Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
|Re: Graviton Doesn't Exist......
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by yelmalio/">yelmalio on November 24, 1999 09:33:48 UTC
Why should there be a graviton? There is no need for a messenger particle if the "force" of gravity is simply a property of inertia (i.e. acceleration on a curve that bends into a higher dimension).
Inertia is an objects resistance to changes in motion. A force is needed overcome inertia. Gravity is not a property of inertia but of mass. Einstiens deduction was the force of Gravity, as opposed to other forces, was attributable to movement in 4 dimensions and not the 3 we perceive daily. What I was originally trying to do was point out that mass may be more peculiar than most people realise. It may well be a property of the remnants of the Big Bang, the final symmetry breaking stage when the false vacuum collapses.
Why a Graviton? As I say a force is something that causes an acceleration. A Field is a total description of how the force operates in 4 dimensions. The classical case is the EM field described by Maxwell. Gravity is a field described by the Einstein Eqn and the force due to gravity by the Stress-Energy Tensor (IIRC). (Caveate: I am sure some one will correct me if I am wrong, problem is I am at work and no access to text books). We also have the weak and strong nuclear forces.
Quantum Mechanics (a very accurate description of the real world) says waves and particles are the same thing and can be treated as wave functions. This leads to EM forces being quantised as the photon. The strong nuclear force is described in QM as the gluon, the EM and weak nuclear forces are now combined as the Electroweak force and is described using W and Z vector bosons (W+, W-, W0 and Z).
Basically, 3 of the four fundamental forces are quantised and are carried by particles described by QM.
Current thought is that all forces are manifestations of a single super-symmetrical force that only exists at high energies, probably only attainable in the Big Bang. If a graviton exists, its properties found and a theory found that accurately describes the graviton we should be well on the way to finding a more accurate description of the universe and Big Bang.
If a graviton, higgs or whatever can not be found then current theories on how everyhting fits together may well be wrong and its back to the drawing board. A testable theory that predicts gravitons, retains general relativity and The Standard Model will also win the author a prize for smart-Language Removed of the century.
In this case..... is there a messenger particle for centrifical force?? I should think not. Ok, ok, centrifical force may not be an actual force.....but..... the way you describe gravity, it is nothing more than an objects resitance to a change in velocity,
Probably bad english on my part. Inertia is the resistance to change in velocity, acceleration is how velocity changes and is accplompished by a force acting on something. In short, if you accelerate a force must be acting. Rememeber that Gravity is a force, not the only one.
even if the direction is in a higher dimension. Gravity is not an actual force then, the only force would be the force that curves space time into the higher dimension, whatever that may be. Gravity is only a percieved byproduct.
Gravity is force you feel due to acceleration from the kinetic energy you acquire from the stored potential energy in the field due to curved spacetime, thats a mouthful. The amount of energy available is described in the stress-energy tensor, above. There is no force that curves spacetime, mass does that. To re-iterate, gravity is the force due to curved spacetime.
What fascinated me was the sudden realisation that mass curves spacetime to cause gravity. But mass is thought to be nothing more than the interaction of strings with a quantum field permeating the Universe. As Michio Kaku put it, particles (vibrating strings) are nothing but bits of vibrating spacetime. Spooky.
Being purely speculative, the central regions of Black Holes are then not areas of infinite (or very) densities but of highly energetic higgs fields and strings bending spacetim, assuming there is enough energy to reform a super-symmetrical state.
Yelmalio - apologies for any glaring errors.
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins