Do Gravitons Exist? | Physics Forums

[Physics101]

Smaller in what sense? The less massive a particle is the easier it is to accelerate. But special relavtivity tells us that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle with mass (no matter how little or how close to zero the mass is) to the speed of light, c. The graviton is thought to be a spin 2, massless particle. It has zero rest mass and therefore travels at the same speed as a photon, c.

Since Mass and Energy are different manifestation of the same thing, yet Mass and Gravity are inter-related, I guess the better question would be "What is Mass?" Given that Mass, however small, is bound by speed of light and does contribute to Gravity while its altered-ego (Energy) does not (travels at c and causes no Gravity, although it does follow Geodesic path), what is it about Mass that shows these properties?

Also, just for fun, is this possible? If one were to be able to convert Energy to Mass and back at will, wouldn't a Gravity-Drive be possible by repeatedly creating Mass (and converting back to Energy) in front of a spaceship? Of course, we are talking about huge amount of Energy and efficiency is always a concern, but I suppose it is possible.

 

[Blam]

You could create the ship in graviton data then recreate it anywhere you wanted. I don't think you would need to do it redundantly.

About mass, so we know of the larger structure of it but how do its smaller faster properties exist. It could be maybe infinite that as we look closer and closer at it (dimensions 6 through 11?) somehow attract more matter to itself or our perspective somehow would bend throughout the universe. So at dimension 11 it would loop back or we would be at someplace else but never an open circuit. Or it could be nothing at all.

Also that's how there is allot of perfection in the universe through dimensions like the number 10, 7 and 6. 7 representing perfection, 6 imperfection, 10 a whole, 11 a change. Like fundamental numbers.

Maybe the underlying structures exist other places so like a timing thing where we couldn't perceive it all at once which seems to blend into the relativity theories. This creates diversity.

 

[Crazy8s]

This has been such a fascinating discussion! I wish to thank all of the contributors. It is rewarding to know that even amongst such very highly literate, and seemingly intelligent people, there can reside such vastly conflicting viewpoints of subject that's origins have not been verified. Some of you have said that gravitons MUST exist, and others have said that they do not have to exist, both opinions being based on exactly the same theory.

I especially liked the avoidance of associating philosophy with physics. It would be my opinion that philosophy and physics are nearly identical concepts, with the exception is that one prefers to measure concepts once they have been established. All physics came from philosophy, and that statement in itself interminably intertwines the two. Doubt me? In order to measure something, you have to have formed a concept of why you are measuring it. If physics was only the measurement of concepts, then Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus and so many others would have only been philosophers.

Again I thank you all for such an enlightening read!

 

[Ernies]

fundamentals of qt

Despite watching for the last 50-odd years i have never come across a convincing explanation of why one half of the solution of Schrodinger's equation (and of course the matrix formulation) should be ignored. NOW I come to think of it, it also applies to Kelvin's e.m. classical equation. I mean the advanced and retarded waves. Oh, i know it works but that is not what I'd call a good reason.
ernie