1st Dec, 2016

Islamic Azad University

Question

Asked 8th Nov, 2016 in the project Creative Particles of Higgs or CPH Theory

Einstein described gravity as equivalent to curves in space and time, but physicists have long searched for a theory of gravitons, its putative quantum-scale source. Physicists have searched for a theory of quantum gravity for 80 years. Though gravitons are individually too weak to detect, most physicists believe the particles roam the quantum realm in droves, and that their behavior somehow collectively gives rise to the macroscopic force of gravity, just as light is a macroscopic effect of particles called photons. But every proposed theory of how gravity particles might behave faces the same problem: upon close inspection, it doesn’t make mathematical sense. Calculations of graviton interactions might seem to work at first, but when physicists attempt to make them more exact, they yield gibberish — an answer of “infinity.” “This is the disease of quantized gravity,” Stelle said.

With regard to the exchange particles concept in the quantum electrodynamics theory and the existence of graviton, we will present a new definition of graviton. To define graviton, let’s consider a photon that is falling in the gravitational field, and revert back to the behavior of a photon in the gravitational field. But when we define the graviton relative to the photon, it is necessary to explain the properties and behavior of photon in the gravitational field. The fields around a "ray of light" are electromagnetic waves, not static fields. The electromagnetic field generated by a photon is much stronger than the associated gravitational field. When a photon is falling in the gravitational field, it goes from a low layer to a higher layer density of gravitons.

We should assume that the graviton is not a solid sphere without any considerable effect. Graviton carries gravity force, so it is absorbable by other gravitons; in general; gravitons absorb each other and combine. This new view on graviton shows, identities of graviton changes, in fact it has mass with changeable spin

Article What is CPH Theory?

Thank you for link. I saw glancing it and have saved to read carefully.

In spite of publishing many articles about graviton, but it has not been done any considerable work about mechanism of graviton exchange between bodies/particles. The reason is that the old graviton definition (in modern physics) is unable to describe this mechanism and also it is impossible to get the theory of the quantum gravity.

In this article with re-considering physical phenomena, a new definition of graviton is given which by its using; the mechanism of graviton exchange between bodies/particle is described and surveyed.

Thank you for your interesting link.

"...GRAVITY should be considered as an illusion!!" Why illusion!!?

There a quote in the page 2 of your link that is:According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity spacetime has no intrinsic properties other than its curved geometry"

If the new definition of gravitons can describe the spacetime curvature, Is gravity is an illusion? In my opinion, old definition of graviton is unable to describe the spacetime really.

4 Recommendations

**Get help with your research**

Join ResearchGate to ask questions, get input, and advance your work.

ha! Today is the day that breakthrough paper by Erik Verlinde might change your world. Perhaps not time, but GRAVITY should be considered as an illusion!!

greetings,

Roelof.

1 Recommendation

Thank you for your interesting link.

"...GRAVITY should be considered as an illusion!!" Why illusion!!?

There a quote in the page 2 of your link that is:According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity spacetime has no intrinsic properties other than its curved geometry"

If the new definition of gravitons can describe the spacetime curvature, Is gravity is an illusion? In my opinion, old definition of graviton is unable to describe the spacetime really.

4 Recommendations

The illusion fails during inelastic impact. When you fall gravity becomes real and sometimes dominant. Sources of gravity are quantized, so gravity is also quantized. Math may be defective, but doesn't disprove gravity.

It is postulated that two photons of spin one and dipole character can combine with destructive interference to create one graviton of spin two and quadrupole character. This is the question I am exploring in my threads about JJ detectors. The resulting stress energy has no EM character, but passes through an EM shield and is detected in the JJ. Since the photons are quantized the graviton is quantized also.

The remaining question is about other possible forms of stress energy, like kinetic energy of motion in QFT, and how it differs structurally from a graviton. Something important about stress energy seems to be almost within reach, but not realized yet.

Understanding the microscopic structure of vacuum space seems to be in the path forward.

3 Recommendations

Thank you for your interesting opinion.

"Since the photons are quantized the graviton is quantized also." I agree with you, in fact there is very likeness between photon's specifications and graviton.

In the other words, in interaction between photons and gravity, gravitons identity change, so it can form the electromagnetic properties of photons.

Another case is conversion of electromagnetic energy into gravitational potential energy and vice versa.

Article Unified Force, Energy and Mass

2 Recommendations

Dear Hossei Javadi.

Thank You for an interesting question.

There is a very good reason, that most physicists are very frustrated, and why gravitons is not a part of the Standard Model.

You will find the answer in the Higgstheory.

We have been working very hard and long to explain the Gravitation phenomena .

We very soon will declare our New Gravitation Theory.In this theory gravitation is a part of the Standard Model.

1 Recommendation

To George E. Van Hoesen

Thank You very much, You will be one of the first to get a copy of the theory. It has something to do, with the change of the Higgsfield from being a symmetric field to a partial asymmetry field because of the influence and interplay with the mass of a subject.

In this situation the field create an vector acceleration to the center of gravity, it is all just a matter of energy.

1 Recommendation

10th Nov, 2016

There is no graviton, it is photon mediates gravitation!!! Also there is no virtual particles or photons, they are real!

1 Recommendation

I appreciate your interest and comment.

Old definition of graviton is unable describe the quantum gravity, we need a new definition of graviton, I am in this way.

I hope see your theory as soon.

Dear colleagues! You told "Gravity should be considered as an illusion..". Suddenly some young scientist who believes in the opinion of the authorities decide to check out the conclusion of the illusory nature of gravity - and step into space with high-rise buildings. He will remain true chance to realize that the scientists were wrong.

Dear Hussein Javadi.

I did study Your profile on Research Gate.I see You have question the speed of light, mee too.

I do have an idea and only an idea which maybe could have Your attention.

In my imagination the the whole space is the Higgsfield .

Light is as we do know electromagnetic waves with a given frequency . The strenght of the field is changing over every period.

A change is similar to an acceleration which will acting the Higgsfield, maybe proportional to the fieldstrenght .

If this is truth, the speed of light depend of the strenght of the Higgsfield, and would have no limit in the period of the inflation of the Universe before the Higgsfield was establised.

Good luck

1 Recommendation

You wrote: "...Sources of gravity are quantized, so gravity is also quantized. Math may be defective,..." I agree with you, we need to develop our understanding of gravity by describe gravity phenomena.

1 Recommendation

Dear Kurt

Cosmology attempts to describe the behavior of the entire universe using these physical laws. In applying these laws to the universe one immediately encounters a problem. What is the initial state that the laws should be applied to? In practice, cosmologists tend to work backwards by using the observed properties of the universe now to understand what it was like at earlier times. This approach has proved very successful. However it has led cosmologists back to the question of the initial conditions.

Inflation theory is now accepted as the standard explanation of several cosmological problems. In order for inflation to have occurred, the universe must have been formed containing some matter in a highly excited state. Inflationary theory does not address the question of why this matter was in such an excited state.

Answering this demands a theory of the pre-inflationary initial conditions. There are two serious candidates for such a theory. The first, proposed by Andrei Linde of Stanford University, is called chaotic inflation. According to chaotic inflation, the universe starts off in a completely random state. In some regions matter will be more energetic than in others and inflation could ensue, producing the observable universe.

The second contender for a theory of initial conditions is quantum cosmology, the application of quantum theory to the entire universe. At first this sounds absurd because typically large systems (such as the universe) obey classical, not quantum, laws. Einstein's theory of general relativity is a classical theory that accurately describes the evolution of the universe from the first fraction of a second of its existence to now. However it is known that general relativity is inconsistent with the principles of quantum theory and is therefore not an appropriate description of physical processes that occur at very small length scales or over very short times. To describe such processes one requires a theory of quantum gravity.

Thus this paper, from a new approach, turns out to merge the fundamental principles of quantum physics, relativity and classical mechanics through a new definition of quiescent state of particles like photon, and attempts to present the reasons and the possibilities of the existence of the superluminal speeds. So according to this new view some complex concepts and unanswered questions of the timescale universe creation that we will explain in following sections.

And pages 55-64 of following article

1 Recommendation

In spite of publishing many articles about graviton, but it has not been done any considerable work about mechanism of graviton exchange between bodies/particles. The reason is that the old graviton definition (in modern physics) is unable to describe this mechanism and also it is impossible to get the theory of the quantum gravity. In this article with reconsidering physical phenomena, a new definition of graviton is given which by its using; the mechanism of graviton exchange between bodies/particle is described and surveyed.

2 Recommendations

15th Nov, 2016

hi

After hours of observing how laminar light beam changes the weight of an object, it seems to me that graviton or what is the source of gravitational action is travelling through space from all directions at the speed of light. They seem to be what makes systems that we call matter and when they travel in layers with fix frequency, we call it light. When they enter a system such as a nucleon, they do not push or pull on the system but becomes part of the system. If more enter from one direction, the whole system is just reorganized a little farther, giving the impression it had receive a pushing force. At nucleon level, there is no pushing force, just reorganisation of the system called nucleon.

That is why, we do not have to assign properties like energy, frequency, mass, dimension to these entities.

2 Recommendations

Quantum gravity is a part of quantum mechanics which is expected to combine these two theories, and it describes gravity force according to the principles of quantum mechanics which has not got the desired result, yet.

If graviton be able to describe physical phenomena that are regarding with gravity, so we should accept it exists.

In CPH theory, after reconsidering and analyzing the behavior of photon in the gravitational field, a new definition of graviton (carrying the gravity force) is given. By using this definition, graviton exchange mechanism between bodies/objects is described. As the purpose of quantum gravity is describing the force of gravity by using the principles of quantum mechanics, all the large bodies such as stars and galaxies which are made up of atoms and elementary particles, quantum gravity should explain the graviton exchange mechanism between atoms and elementary particles, too. In the previous paper (first part), a new definition of the relationship has been given in which the relation between gravity (graviton) and electromagnetic (photon) have been described. In this part, the graviton exchange mechanism in the beneath of layer were studied and analyzed and it finally has been tried to generalize and extend the graviton exchange mechanism from between particles and atoms to large bodies.

1 Recommendation

Quantum Gravity implies something that most have not considered.

There has to be a limit to gravity. Just as Max Planck discovered 116 years ago that there is a limit to the smallest part of energy called a quantum of energy and that energy can only come in the form of these little packets of energy so to is there a limit on the energy that can be felt by gravity. This limit is also dictated by Planck's work.

2 Recommendations

Yes, you are right, please share this limit to this topic. We can discuss on it.

Regards

1 Recommendation

Max Planck, more than 116 years ago used a limiting number to make his equations work. It later became one of the most fundamental constants of all time 6.62607 X 10^-34 Joule seconds. Known as planks constant this was a limiting factor to the understanding of the thing to be called a quanta of energy. Nothing smaller than this could be used. It has been the main stay of the Quanta of Energy for more than 100 years.

When I look back on this work and think what have we missed in the understanding or meaning of this constant the answer becomes clear. the physical size of the Quanta of energy may not be known but the energy content of that quanta is known. This means that regardless of our knowledge of the mass (if it has this) or physical characteristics of a quanta we know the limit of the energy signature of that particle.

The implication is that given this information we can show that all energy including field energy must also be limited by this number. Planck's constant therefore must be part of the gravitational equations and there by must limit the reach that gravity can be felt.

Gravity and its field are energy and therefore limited by Planck's constant.

George Van Hoesen

2 Recommendations

Dear George

Basically we do not know what energy is, only that energy acts as the least-stage changes in matter, radiation and fields (emf) , known as Plancks Constant h, using the formula E = h x f.

Presumably the explanation and understanding will be found in the String theory and a better understanding of the spacestructure.

1 Recommendation

Kurt,

We have had 60 years of strings and still all we have is what one sees. Planck's constant and its implications are that exactly what Albert Einstein proposed 5 years after Max Planck's work was that the Quanta of action has a physical incarnation that is not just action but physical. Everyone after that time even Albert and Max took back or tried to put the Genie back in the bottle put it was to late the implications of mass and energy were there. Mass and energy are directly related as in E=MC^2 in other words mass and energy are different forms of the same thing. So there can not be energy that does not carry mass.

If there is then all the work in this field needs to be discarded and the formulas that use Albert's and Max's work need to be replaced as invalid.

In science you can not have it both ways as we have had it for the last 116 years. One or the other but both has lead us to this place where Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible and no one can find the truth.

Energy is mass in motion. This motion can be characterized by Newton's laws and on and on. My point is that we have had a dualistic approach to the science for more than 100 years and it is time to get back to real world answers to the problems. A wave out side of physically moving the next particle is not something that can propagate through space without a lot of matter. A light particle that seems to wave through empty space is a particle that is rotating in space and therefore looks like a wave.

We do not live in a magical world where things happen because of some secret spiritual enigma creating it as we mortals try to understand it. Real is real and most of what I see in the science today points to us having a poor understanding of what Max Planck and Albert Einstein discovered more than 100 years ago.

Planck's constant implies energy is limited by the underlying mass that is ignored in the general scientific community.

I am sorry that was a lot of frustration with the science that wants to have it both ways.

George

21st Nov, 2016

The concept of mass was utilized in the macroscopic world. Same thing for the concept of energy. In the sub atomic world it might be different. Since we are not sure how an electron is structured inside and how many parts make an electron, it is possible that mass is only a concept to measure its resistance to change in velocity. Consider a group of people in a museum moving from one painting to the other at an average speed. Some new comers join the group and some quit the group. Each one coming in the group does not give energy to the group by pushing the group. The incomer is now part of the system that is moving in the museum. Something similar is probably going on when an electron receives something from space and emit something. When that enters the system electron, it does not give a push to the electron but becomes part of the complex system electron. That something does not need to have a property called mass because the concept of mass is for macroscopic systems. If the electron receives from space more on one side, it reorganize itself a little further as if it was pushed in one direction. Instead of using the concept of force or mass or energy, we should use terms like participation or group effect on the system. Maybe use something like the calculations used for air controlling our weather.

Unsolved problems in physics are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result. The others are experimental, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail.

1 Recommendation

You wrote: "Since we are not sure how an electron is structured inside and how many parts make an electron,..." You are right, according to my last post, it is an unsolved problem in theoretical physics, that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test. So we should this problem indirectly by experiment. In the other words, this problem can be solved by interpreting the possibility experiments. For example pair production and decay electron - positron by useing Dirac equation;

1 Recommendation

Dear Hossein Javadi,

an idea how gravitons work may be found in the papers:

Fedosin S.G. The graviton field as the source of mass and gravitational force in the modernized Le Sage’s model. Physical Science International Journal, ISSN: 2348-0130, Vol. 8, Issue 4, P. 1-18 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.9734/PSIJ/2015/22197.

Fedosin S.G. The charged component of the vacuum field as the source of electric force in the modernized Le Sage’s model. Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 3, P. 971-1020 (2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jfas.v8i3.18 .

Discussing the consequences of the existence of a rest frame in the universe

Discussion

431 replies

- Asked 6th Jun, 2022

- Sydney Ernest Grimm

The detection of the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) from everywhere around in the universe has puzzled theorists. Not least because of the discovery of a Doppler effect in the data that can only be interpreted as direct related to the velocity and the direction of the motion of the solar system. But if it is correct we have to accept that there exist a rest frame in the universe. Actually we can determine the existence of absolute space and that is not in line with the “belief” of most of the theorists.

There is another method to verify the results: counting the numbers and measuring the brightness of galaxies from everywhere around. The first results – using visible light – were not convincing. But a couple of days ago The Astrophysical Journal Letters published a paper from Jeremy Darling with results that were obtained with the help of radio waves: “*The Universe is Brighter in the Direction of Our Motion: Galaxy Counts and Fluxes are Consistent with the CMB Dipole”* (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08).

In other words, it is real. We can determine the existence of "absolute space". Moreover, we know from set theory (mathematics) that absolute space and phenomenological reality must share the same underlying properties otherwise we cannot detect the existence of absolute space. The consequence is that absolute space has a structure too, because phenomenological reality shows structure.

None of the grand theories in physics is founded on the structure of absolute space. Therefore we are facing a serious problem in respect to the foundations of theoretical physics (the conceptual framework of physics).

Article

- Feb 2020

In this paper, we introduce a different approach to the theory of gravitational field. This method can give the semiclassical graviton directly. We discuss the dynamics and quantization of graviton and obtain the field equation of graviton. Also we give proof to prove that the quantum field theory constructed in this paper is classically equivalent...

Article

- Aug 1998

A relation between the non-perturbative loop representation space and the semi-classical loop representation space is studied. A sector of (approximate) states and a sector of operators in the non-perturbative loop representation space are made related respectively to the physical states and the basic variables of the semi-classical loop representa...

Article

- Jun 1994

The Einstein equations can be written as Fierz-Pauli equations with self-interaction,
Wgik = - Gik + \tfrac12gik gmn Gmn - k(Tik - \tfrac12gik gmn Tmn )W\gamma _{ik} = - G_{ik} + \tfrac{1}{2}g_{ik} g^{mn} G_{mn} - k(T_{ik} - \tfrac{1}{2}g_{ik} g^{mn} T_{mn} )
together with the covariant Hilbert-gauge condition,
(gih - \tfrac12dik gmn gmn );k = 0...

Get high-quality answers from experts.