Re: 'gravitons'
- From: "Thomas Heger" <hballo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:42:57 +0100
"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrndqui4b.2rj.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thomas Heger:
> >Hallo NG
> >
> >this my chrismas posting. (Some time to kill - Don't take it to serious)
> >for some reason, I'm collecting arguments agianst the existence of
> >'gravitons'.
>
> Why? Wouldn't it be better to try and understand what kind of
> ``thing'' could be called a graviton so that you don't get the
> impression that there is some sort of dichotomy to resolve with
> a vote?
That was not my intention. An argument is just something to talk about and
something, that helps me to understand.
> >Theese mysterious particles occure every now and then, even in advanced
> >physics books.
>
> The reason for the ``every now and then,'' is due to the difficulty
> interpreting gravity in terms of a quantum field theory.
You regard it as a good idea to explain something mysterious with something
even more mysterious?
To my actual understanding, quantum physics cannot explain gravity. The
reason is, that i.e. photons behave the more as a particle the higher the
frequency is. High frequency means short wavelenght. GRT is somehow
geometric and explains gravitation as a result of the curvature. The smaller
the ' size' of something or the higher the frequency the less curvature
would be involved. So if you regard quantum-physics as the 'end of the line'
from many-body-problems to one-body-problems (as I do) all gravity is gone
in the area of quantums.
My actual opinion about gravitons is: they are a modell to discribe a static
field. And I doen't see the reason to do this with means of quantum-physics.
....
> Gravitational radiation carries off energy, so I'm not sure where
> you came up with that one either.
>
> >a pendulum would swing in vacuum for ever.
>
> Actually, that isn't true, even for a frictionless pendulum.
> Gravitational radiation carries away enrgy. So long as the
> moving mass has a mass distribution with multipole moments
> equal to or greater than a quadrupole, it will radiate away
> the energy.
This is true? Might be, but for now I can't believe that. Are there any
experiments about that?
Since its a lot of energy in gravitation, all celestrial bodies would cool
down dramaticly under influence of this effect.
>
> >But particles could get lost or interact with each other,
>
> How do particles get lost and why would you expect gravitons
> to _not_ interact with each other? Gravity is highly non-linear,
> so its a sure thing that graviton-graviton vertices would be
> an essential part of such a theory.
I meant radiation (=loss of gravitons). There is something like a radiation
of isolated bodies only by gravitation?
graviton-graviton interaction would require some energy (somewhere outside
in space). This would result in increase of entropie, since that energy is
lost and might be radiated away as heat.
....
>
> >6) gravitons would carry energy
>
> Uh, that would be in keeping with the general idea that radiation
> of any type carries energy away from the source as the definition
> of radiation.
>
>
Thomas Heger
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: Bilge
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: PD
- Re: 'gravitons'
- References:
- 'gravitons'
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: Bilge
- 'gravitons'
- Prev by Date: Re: They verified a wrong theory
- Next by Date: Re: They verified a wrong theory
- Previous by thread: Re: 'gravitons'
- Next by thread: Re: 'gravitons'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
