Gravity's Strength in Galaxies: A Quark-Like Explanation?

kurious
Messages
633
Reaction score
0
Is gravity so weak because every force mediating boson starts out as a graviton, which then loses energy and becomes gluons,photons W and Z particles.
This would mean that the graviton carries colour charge and so dark energy
must emit gravitons with colour charge and therefore dark energy would by implication be quark like in nature ( and so would neutrinos - perhaps they are light neutrons made of three quarks).If a proton's mass could form a mini black-hole that black hole would have a temperature of 10 ^ 51 Kelvin.
The fundamental forces of the standard model unify at 10 ^ 32 K so the temperature of the radiation emitted by the mini black hole would be sufficient for us to say that all forces were one force and gravitons can be the sole mediator at the outset.
If dark energy particles are quark -like then they would also have an electrical charge ( half of them could be positively charged, half of them negatively charged)which a magnetic field in a galaxy could exert a force on and so squeeze them together increasing their density and the force they exert on stars they collide with.Is this why gravity seems to be stronger in galaxies than it should be?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is gravity so weak because every force mediating boson starts out as a graviton, which then loses energy and becomes gluons,photons W and Z particles.

I strongly believe this is impossible. For starters gravitons (which are still hypothetical) have the wrong spin and most likely are less energetic than any of the others.
 
I strongly believe this is impossible. For starters gravitons (which are still hypothetical) have the wrong spin and most likely are less energetic than any of the others.

Photons have spin 1 but can yield 2 spin 1/2 fermions.Gravitons might yield 2 spin 1 bosons.Spin is no grounds for an objection to the idea.
There is no proof of how energetic gravitons are when they start out.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top