Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Missing Link . Gravitons?

how understandable is this theory

Poll closed Nov 26, 2003.
  1. can't understand at all

    0 vote(s)
  2. not easy to understand

    0 vote(s)
  3. okay

    1 vote(s)
  4. opinion: please post

    0 vote(s)
  1. Nov 16, 2003 #1
    Upon trying to understand gravity force, I run into to the BIG G problem, which is, what does the unit and magnitude of G stand for. As I asked others this question and did my own research I found out I am not the only one who have asked these questions, as matter of fact there is countless of theories and research trying to explain these question. Therefore I tried to explain to myself what this G unit and magnitude is, and came to the conclusion that it is a proportionality of constant "c" or a mathematical expression expressing c^2". And then I derived an algebraically derivation from E=mc^2 to F=Gm1m2/r^2. Then I posted the derivation on this forum and other forums, but I never did explain the missing link between the derivation. Why? Because this missing link is a "Graviton" and as many of you know it is not yet discovered and we don't yet know if it does exists. But many physicists and other people like me support the idea it does. Please see:

    We are all familiar to Newton 3rd law that says, for every force there is an opposite force in direction and equal in magnitude. He was mainly applying it to external force. Yet this can be applied to internal force, a force in one part of system will be countered by reaction force on another part of system. Please see:

    As we know matter has a tendency of (expanding)taking space over time, we explain it as velocity (v) where v=r/t (r-distance, t-time). Therefore a graviton in space has tendency of taking space over time, or expanding from in within, in order this to occur it has to experience acceleration (a) which comes from basic tendency of matter to take up space over time. This creates a force pushing outward from within a graviton (we will call this Fo-o stand for outward-where Fo=ma). But since every force in a system has an opposite force in direction and equal in magnitude, in within the graviton there is an opposite force in direction and equal in magnitude to force Fo. We will call this force pushing inward or Fi where Fi=ma. This force (Fi) is due to the tendency of matter contracting, in order to remain stable, or Fo will keep expanding forever if it is not balanced by Fi.

    Since they share same mass in order to create the two equal forces and opposite in direction, the forces will balance each other when they run out of mass. Therefore Fo=Fi. Therefore Net Force of the Graviton is Fo plus 'negative' Fi(negative since it is opposite in direction). Therefore the Net Force F=0. The graviton is stable.

    At what speed did the graviton forces reach before they balance each other? The conclusion I came up with is the speed 'c'. Also I noted that the graviton has a set amount of mass, therefore it has a set amount of energy. We all know the famous equation E=mc^2, I wondered how I can use that to convert or relate to the graviton with a net force of zero, where all its energy is used. Since I postulated Fo=Fi, therefore the velocity of both forces will be c=c. Then solving for c^2 in E=mc^2, c^2=E/m, in order to show c=c or Fo=Fi.

    So c^2=E/m where E=W(work)=Fr(since we are comparing the two forces energy in the given mass the F stands for Fo or Fi and the distance they can travel with given mass which is infinite, and to solve for that it is likely to intergrate 'r').
    So we substitute for E, c^2=Fr/m.
    To compare the two forces(Fo=Fi or c=c) we substitute in the variables:
    therefore (Fo)r/m= (Fi)r/m (note the F or forces share mass, or they are within the graviton.)

    Lets back up to where we were discussing the Net Force(or Sum Force) of the graviton when the forces cancel therefore it equals zero. In our universe it is said to be no isolated force, so there is no isolated matter, in our case a graviton. Therefore the graviton will always be in contact with other gravitons or matter. Since the forces within graviton stabilized and canceled each other the graviton "overall"(the whole graviton) velocity is zero, the Sum Force is zero.

    When it experiences an overall acceleration or collides with another graviton, it therefore increases its overall velocity in relation to the contact or collision. This causes an increase of the Sum Force, but it does not affect the internal forces (Fo, Fi) of the graviton. Only until the graviton overall velocity is "greater" than the velocity "c" does the forces within graviton become unstable. (As we know matter is said to keep the velocity 'c' if it doesn't things will go wrong...)
    To understand the above explanations please check:

    To explain the relation of a Graviton overall force to another Graviton, we start talking about mechanical forces, this relation is shown as:
    (Fo)r/m= (Fi)r/m
    Fr/m1=m2ar/m1 ----where F=m2a (graviton in contact with another graviton experiencing acceleration in relation to the collision)
    Fr/m1m2=ar/m1 ----where a=F/m2
    therefore Fr/m1m2=Fr/m1m2

    And so on...., until we end up with F=Gm1m2/r2. The whole derivation is at the bottom of the post.

    The tendency of Gravity force to push or pull is due to the tendency of graviton push and pull forces. When another graviton collides to another graviton it will either bounce or attach to the other graviton depending on the collision impact(velocity) and direction. If they attach(due to pull and push force in within the graviton) the two gravitons net force or sum force form a relation sharing equal net force since they will travel same net velocity or overall velocity, this is where central tendency of gravity force comes from. The more gravitons attach to form one Net Force the more graviton force increases therefore gravity increases due to matter increasing and so on....

    c^2=E/m where E=W=Fr (r stands for radius or distance or ‘s’)
    therefore c^2= Fr/m
    therefore c^2= c^2----when forces interact the forces hold true the constant c^2 in order to remain stable

    therefore Fr/m= Fr/m

    Fr/m=mar/m ----where F=ma
    Fr/mm=ar/m ----where a=F/m

    therefore Fr/mm=Fr/mm

    Fr/mm=Fvt/mm ----v=r/t where r=vt
    Fr/mm=Frt/tmm ----where v=r/t

    therefore Frt/mm=Frt/mm

    Frt/mm=Frr/vmm ----where t=r/v
    Frtv/mm=Frr/mm ----where v=r/t

    therefore Frr/mm=Frr/mm

    where F=(Frr/mm)mm/r^2 ----(Frr/mm) is proportionality for example: F=Kq1q2/r^2-electromagnetic force

    The "G" (=Frr/mm) is a way of expressing how the constant c is kept true mathematically when forces interact just the way c^2 is a mathematical expression expressing that c should always remain true in order for the matter to remain stable.
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 17, 2003 #2
    The main problem I see is that in the 'E=MC2' Einstein used this as a conversion factor for Three Dimensional Space/Energy.

    Lets be a little discrete here for a moment, in the Big-Bang model space exists before TIME, the Smallest space possible, converts to the smallest mass possible and thus there appears the smallest SPACETIME possible. The usual concept of PAST-PRESENT-FUTURE is itself part of the conversion process, the 'PAST' space-energy converts into a Future Mass-energy(this is from the pre-time point of view). Now this is occuring on a microscopic level and is not TIME-DEPENDANT, it is only Energy-Dependant.

    For any evolving Spacetime from this Timeless event, there has to be a continuous exchange of space/energy/mass, and so the movement or exchange from one perspective to another needs a domain that can accomadate the dynamical freedoms, the Past is smaller than the Present, the Present is smaller than the Future in expansion terms this is where the E=MC2 uses the energy from space 'PAST' to convert MASS in the PRESENT. The present spacetime 'MASSes' converts into a larger area of the future.

    The simplistic process is that Space converts to Spacetime, the Mass within spacetime converts to Space. The interdimensional aspect of Eienstein's original Equations, only relates to where spacetime has mass, and therfore is only relevant for mass-energy within Galaxies, which ties the Spacetime domain only to Galaxies themselves, not to the space/energy between Galaxies.

    It turns out that the E=Mc2 acts differently in and around mass that resides in Three-dimensions, when compared to the MASS free domain of inter-galactic 2-dimensional space.
  4. Nov 17, 2003 #3
    I kind of understand what you mean, but i can't get your point. Please can you clarify it, it is kind of hard to express points across with only words.
  5. Nov 17, 2003 #4
    Ok, lets start here:http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0311/0311127.pdf

    In this recent paper there are a number of interesting aspects that relate to something amazing, if you take a good look at the paper, and I suggest you follow the links provided by the author as references. In the references you will find a good paper by L Smolin and J Magueijo:http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0112090

    There are consequences for the interpretation of observations of our cosmos, we look out from within a spacetime bubble, that is our Galaxy, the space that devides and provides a background between all Galaxies is a 2-dimensional field(thats why I state in my profile 2-d always surrounds 3-d!)..but Iam not going to go into what I really know, except to say read the paper and ask yourself this question;Why are incoming photons different from outgoing photons?
  6. Nov 18, 2003 #5
    On my website (access via memebers list) I produced a graph showing the relationship between fundamental particles, including gravitons, using Particle (not Quantum) theory. My theory has been heavily crticised on
    where I have recently enered a detailed defense.
    The graviton remains beyond our reach because it does not form part of the electromagnetic spectrum within which all our experiments have to be conducted. That is to say that there is a seperate gravitation spectrum that only interacts with the electromagnetic spectrum at the speed of light, hence 'C' with all its baggage.
  7. Nov 18, 2003 #6
    could a graviton encompass one 'Newtonain Unverse"?

    if so, could have one graviton 'g+' ( say our universe ) formed an entangled quantum relationship with another graviton 'g-' ( an antimatter universe ) after a 'primordial superposition' which occurred somtime after t-43?
  8. Nov 18, 2003 #7
    I browsed through the article, it is about 20 pages long, to be honest i didn't read it all but i read most of it. I kind of understood the point the author was making.
    About 2d background the way "I" think of it and some might think the same way is: When you take a picture of anything with a normal camera what do you expect to see, 3d or 2d ? The backgroung radiation does not matter to me which dimensions we take the picture or the way we process it, what matters is what we learn from it. Like you, i will probably not go into 2-d and 3-d or dimensional discussion, although it is important in such fields of discussion. About photon, what do you mean? ( i am still reading the article by the way) The way i see it is what do you expect an object to look like after traveling light years across our universe the same or different? well these are my opinions, and probably many people have different thoughts. So how clear is the theory i posted above, or you still wouldn't go futher due to its basis.

    Like you i will agree graviton is completely differ from electromagnetic property until the speed c, thats when we will start seeing a relation, what is your opinion of above theory? same as others, need changes, waste of time or something to pursue?

    """could a graviton encompass one 'Newtonain Unverse"?"""
    My opinion NO. How come would you say that?
  9. Nov 18, 2003 #8

    Ill think about and reply soon, thanx for asking.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: The Missing Link . Gravitons?
  1. The Graviton (Replies: 3)

  2. Gravity and gravitons (Replies: 1)

  3. What are Gravitons (Replies: 1)

  4. What is graviton ? (Replies: 2)