such a way that the area remains the same. And when the area is calculated from the longest side and its distance from the opposite vertex, the side can approach infinity and the distance can approach zero but the product is the same area. So when we talk about duality, we are really comparing by an analogy to the constant area of a distorted and stretched triangle which minimum configuration is that of an isosceles triangle (side and distance are equals) more so than an equilateral triangle.

It is easy to understanding the dynamcial relationship of the saddle, versus the sphere, and the nature of that triangulation. Those are non-euclidean realzations developed from the fifth postulate?

Being lead through GR why did Einstein rely on Reimann? http://cerval.murdoch.edu.au/kissane/e162lect06/sld001.htm

The non-eucldean world seemed very attractive for obvious reasons, and lead the thinking to move to higher dimensional considerations?

There had to be something consistant through it all?

I think if ones considers the "point" on the brane, and supersymmetry, what value would you give a "point". Consider the graviton as time. Discrete structures would not apply here, but "topologies," that are very smooth.

I for one do not like uncertainty, but if higher energies are any indications we have found a tesing ground for soemthing that calls for "emergent realities."

For enjoyment entertain the graviton in all these hidden dimensions of the brane.

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/extradim.gif

This is actually a very old idea dating back to the 1920's and the work of Kaluza and Klein. This mechanism is often called Kaluza-Klein theory or compactification. In the original work of Kaluza it was shown that if we start with a theory of general relativity in 5-spacetime dimensions and then curl up one of the dimensions into a circle we end up with a 4-dimensional theory of general relativity plus electromagnetism! The reason why this works is that electromagnetism is a U(1) gauge theory, and U(1) is just the group of rotations around a circle. If we assume that the electron has a degree of freedom corresponding to point on a circle, and that this point is free to vary on the circle as we move around in spacetime, we find that the theory must contain the photon and that the electron obeys the equations of motion of electromagnetism (namely Maxwell's equations). The Kaluza-Klein mechanism simply gives a geometrical explanation for this circle: it comes from an actual fifth dimension that has been curled up. In this simple example we see that even though the compact dimensions maybe too small to detect directly, they still can have profound physical implications. [Incidentally the work of Kaluza and Klein leaked over into the popular culture launching all kinds of fantasies about the "Fifth dimension"!]

Maybe even entertain the notion Lubos Motl is challenging you? :rofl:

[Moderator's note: Good textbooks and lectures of string theory - e.g.
chapters 3 of Green+Schwarz+Witten and of Polchinski - derive that
the background metric must satisfy the correct Einstein equations if
the worldsheet theory is conformal i.e. consistent. They also explain
that the same effective action is seen by the scattering of the
perturbations - namely by the gravitons. This is such a basic feature
of string theory - and a key motivation to study that I would say
that someone who has not this calculation does not really know
what string theory is at the technical level. LM]



[Moderator's note: Certainly not as anything analogous to string theory as
we know it. String theory, in the conventional meaning of the word,
always automatically includes gravity, and it is unique - once the five
different perturbative versions are unified. The idea that one can make
a consistent string theory that gives "electroweak theory only" is
a misunderstanding of basics of string theory. What sort of "new" string
theory do you have in mind? I think that this is a very popular laymen's
misunderstanding - they often think that it is possible to modify string
theory in hundreds of ways and define hundreds of different sibblings of
string theory. No, string theory - or a theory of quantum gravity -
is unique. LM]

Strange as it might seem we had been given two perspectives with which to entertain quantum gravity, yet one boasts that it is discrete( caught in the SR world discriptively...LQG Imean) and one is caught in the continuous structures...topologically defined(Mtheory). If that isn't "unique," I don't know what is.

For all its worries they had to have understood it had to be geometrically defined? Is it supergrvaity to gravity and metric formulations? If you consider points plasmatic features, would be very different from cooling features?

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

1. A quantizied gravitational wave...
2. They travel at the speed of light
3. They have never been experimentally proven to exist.
4. They have been theoretically proven?
5. They permeate all dimensions.

GR postulates a continuous space-time that is background independent and QM is a theory of discrete particles interacting within a fixed background space.

What if the geometry is actually fractal in nature?, a discrete, yet causally connected space-time that is background independent. Gravitons would then be an aspect of the fractal geometry of space-time? GR is a nonlinear theory. Fractals are nonlinear.

 

[Mike2]

GR postulates a continuous space-time that is background independent and QM is a theory of discrete particles interacting within a fixed background space.

What if the geometry is actually fractal in nature?, a discrete, yet causally connected space-time that is background independent. Gravitons would then be an aspect of the fractal geometry of space-time? GR is a nonlinear theory. Fractals are nonlinear.

You then would have to explain how it is possible to propagate a wave through the discontinuities. I think part of causality is continuity and connectedness of spacetime. How can you have causality through disconnected or discontinuous spacetime?

 

[sol2]

GR postulates a continuous space-time that is background independent and QM is a theory of discrete particles interacting within a fixed background space.

What if the geometry is actually fractal in nature?, a discrete, yet causally connected space-time that is background independent. Gravitons would then be an aspect of the fractal geometry of space-time? GR is a nonlinear theory. Fractals are nonlinear.

http://www.hypography.com/bilder/superstrings.gif

Are we not suppose to be able to see outside the region of the reality? What the heck does this mean?

You would have to join Gr with QM, and produce strings.

That leaves a big question, as to how you would explain the nature of reality.

From a LQG perspective this would be true as to its discreteness, but not from the string perspective, as this would become continuous in nature.

If you think of matter as discrete functions, I can see where you might say this, but if you see matter defined as a strng, then the minimum string state of that particle, will have denoted a string value specifically characteristic of that particle nature.

The graviton, in gatherings, from one to many, even though quantized from a wave, would have to define the particle nature, topologically? One of the things that I keep coming back too, is how we see? in this new reality.

Would you see matter in the defined states of existence around now? Or would you see everything as color distinctive and a giant field of intermingling particles much like you would see cherenkov radiation spread out around this object if we saw at the string level?

Even at the weak field measure, this is the tail end of a larger scalable feature of graviton perceptions in the cosmos. I have a scale, before this post for consideration. If you look at that scale, you would know that this movement is very smooth throughout all those energy considerations

Urs had a link in descibing the http://viswiz.imk.fraunhofer.de/~nikitin/course_practicum/applet.html , this would be a really serious question. Image the particle nature of reality being spoken to as the universe expands? What is the one thing that would have to be consistant through all this? The graviton?



What do you think?

 

[sol2]

You then would have to explain how it is possible to propagate a wave through the discontinuities. I think part of causality is continuity and connectedness of spacetime. How can you have causality through disconnected or discontinuous spacetime?

This is where I become confused sometimes about back ground and background independance. If I choose strings I become dependant on the back ground. What does this mean?

 

[sol2]

If we quantize the graviton, what amount of energy can each graviton contain? Would we consider the gathering of gravitons as describing each point of the wave, so such a wave would need to describe not only the energy released from the oscillatory nature of http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/courses/astro201/images/merc_adv.gif ?

This should help one learn what is at stake here in the graviton determnations.

I wanted to add information in this post for consideration

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/thorne/

Considering the scale at which the Planck Epoch has been considered here in strings, I also wanted to give some idea of the distance these gravitons can travel? These are freely distributed in the bulk.

We are able to consider the information from the early universe to now. Why Earth and space detectors are being built. Gravitational wave generation once you quantize into graviton, the language that must be built in computer imagery, and this will geometrical reveal I am sure, the topological features, of those events so long ago.

Does this make sense?

 

[Prometheus]

Dark energy may be increasing in its total energy as the universe expands, because graviton energy is being used to construct dark energy.

Gravitons are like dark energy, in that both are names given to concepts that are not well understood. Both of these names are easier to pronounce that question marks, but provide little more information.

 

[sol2]

One would have to see this expressed in a different way, and free yourself of limitations.

it turns out that within string theory ... there is actually an identification, we believe, between the very tiny and the very huge. So it turns out that if you, for instance, take a dimension - imagine its in a circle, imagine its really huge - and then you make it smaller and smaller and smaller, the equations tell us that if you make it smaller than a certain length (its about 10-33 centimeters, the so called 'Planck Length') ... its exactly identical, from the point of view of physical properties, as making the circle larger. So you're trying to squeeze it smaller, but actually in reality your efforts are being turned around by the theory and you're actually making the dimension larger. So in some sense, if you try to squeeze it all the way down to zero size, it would be the same as making it infinitely big. ...

(CSPAN Archives Videotape #125054)

The familiar extended dimensions, therefore, may very well also be in the shape of circles and hence subject to the R and 1/R physical identification of string theory. To put some rough numbers in, if the familiar dimensions are circular then their radii must be about as large as 15 billion light-years, which is about ten trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (R= 1061) times the Planck length, and growing as the universe explands. If string theory is right, this is physically identical to the familiar dimensions being circular with incredibly tiny radii of about 1/R=1/1061=10-61 times the Planck length! There are our well-known familiar dimensions in an alternate description provided by string theory. [Greene's emphasis]. In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?

(Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)

I have article that Paultrr wrote that show a pictorial represenation of the expansitory universe but have been having trouble finding. When I do I will place it here.

If we think of energy concentration, what would this mean in terms of string harmonics? Think of BEC condenstae here and how this might be represented in probabilities. I color pictorial's this woul dbe very significant in early universe identification as to the pearls and chains?

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

You then would have to explain how it is possible to propagate a wave through the discontinuities. I think part of causality is continuity and connectedness of spacetime. How can you have causality through disconnected or discontinuous spacetime?

A network of fractals would be continuous in the sense of being connected and relational. Similar to the way floor tiles appear to be discrete sections with definable boundaries, yet still a continuously connected network, relating to the others.

Waves are a probability distribution of particles, each with its own probability of position and momentum.

Gravitons could be a connected network of relativistic quantum operators.

An interesting experiment:

http://www.rowan.edu/news/display_article.cfm?ArticleID=965



QUOTE:

In his experiment, Afshar uses a laser beam and a screen with two small pinholes relatively far from each other. A particle goes through a pinhole and eventually hits a screen for detection. Afshar can tell what pinhole the particle goes through, and at the same time he can show that the particle’s path is affected by both pinholes. According to the standard theory of quantum physics, this is not possible. If the result of the experiment holds, it means that the standard theory of quantum mechanics is still incomplete, which was Einstein’s long-held view.

 

[sol2]

Since a link was brought in previous post, along that same line I might as well put this one up.

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?50@101.d7qdcFXwrt2.0@.1de0aed6

 

[Mike2]

A network of fractals would be continuous in the sense of being connected and relational. Similar to the way floor tiles appear to be discrete sections with definable boundaries, yet still a continuously connected network, relating to the others.

If the boundaries of the individual cells in the network are not physical, then they are arbitrary constructions for our mathematical convenience. If they are physical, then they represent a discontinuity of something. If not a discontinuity of space itself, then perhaps a discontinuity in derivatives of something.

 

[sol2]

Pearls and Chains From the Planck Epoch

A lot of people are having a hard time of understanding the significance of the graviton and are willy nilly garbage heaping, with outgiving it further thought.

So I thought I would add a scalable feature pictorially to this undertanding, for people so they understood the significance of the dimensional relationship to the graviton as it exists in this bulk.

Look at the range the graviton can exist in., Do you understand the significance of this?

Can the graviton live below Planck length? Because we have reached a limit does not remove the nature of the gravitational forces. Supergrvaity has made its appearnce for us in this dynamical relation

Of course I am open to corrections

There are reasons why I am reproducing this thread here, which I will explain shortly.

Smolin’s theory requires not only that black hole singularities bounce but that the parameters such as the cosmological constant suffer only very small changes at the bounce. This I find not credible for a number of reasons. The discretuum of string theory does indeed allow a very dense spectrum of cosmological constants but neighboring vacua on the landscape do not generally have close values of the vacuum energy. A valley is typically surrounded by high mountains, and neighboring valleys are not expected to have similar energies.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0407266

The discretuum of string theory I guess I have to alter my thinking. How do you get bubbles to strings?

This isn't the pictures I was looking for, but I thought I would add it.

First-order phase transitions (illustrated below) occur through the formation of bubbles of the new phase in the middle of the old phase; these bubbles then expand and collide until the old phase disappears completely and the phase transition is complete.



http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/images/cs_bubbles.gif

During a first-order phase transition, the matter fields get trapped in a `false vacuum' state from which they can only escape by nucleating bubbles of the new phase, that is, the `true vacuum' state.



http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/images/inf_old_inf.gif

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/cs_phase.html

So how would you see such nucleations in context of the two next links? The situation must be depending on the cooling nature of expansionism, and the strings from the Planck epoch to Grand Unification Transition

G -> H -> ... -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -> SU(3) x U(1).
Here, each arrow represents a symmetry breaking phase transition where matter changes form and the groups - G, H, SU(3), etc. - represent the different types of matter, specifically the symmetries that the matter exhibits and they are associated with the different fundamental forces of nature

The http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/spacesci/pictures/20020812gamma/web_darkmattert.jpg .

Pearls and Chains:)

One would have to know how the string would extent from the Planck Epoch and bubble, to the string amplitudes of differing energy values. For such string to extend through and orignate from the first phase of the Planck Epoch, one would have to undertsand how these strings can extend through the differnet states to today, fifteen billion years later.

Urs had a link in descibing the http://viswiz.imk.fraunhofer.de/~nikitin/course_practicum/applet.html , this would be a really serious question. Image the particle nature of reality being spoken to as the universe expands? What is the one thing that would have to be consistant through all this? The graviton?

http://viswiz.imk.fraunhofer.de/~nikitin/ax_3.gif

http://viswiz.imk.fraunhofer.de/~nikitin/course/img543.gif

Tangents are coincident in symmetric points of the supporting curve:http://viswiz.imk.fraunhofer.de/~nikitin/course/img544.gif , where http://viswiz.imk.fraunhofer.de/~nikitin/course/img275.gif at the center. This corresponds to a singularity on the string at http://viswiz.imk.fraunhofer.de/~nikitin/course/img540.gif , which has a new type: the whole string at http://viswiz.imk.fraunhofer.de/~nikitin/course/img540.gif is shrinked to a point. Such singularity is not stable: it disappears in small deformations of the supporting curve, violating its central symmetry. After that deformation the string will not shrink to a point, but the processes, described in exercise 2 will happen: cusp motion from one to another end on the short string near the center.

http://viswiz.imk.fraunhofer.de/~nikitin/course/node26.html

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

If the boundaries of the individual cells in the network are not physical, then they are arbitrary constructions for our mathematical convenience. If they are physical, then they represent a discontinuity of something. If not a discontinuity of space itself, then perhaps a discontinuity in derivatives of something.

You make a good point. How can information transfer betweeen two disconnected yet fundamental units, of space?

There must be a common and continuous substrate for a fundamental unit of space-time.

A quantum wave-function?

 

[sol2]

Heathens

There can be no discontinuity as far as I know.

Yet the site lists "domain walls and this would make you think discontinuity?

Cosmic strings will arise in slightly more complicated theories in which the minimum energy states possesses `holes'. The strings will simply correspond to non-trivial `windings' around these holes (as illustrated below).

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/images/cs_strings_kibble.gif

There is no tearing as it is smooth.

No tearing? How is this possible?

 

[Mike2]

There must be a common and continuous substrate for a fundamental unit of space-time.

A quantum wave-function?

I'm not convinced that wavefunctions are "real". At the moment, I'm of the opinion that since wave functions give probabilities, they are only curve-fitting equations contrived to fit the data from experiments. They are the "engineering equations" of reality. Of course, particles interacting with each other seems "physical" because then you are referring to the geometry of the situation. But how can a probablity of an event be an event in itself?

 

[sol2]

There is only one way around uncertainty.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There is only one way around uncertainty.

What do you mean by this, Sol?

 

[sol2]

What do you mean by this, Sol?

Quantized Energies

For photons where the relationship between energy and wavelength is http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/imgqua/epc.gif


the density state is... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/imgqua/rhoph.gif

Our http://viswiz.imk.fraunhofer.de/~nikitin/course_practicum/applet.html of "fermions" would drop off towards there ends, would they not?

From a energy determination this would have revealled some considerations?

Before I would have readily mentioned http://www.amherst.edu/~rlolders/stars2/index.html, as we have talked about this before. If you might repeat what you said then for clarification, and then, look at what I am saying now.

You cannot confine gravitational wave production, so the information would be very telling about the nature of the event geometrically?

Does that make sense?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yes, I see all your quotes, but why do you say any of this provides a way around the uncertainty principle? All of quantum theory has uncertainty built into it. Strings, bound electrons, and all the rest. Orbitals are an approximation formed by taking the mean (I think) of the position distribution, i.e. they too are expressions of uncertainty.

 

[sol2]

Yes, I see all your quotes, but why do you say any of this provides a way around the uncertainty principle? All of quantum theory has uncertainty built into it. Strings, bound electrons, and all the rest. Orbitals are an approximation formed by taking the mean (I think) of the position distribution, i.e. they too are expressions of uncertainty.

Our string state lessons of "fermions" would drop off towards there ends, would they not?

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

I'm not convinced that wavefunctions are "real". At the moment, I'm of the opinion that since wave functions give probabilities, they are only curve-fitting equations contrived to fit the data from experiments. They are the "engineering equations" of reality. Of course, particles interacting with each other seems "physical" because then you are referring to the geometry of the situation. But how can a probablity of an event be an event in itself?

I am guessing that space-time is a type of statistical probability distribution, at length scales beneath the Planck length.

A fundamentally discrete unit of space-time would be interconnected with the other sections analogously to a honeycomb effect? The real numbers give a platform for the natural numbers.

Another idea is that discrete and fundamental units of space could be encoded with fundamental "bits" analogous to DNA in living systems. It would have a type of memory? The evolution of the entire universe could have begun with the first "cell" of space?

 

[sol2]

LIminocentric structures

One important factor Sol, is that the graviton in a BEC solution is trying to reach out to the Graviton Shroud that surrounds our Galaxy, it is being XTRACTED from the condensate!..so theoretically if this is the mechanism, then I have a idea for a test, I do not have the Lab data from the experiments allready tried, but I bet you anything, the co-ordinate of the system under test, will be oriented to the galactic plane, or the nearest Graviton field in Real Space, the spikes eminating from such a BEC atom, will be POINTING to this area!

http://superstringtheory.com/forum/dualboard/messages11/616.html

So the interesting thing here is the topological features any Genus figure could tell us, in a continuous universe. If one could see the larger picture in terms of Heisenberg's collpasing sphere, how universal is this principal to have seen it happen at such quantum levels?

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/images/cs_monopole.gif

so we look for holes...

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/images/cs_textures.gif

Due to their extremely high energies, cosmological defects have not yet been detected, and it is virtually impossible to produce them, even in the most powerful particle accelerators. On the other hand, this is one of the reasons why people are interested in them - if they can be found today, they will be a unique direct link to the physics of the first moments of the universe. Some observational searches are already under way!

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/cs_top.html

Can we open our sails now? :rofl:

 

[sol2]

Swiss Cheese?

http://www.psigate.ac.uk/spotlight/thumbnails/PSI1b-swisscheese_strip.jpg

Ketterle adds that attractions between atoms in a BEC could parallel the collapse of a neutron star so emulating the distant and massive in the laboratory too. The explosive collapse of a BEC, dubbed a "Bosenova" (pronounced "bose-a-nova") by Wieman releases only a tiny quantity of energy, just enough to raise the temperature of the BEC by 200 billionths of a degree. Supernovae release many times the energy.

http://www.psigate.ac.uk/spotlight/issue2/bosenova.html

I mean how do you really define such action in a dynamcial universe?

Is it the same as the Casimere effect and the two plates? So we look for other examples as well. Like this experiment revisited (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@65.NsZXbbrNWxc.0@.1dde6b71/15 )?

You need a way in which to be able to see the dynamics of this universe taking place? What similarities speak to the natural progression of Einstein's work and extends itself into Kaluza's cylinder?

How would such a geometrical realization have gained value when we pursued the understanding of Geometrodynamics? What is bubble/brane world

Neutron stars are, as their name suggests, composed of neutrons and form under the enormous pressure as a star collapses. A thimbleful of neutron star would weigh a billion tonnes and the whole thing would sit neatly on Manhattan Island, New York. With a mass about 1.5 million times that of the sun, these iron-encrusted stars spin at hundreds of revolutions per second. The brittle, iron-rich crust of the neutron star hides an interior that is even more mysterious than their enormous density. Inside, they are fluid. In their swirling depths is a vast sea of neutrons - the debris from atoms crushed by a supernova explosion - and within those depths rage quantum storms.

http://www.psigate.ac.uk/spotlight/issue2/bosenova.html

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

I'm not convinced that wavefunctions are "real". At the moment, I'm of the opinion that since wave functions give probabilities, they are only curve-fitting equations contrived to fit the data from experiments. They are the "engineering equations" of reality. Of course, particles interacting with each other seems "physical" because then you are referring to the geometry of the situation. But how can a probablity of an event be an event in itself?

The probability of an event would be constrained by the intrinsic symmetric curve that you mention.

What is the symmetry between space-time and mass-energy? How are space-time, and energy, two different aspects of one unifying concept?

 

[sol2]

Physicists Finally Find a Way to Test Superstring Theory

http://graphics.nytimes.com/library/national/science/040400sci-universal-theory.1.jpg

Dr. Lisa Randall speaking to Dr. Raman Sundrum, superstring theorists who portray the universe as one of many bubbles floating inside a four-dimensional megaverse.

Blackhole creation in the Colliders...a sobering thought? So what's changed since 2000?

Physicists would not be able to detect heavy gravitons directly -- they would immediately fly off into the higher dimension -- but their existence might be inferred. Energy going into a particle collision must equal the energy coming out. If some is missing and all other possibilities are accounted for, physicists could surmise that the energy was spirited away by the heavy gravitons, carried off into hyperspace.

In fact, it might be possible to concentrate so many heavy gravitons into a tiny volume of space that they would collapse in on themselves and create miniature black holes, those cosmic sinkholes from which nothing can escape. Experiments like this will be on the agenda when the Large Hadron Collider begins operation in five or six years at the CERN accelerator center in Geneva.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/040400sci-universal-theory.html

If the strength of gravity takes a sharp turn upward at around 1 TeV, as the Stanford-Trieste scenario implies, an opportunity opens for testing this theory also in accelerators. Collisions at such energies could produce gravitons in large numbers, and some of these particles would immediately vanish into the extra dimensions, carrying energy with them. Experimenters would look for an unusual pattern of so-called missing energy events.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000219/bob1.asp

Geons, Blackholes & Quantum Foam, by John Archibald Wheeler, with Kenneth Ford, page 236, para 2.

"This hypothetical entity, a gravitating body made up entirely of electromagnetic fields. I call geon(g for the gravity, e for electromagnetism," and on as the word root for"particle"). There is no evidence for geons in nature and later was able to show that they are unstable-they would quickly self-destruct if they were ever to form. Nevertheless it is tempting to think that nature has a way of exercising all the possibilties open to it. Perhaps geons had a transitory exitance early in history of the universe. Perhaps(as some students and I speculate much more recently), they provide an intermediate stage in the creation of the balckholes."[/quote]



You have to understand the mindset?

During the 1920s and into the 1930s, the world's most renowned experts on general relativity were Albert Einstein and the British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington. Others understood relativity, but Einstein and Eddington set the intellectual tone of the subject. And, while a few others were willing to take black holes seriously, Einstein and Eddington were not. Black holes just didn't “smell right”; they were outrageously bizarre; they violated Einstein's and Eddington's intuitions about how our Universe ought to behave. . . . We are so accustomed to the idea of black holes today that it is hard not to ask, “How could Einstein be so dumb? How could he leave out the very thing, implosion, that makes black holes?” Such a reaction displays our ignorance of the mindset of nearly everybody in the 1920s and 1930s. . . . Nobody realized that a sufficiently compact object must implode, and that the implosion will produce a black hole.

 

[sol2]

Particle Physics Probes Of Extra Spacetime

So how would we see something that is looked at in Glast, that we had not considered in those extra dimensions?

The exact expression may be found in (15,17). It is important to note that due to integrating over the effective density of states, the radiated graviton appears to have a continuous mass distribution; this corresponds to the probability of emitting gravitons with different extra dimensional momenta. The observables for graviton production, such as the γ/Z angular and energy distributions in e+e− collisions

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0205/0205106.pdf

 

[Mike2]

How are space-time, and energy, two different aspects of one unifying concept?

I suspect that mass/energy is the curvature of spacetime. General relativity relates the curvature of spacetime to the stress-energy tensor. And normally, the stress/energy tensor is derived from a mass/energy distribution of some sort. I'm not an expert in GR, but I can imagine that this is the same as saying mass/energy = curvature of spacetime, right?