What fallacies exist in arguments against gravitons?

  • Thread starter alsey42147
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Gravitons
In summary: In 1904 one might have asserted that the speed of light cannot be constant on similar grounds: It's so simple, if it were the case, science would have figured it out a long time ago. Of course, one would have been wrong.
  • #1
alsey42147
22
0
I just read this:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50304

I'm just wondering what those who are more knowledgeable about this stuff think of it. My guess is the arguments are invalid otherwise people wouldn't bother studying string theory...

Do gravitons interact with themselves, as gluons do? If not, is that why gravitons are able to escape a black hole's event horizon and influence the rest of the universe?

What about when he says that any massive body must emit an infinite amount of energy in gravitons - is that just plain wrong or what?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The problem I see is that he has confused "gravitons", the quanta of gravitational raditation (gravity waves) with "virtual gravitons", the mediators of the the gravitational field.

He also sounds like someone very full of himself. I mean, really, his arguments are so simple and basic, that if they were valid, science would have abandoned the idea of gravitons long ago. So basically it comes off as "Look how more clever I am than all these scientists".
 
  • #3
Janus said:
He also sounds like someone very full of himself. I mean, really, his arguments are so simple and basic, that if they were valid, science would have abandoned the idea of gravitons long ago. So basically it comes off as "Look how more clever I am than all these scientists".

This is an unsound argument; be careful with this kind of thing. In 1904 one might have asserted that the speed of light cannot be constant on similar grounds: It's so simple, if it were the case, science would have figured it out a long time ago. Of course, one would have been wrong.
 
  • #4
KingOrdo said:
This is an unsound argument; be careful with this kind of thing. In 1904 one might have asserted that the speed of light cannot be constant on similar grounds: It's so simple, if it were the case, science would have figured it out a long time ago. Of course, one would have been wrong.

But have you read the article? It's complete nonsense. It's clearly written by someone who has no background in particle physics or field theory. And who pretends knwoing what he is talking about.

Just a few points... he says that the concept of graviton was invented to "plug a hole in the standard model". That's nonsense since the standard model does not address gravitation. Then he seems to say that gravitons are a prediction of string theory alone. The idea of gravitons as the quanta of a quantized theory of GR is much older than string theory, obviosuly.

Then he says that the idea does not make sense because a black hole would be emitting an infinite number of gravitons or some other mumbo-jumbo like this. He does not understand that a charge particle in ordinary QED produces a background electromagnetic field and that if his reasoning was correct, such a charge particle would be emitting infinite amounts of photons and the concept fo photons would not make sense.

It's complete nonsense and comes clearly from someone who has no background in particle physics. And who talks as if he understood the subject. So I agree 100% with Janus
 
  • #5
kdv said:
But have you read the article? It's complete nonsense. It's clearly written by someone who has no background in particle physics or field theory. And who pretends knwoing what he is talking about.

Just a few points... he says that the concept of graviton was invented to "plug a hole in the standard model". That's nonsense since the standard model does not address gravitation. Then he seems to say that gravitons are a prediction of string theory alone. The idea of gravitons as the quanta of a quantized theory of GR is much older than string theory, obviosuly.

Then he says that the idea does not make sense because a black hole would be emitting an infinite number of gravitons or some other mumbo-jumbo like this. He does not understand that a charge particle in ordinary QED produces a background electromagnetic field and that if his reasoning was correct, such a charge particle would be emitting infinite amounts of photons and the concept fo photons would not make sense.

It's complete nonsense and comes clearly from someone who has no background in particle physics. And who talks as if he understood the subject. So I agree 100% with Janus

Yes. You have just given a sound argument why the author's views should be rejected. You have used valid rules of logical inference to derive results from true premises. Compare that with Janus's reply, which was to assert that the author is wrong because, if his views were right, they would have been advanced previously. That kind of "argument" is both absurd on its face (the infinite regress is glaring) and well-known fallacious reasoning.
 
  • #6
KingOrdo said:
This is an unsound argument; be careful with this kind of thing. In 1904 one might have asserted that the speed of light cannot be constant on similar grounds: It's so simple, if it were the case, science would have figured it out a long time ago. Of course, one would have been wrong.

I'm sorry but this is not the same thing at all. For one, while the invariance of the spped of light was a simple idea to express, it was far from an obvious conclusion and not an easily accepted one. Besides that, all the pieces of the puzzle that had to be assembled in order to come to that conclusion hadn't even been uncovered much before Einstein developed Relativity.

On the other hand the types of arguments posed in this article are the kind that, if valid, would have any scientisit slapping his forehead and going "DOh!"

Take the "gravitions can't escape a black hole argument. Do you really think that no-one would have thought of that? Heck, I've lost count of how many times I've run across that argument/question on the internet over the years.

It's on a par with the argument that the Moon landing were faked because there are no stars in any of the Moon photos. A lot of that argument rests on the assumption that a lot of very smart people missed something so glaringly obvious. I mean really, you're going to go to all the trouble to fake a moon mission, but you're not going make sure that there are stars in photos that should have star? Let alone the countless international scientists who looked at thesed photo and also seemed to miss that there should have been stars?(including Soviet scientists that would have loved to expose the US Moon landings as fake.)

Its also on par with the opinion printed by a newpaper that the idea of using rockets for space propulsion (as was being proposed by scientists at the time) was impossible because space was a vacuum and the rocketr wouldn't have anything to push against.

Not only is this based on a fundamental mis-understanding of how rockets work, it also plays on the idea that the scientisits are too stupid to figure this out.
 

Related to What fallacies exist in arguments against gravitons?

What is a graviton?

A graviton is a theoretical particle that is believed to be responsible for the force of gravity in the universe. It is a hypothetical particle that has not yet been observed or confirmed by scientific experiments.

Why is the existence of gravitons questioned?

The existence of gravitons is questioned because they have not yet been detected by experiments, and some theories of gravity do not require the existence of a specific particle to explain the force of gravity.

What is the evidence for gravitons?

Currently, there is no direct evidence for the existence of gravitons. However, indirect evidence such as the behavior of gravitational waves and the behavior of particles in the presence of strong gravitational fields support the idea of gravitons.

What are the challenges in detecting gravitons?

The main challenge in detecting gravitons is that they are expected to be extremely low in energy and interact very weakly with other particles, making them difficult to detect using current technology. Additionally, the effects of gravity are very small on a quantum level, making it difficult to observe gravitons directly.

What are the implications of discovering gravitons?

If gravitons are discovered, it would confirm the existence of a specific particle responsible for the force of gravity and would provide a deeper understanding of the fundamental forces of the universe. It could also potentially lead to advancements in our understanding of quantum gravity and the unification of all the fundamental forces.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
832
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
337
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
479
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
480
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top