Re: 'gravitons'
- From: "Thomas Heger" <hballo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:11:08 +0100
"Aetherist" <TheAetherist@xxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:cp5uq1t9bndcjh4ndgqqu2bh2dvi4k2b3j@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 23:18:55 +0100, "Thomas Heger" <hballo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Aetherist" <TheAetherist@xxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:jrqqq1ps73a5kl05jn19la8ilqcv8ek7mk@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 15:36:31 +0100, "Thomas Heger" <hballo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hallo NG
>>>>
>>>> this my chrismas posting. (Some time to kill - Don't take it
>>>> to serious)
>>>
>>> No one will ;)
>>>
>>>> for some reason, I'm collecting arguments agianst the existence
>>>> of 'gravitons'.
>>>
>>> What are your reason(s) for doing this? If we know this it
>>> helps.
>>
>> Its just something like a hobby. A broken foot gave me some free
>> time to read Einstein. Then I wrote a text, that I tried to discuss
>> with somebody. So I came to this forum.
>
> If you have lurked here for awhile you will see that most are
> arrogant and generally rude. Don't let that bother you. For
> those that treat you that way you can either ignore, or respond
> in kind.
>
>> Unfortunatly nobody wants to read german.
>
> Unfortunately I cannot read German.
>
>> I did it for my own amusement, intuitivly, using improper words
>> for some nice ideas. if you want to read :
>>
>> http://www.hegus.de/Was%20ich%20betrachte.htm
>>
>> Then I found the topic enormously interesting, so i'm learning
>> everything in reach( tensor algbra, quantum physics, relativity,
>> alternative theories...)
>
> That is the way to approach the issue. Keep an open mind and
> follow the indications.
>
>> I came to ideas, that seem to be not common to physicists:
>>
>> 1) physical laws cannot be formulated independent of the
>> number n in n-body problems ( I call that 'systems')
>
> This is unclear to me. I do not understand what you're trying
> to say.
Let me try to explain:
I used the term 'system' for a something to observe.
A system belongs to the level of observation and exist in the level I like
to call 'reality'. From the observation you form a modell, which belongs to
the modell-level. Theese 'levels' form a modell of abstraction.
Systems consist of one ('elementry systems') or many elements.
The system has a border, and its your decision, where you want to have those
borders (any border is of equal rights).
The elements exchange 'influences' among themselfs and to the rest of the
world.
A discription of a system is based on the relations crossing the border,
summed up in a functional way.
To allow to discribe abitrarily big systems with one modell (set of
functions) is because of partial systems are selfalike to their containers
in most cases in physics, since the number n in the n-body problems are
really big.
This comes to an end when you get small n.
The one-body systems are not selfalike and cannot be.
An example:
a swarm of sardines is a 'system'.
The form is something like a discription ( of the swarm). Its not possible
to come to the form of a sardine from the form of the swarm. And its not
possible to get in the opposit direction: the swarm consists of sardines,
but doesn't look one, cause it consist of water too. I used this very
metaphorical picture to compare relativity and quantum physics.
I stated, that relativity is a discriptive modell for really big things and
in contrast quantum physics deals with elementry system (quantums). So its
simply not allowed to use the modells of relativity in quantum physics, but
this doen't bring them in contradiction.
>> 2) a good theory follows the 'principle of the least cause'.
>> Meaning something like: the simpler the things to discribe,
>> the simpler the discription has to be (theories should be
>> sparse)
>
> This is generally referred to as Ockham's Razor
>
>> 3) A discription should not have more independent variables
>> than the system you are discribing has degrees of freedom.
>
> Not a problem for gravity.
>
>> Long ago I had an idea, that has not left me, and regard it still
>> as good: you want to 'matrialize' space, I wanted to go into the
>> opposit direction to 'dematerialize' matter.
>
> Good heavens, what gave you that idea? Aetherist (like myself)
> think of 'space' as an empty container, devoid of any properties
> phyical propeties at all, except the volume (x, y, z) that defines
> said space. It is the physical medium conatianed in that space
> that endows it with its physical quantities. That physical medium
> is definitely not material. Remember, energy has mass, intrinsically.
> i.e., E = m·c^2. Space contains energy in several non-material forms,
> gravitational, electro-magnetic, ... etc.
>
> Mass is not matter. Like you, aetherist see matter as simply
> manifestations of the aetherial medium. Maxwell, Helmholtz, Kelvin
> envisoned it as some form atomic vortice lattice. Matter will
> exhibit a property called inertia, while the more fundamental (or
> primitive) quantity mass does not. Both shared the property of
> momentum, thus energy. Matter in any form are not simple particles
> (nor are any 'points'), not even so-called quarks. Condensed matter
> theory considers matter as defects in a lattice. I don't see that
> we think too differently here.
Sure, I doen't mix mass and matter.
One idea was to ask: is it possible, that empty space bear energy.
If there are no gravitons, you are able say, 'space' is something that has a
property called gravitation. GRT seems to allow this, since it stated that
space can be curved.
Since it takes energy to lift a body against gravitation, the energy must be
somewhere. If not in the lifted body, it must be in 'space'.
I said, why not, there is an other open question: how to explain matter. And
as I wanted to bring matter into terms of energy, I said, if space can bent
in large scale, it can do this in small scale too. That little bents I call
ripples. In form of 'quantum-ripples' I get a process energetic enough to
carry the enormous amount of energy stored in matter.
(No word about the other fields till now, but why not saying: fields are
properties of space.)
To explain this, I tried to figure out the 'speed' of a resting body in
minkowski space. Relativity gives speed of resting bodies sense, since it
allows to observe the resting body from an observer on a path in some angle.
So you get v=c.
So I have to distinguish between space and observed space ('the universe').
The latter started with a bang and this gives us an absolute reference.
>> there are three reasons for that:
>>
>> 1) E=m*c² implies some dependencies between matter and energy
>> 2) matter as build of matter is a circular definition
>> 3) problem of the origin
>
> The problem of origin is a total mystery at this time. I doubt
> either you or I will live to see it even come into context, much
> less solved.
To explain the existence of matter, I assumed: curvature stores energy (a
lot) and relaxation of curvature (big bang) releases energy and creates
matter. But I think about the 'big-bang' as something slow and still
continuing. So the singularity can be assumed to be void.
The bigger problem is the origin of all the energy we can observe.
>
>> So i tried to get fields, gravity and matter in terms of energy
>> distributing in space(-time).
>
> Einstein realized that his General theory required hydrodynamical
> structure. He said, quote:
>
> "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general
> theory of relativity space is endowed with physical
> qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an
> ether. According to the general theory of relativity
> space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space
> there not only would be no propagation of light, but
> also no possibility of existence for standards of space
> and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any
> space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether
> may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
> characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
> which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may
> not be applied to it."
>
> So, as you can see, you're in tune with Einstein also.
>
>> My idea needs 'cuved space' and with that inherent energy of
>> space:
>
> Yeah, a gradient in a pressure field.
don't understand, but try to read about that
>> I'm thinking about matter as something like 'ripples' in the
>> curvature. The idea of Gravitons seems to go in an other
>> direction. Thats why I'm collecting arguments.
>
> Why? Does a mundane pressure gradient in air mean there exists
> no kinetic field of air molecules to manifest it?
>
> Paul Stowe
Thomas Heger
.
- References:
- 'gravitons'
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: Aetherist
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: Aetherist
- 'gravitons'
- Prev by Date: Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- Next by Date: Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- Previous by thread: Re: 'gravitons'
- Next by thread: Re: 'gravitons'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
