How can Gravity have particles.

[Juan R.]

I can tell you that I understand the objections you formulate about the use of the infinite and the infinitesimal in mathematical practice. The only thing I am disagreeing is about if such objections can be applied directly in the parragraphs of Connes's work we are discussing about.

My impression is that the generality of such objections carries you to think there should be present also in this work, and then you are reading into the text instead of from the text. Anyway I think we have both exposed our interpretations of the text and any third reader could decide by herself by reading them. From my part, any further prolongation of the thread whould be simple repetition or, at most, rewording.

In short, what is n in Connes approach?

It cannot be infinite because then he would use the notation n = infinite but uses the standard notation "--->" what means in words "infinitesimally close to". In fact if Connes had used n = infinite then (1/n) = 0 but the size of an infinitesimal may be different of zero.

but n cannot be any real number, because the size of an infinitesimal is not (1/n) for any n real.

If cannot be infinite and cannot be real what is then n?

a) hiperreal number or

b) epsilon number if my approach is correct.

And YES this thread is very large, i am exhaust, but discussion with you was very interesting.

 

[janusz]

What about rate of expansion in empty intergalactic space ?-,to my knowledge it is faster .In present of matter slower,in present of movement again slower.Is it prove of interaction between gravity and space expansion? Why always on the charts -line -symbolise time,why is not flat membrane penetrating space constantly in every direction,point of spacetime curled up in within matter expanding ,spreading to the new points and giving out power natural colapsing matter to hold the structure.No time travel,no speed faster then light no wormholes.Nothing can penetrate the boundry of expansion even black hole slowly evaporate back.Do we really need this army of gravitons?

 

[OnTheCuttingEdge2005]

I believe from my own stand point that gravity is a product of the Conservation of energy theory and is also related to displacement theories hence combining these is what I see to be Gravity, I do not see Gravitons as an expotential of gravity, I have serious doubt about the existence of Gravitons, If I am to be flamed for not believing in gravitons, then so be it!

Displacement Theories: http://www.math.sintef.no/geoscale/slides/uib04.pdf

Laws of Conservation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Gerald L. Blakley

 

[flotsam]

How can Gravity have particles. Gravity is simply the curvature of spacetime. When a body is attracted to a larger body, its just following contours and curves formed. Is space made up of gravitons or When a large object curves it, automatically gravitons spread in the area.

I have asked myself this same question. Why even speculate about the existence of the graviton, never mind search for it. I recently read 'The fabric of the cosmos' and was dissapointed that when this apparent paradox came up, Brian Greene neglected to (for a layman like myself) explain this.

GR predicts gravitational waves but I would have thought that these waves in themselves are just the warping of spacetime and not a force.

 

[-Job-]

And gravitons being particles, would they have gravity?

 

[Pippo]

Apologize, I have deleted my messages,hope I will get familiar with this posting.

 

[janusz]

And gravitons being particles, would they have gravity?

Profesional phisics found ether and now they are feeding us with the particle for every force of nature.S. Hawking talks about final theory - is it something similar happened in XIX century?
We are lucky that is still something like freedom of speculation ,very healthy.

 

[janusz]

I have asked myself this same question. Why even speculate about the existence of the graviton, never mind search for it. I recently read 'The fabric of the cosmos' and was dissapointed that when this apparent paradox came up, Brian Greene neglected to (for a layman like myself) explain this.
GR predicts gravitational waves but I would have thought that these waves in themselves are just the warping of spacetime and not a force.

I think that the gravity is the obstacle for unification of the forces,thats why everybody try to find brackets of grasping it .If it is like you say we are looking for transmission of curvature of the spacetime , I wonder if it is possible to find it while spacetime itself is expanding . For example in thought experiment enlarge your body enough to put your hand in between the molecules ,when you move ---the spacetieme within you does not stay the same----it is not your property,your body occupay different part of the spacetime in every split of the second and this spacetime swelling.What about if we add some extraordinary speed and time shrank,are we occupaing more of the space in that split of second ,what happened to the gravity of the system of your body ,it has to has some of the curvature ,wraping space ability?