[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 5 KB, 988x813, graviton.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12364143 No.12364143 [Reply] [Original]

How long do you think we still have to wait till we know if gravitons are real or not?

>> No.12364150

>>12364143
I dont think there are quantified gravitons but you never know which models work best.

so far id say GR is something special and not related to the other forces.
some heavy guy told about string theory does not need gravity to be quantified.
Im not a string anon but when even string theory does not need it, it might never come.

>> No.12364151

remember to anthropomorphize all the particles. "I'm a graviton yeah I'm pullin' you down lol"

>> No.12364244

>>12364143
I know they're fake now.

>> No.12364260

>>12364143
Isn't that what photons are?

>> No.12364277

>>12364143
>implying gravity has a particle
>implying LQG is not the real answer

>> No.12364285

>>12364244
Graviton here, you need to unfuck your understanding of me and my people

>> No.12364290

>>12364277
afaik (smart anons had a talk and i listened) LQG would need a quantified gravity.

>> No.12364313

>>12364277
>implying particles exist period.

>> No.12364450

>>12364313
>I like trains

>> No.12364514

>>12364313
they do as a manifestation of fields.

>> No.12364525

>>12364290
string theory does. LQG considers gravity to be the result of the space background created by the quantum loops distorting due to mass and energy.

>> No.12364570

You can't quantify gravity, the force simply is

>> No.12364577

>>12364525
so you now point out the total opposite of what some other anon said.
(this is also my post)
>>12364150

I see already, you probably wont be able to answer that easily for such complex theories.
the next anon will probably say both theories need the quantization of gravity and another one will say that both theories can do without quantization.

I set up a new theory todaym which is that gravity is a kind of counterpart to quantum fluctuation.
this is of course more than crazy, but after all both phenomena have an effect that cannot be shielded and know no counterforce.
I just cant get away from seeing a kind of counterpart to the planck constant in the black hole.
I am fully aware that physics is not beautiful/balanced/symmetric but my gut tells me that there is something to it.

>> No.12364620

>>12364577
Well, the anon that said string theory doesn't require a graviton doesn't know what he is talking about. Of course, the graviton in this case wouldn't be a particle because string theory as the name suggest doesn't deal with particles, but the whole point of string theory is quantizing gravity in some way to make it fit together with quantum mechanics.

>> No.12364623

>>12364514
particles are just points where energy interacts, and since gravity does not constitute a force, there is no logical reason that it should have a particle.

>> No.12364760

>>12364623
Explain why gravity isn't a force again please?

>> No.12364803

>>12364760
Gravity is the bending of spacetime, neither the direction or the magnitude of the moving object actually changes, because no force is being applied. No force = no energy = no graviton

>> No.12364827

>>12364803
And before someone says that gravity causes stationary objects to fall, there is no such thing as a stationary object. You are always moving at the same speed as the esrth, and it's this directional movement that is being redirected via gravity

>> No.12364828

>>12364143
because gravity is so weak compared to all the other forces gravitons would be effectively impossible to observe.

>> No.12364851

How do we know gravity isnt just an aspect of magnetism going predominantly along the time axis? We wouldn't be able to comprehend both poles because the repulsive pole is backwards in time.

>> No.12364874

>>12364851
Because you are talking gibberish that makes no logical sense.

>> No.12364876
File: 66 KB, 714x528, Standard Model.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12364876

>>12364260
lolno

>> No.12364880

Individual gravitons probably have so little energy that we will never detect them directly. For instance, Tony Rothman and Stephen Boughn calculated that with very optimistic assumptions, it may be possible to get a flux of 1 million gravitons with enough energy to produce bremsstrahlung radiation per year through a Jupiter-sized detector orbiting a neutron star. However, such a detector is impossible to construct for mechanical reasons and it would be impossible to shield it from neutrinos or cosmic rays.

But we may eventually have other evidence that supports a particular theory of quantum gravity, and that theory may include gravitons. When or if that will happen is anyone's guess. But probably not tomorrow.

>> No.12364882
File: 28 KB, 400x562, wit1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12364882

>>12364803
>>12364827
Retroactively refuted by String theory, Phenotype wins once again.

>> No.12365110

>>12364514
not manifestations. If you want to sound smart and talk about QFT, then at least be precise about it. They are excited states of quantum fields.

>> No.12365120

>>12364143

200 years.

>> No.12365414

>>12364143
quoting wikipedia, to shield a graviton detector from neutrinos, you'd need so much lead that it would "collapse into a black hole"

nature is under no mandate to have its laws be experimentally verifiable by human beings, might be impossible

>> No.12365417

HOLY SHIT A GRAVITON JUST FLEW OVER MY HOUSE!!

>> No.12365439

>>12364876
nice pic gonna borrow that for my self-learning

>> No.12365465

>>12364803
literally schizo bullshit

>> No.12365478

>>12365414
Nah, we just need black holes as neutrino shields

>> No.12365481

>>12365414
It requires multiple light years of lead. If all neutrinos were coming from the same distant point source, you could actually build an arbitrarily long neutron shield if enough lead existed, since you could construct the shield in the shape of a cylinder of fixed diameter, such that mass increased linearly with height. So then no bounding sphere would ever contain enough mass to collapse into a black hole, no matter how tall the cylinder. The problem is that neutrinos actually come from every direction, so you would basically need an enormous ball with a hollow center surrounding your detector. Not only is there not enough matter in the universe to build it, but it would collapse into a black hole after you had built only 0.000,013 light years of it (if you used lead), while you would need multiple light years to effectively shield enough neutrinos to make a graviton detection. And of course, the lead itself would contribute far too much noise and drown out the gravitons anyway.

If these calculations are correct, detecting gravitons is FAR outside the realm of possibility. Maybe in a billion years, scientists will create their own pocket universe that is virtually empty, and populate it with a detector made of dark matter or something. But realistically, it's never going to happen.

Which makes me kind of sad.

>> No.12365484

>>12365478
Black holes would block the gravitons as well.

>> No.12365511

>>12365481
Yes but it gives the Japanese and other the excuse to build massive underground bases for science

>> No.12365580

>>12364880
>>12365414
>>12365481
What does it mean for something to exist but to be unobservable? How could it have an impact on the universe if it is literally impossible to measure or detect?

>> No.12365626

>>12365580
crossing symmetry
https://youtu.be/x26a-ztpQs8?t=21m

>> No.12365639

>>12364285
Graviton Half-Lives Matter

>> No.12365642

>>12364313
Waves and particles are 2 sides of the same coin, so to speak.

>> No.12365673

>>12365626
I don't really understand how to relate this to my question. I did find an article about how we could detect gravitons, though.
https://phys.org/news/2014-03-elusive-graviton.html

>> No.12365717

>>12364620
>but the whole point of string theory is quantizing gravity in some way to make it fit together with quantum mechanics.
ok, that was what I had originally understood.
I am inclined to take your side again.

in any case I dont like the idea of additional dimensions but this applies to both..

>> No.12365726

>>12365717
>I dont like the idea of additional dimensions
Why not?

>> No.12365779

>>12365726
there is a very convincing proof that there can only be three space dimensions.
only with three space dimensions the F ∼ 1/r2 laws of forces apply. r := distance
stable planetary orbits are only possible in three spatial dimensions.
and then we have the time (yes as inseparable space-time but still the time).

so we actually know two different types of dimensions.
and then we make theories but do not distinguish.
of course we can now 'roll things up' and keep them away from us.
but what is that then?
what purpose does it serve?
and why should there be more at all?
arent we rather looking for mathematical forms, only to have a unified theory on the paper?
why should we unite forces that show so clearly that they are not made of the same?

electromagnetism, for example, can be completely manipulated.
gravity does not care.
and both obey the 1/r2 law but because of space/spacetime, see above.
so there are grotesque differences.

for my understanding we are exposed to a very basic duality here.
and this includes phenomena that are not present in quantum field theory or GR (dark energy and matter for example).
so we try to solve a problem with a unified theory, which is obviously not complete.
and I am convinced that this duality can only be understood when we understand these phenomenas.

then and only then we might be able to succesfully unify theories.

>> No.12365808

>>12365779
*1/(r^2)

>> No.12365954

>>12364143
Forever,

Right in experiment proving it they invent time machine and go back to disprove it.

It's infinite loop.

Poor people stuck there.

>> No.12366315

>>12365717
LQG doesn't need additional dimensions, nor does it need the space as a background for gravity. String theory explain gravity mathematically, but it doesn't explain how space (and time) came to be. LQG explain it, but its mathematics are not well developed yet and it can't make many predictions (such as super symmetry).

>> No.12366325

>>12366315
if so, LQG sounds better and better to me.

>> No.12366400

Gravity wodls because spacetime is composed of discrete points with even distribution. These discrete points act as bounding barriers to each other; a point can never cross another point, and energy must travel between points in order. Mass is when multiple points become condensed into a singular region, which causes additional connected points to shift towards the mass point. This gives the effect of curved movement for energy that moves through the points, because it has to follow the mass-induced curvature, but it doesn't actually have any effect on the energy or force because such things dictate the point path, which is still being adhered to.

>> No.12368030

>>12364151
"I'm a muon and I'm a big fucking fat disgusting electron that's too god damn lazy to stick around for more than a couple microseconds because IM A STUPID LOSER!"

>> No.12368641

>>12364277
What is a loop?