Re: Gravitons=>Photons ??
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Jan 2006 14:53:33 -0800
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Gravitons => Photons
>
> We'll suggest gravitons convert to photons.
>
> (1) Objects A and B are quiescent = have no spin.
> (2) Object A emits a photon with spin 1 cw,
> and A has spin 1 ccw so spin is conserved.
> (3) Object B absorbs the photon and has spin 1 cw,
> (4) the spin of the system (and momentum) remains
> conserved, i.e. summed to zero at all times.
>
> 1) A
>
> 2) A ~~~~~>
> ccw cw
>
> 3) ~~~~~>B
> cw
>
> 4) A B
> ccw cw
>
> To my point, in (2) at emission the *relative spin* of A
> relative to the photon is 2, ie. ccw - cw = 2.
>
> Prior to absorption the *relative spin* of the photon
> relative to B is cw = -1.
A microwave beam will repel a reflector without
any atomic absorbtion. IMHO you are basing
your calculations on the rules that apply to
the formalism of QM not on observed phenomena.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node90.html
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
>
> Here's what we deduce...a quantity like spin must be
> measured, that's relativity. Relative to A it's a spin 2
> particle (graviton) but relative to B it's a spin 1 particle
> (photon), where those measurements occur at the
> moments of emission and absorption.
It may be sufficient to know it is integer spin.
>
> Hence we postulate:
> The photon has relative spin 2 at emission and relative
> spin 1 at absorption, (there is no, and cannot be any
> intermediate relativistic frame).
>
> This is supported by an electrical solution to the
> Einstein Field Equations in,
>
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
>
> and provides a basis to understand the emission of
> gravitational orbital energy, such as in the PSR 1913
> binary system (gravitons with spin 2) and predicts the
> consequent detection of that radiation emission by radio
> receivers as photon spin 1 particles.
The energy loss of orbital motion, I don't see.
<<The quanta thought to convey gravitational force;
analogous to the photons, gluons, and intermediate
vector bosons of electromagnetism and the strong
and weak nuclear forces. >>
http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#carrierboson
*analogous* does not imply 0.511 MeV chunks.
I would have to agree that a pair of induced dipoles
tracking each others phase over a long range *are*
a form of radio transmitter/receiver. A very private
channel 'tho.
What kind of radio receiver would you build to listen
to your refrigerator magnets talking to the door?
You have considered for absorbtion. Gravitationally
there is no mechanism for that. Photonically,
Fitpatrick considers both absorption and reflection.
The long-range force is repulsive in either case.
Not to discourage you. I think I can agree with about
half of your post.... metaphysically.
Afraid I prefer something other than GR to
explain Hulse-Taylor 'tho. Thus far, LIGO
concurs.
Sue...
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
> (kxsxt).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Gravitons=>Photons ??
- From: Sue...
- Re: Gravitons=>Photons ??
- References:
- Gravitons=>Photons ??
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Gravitons=>Photons ??
- Prev by Date: Re: Three Ring Circus
- Next by Date: Re: 100 Years
- Previous by thread: Gravitons=>Photons ??
- Next by thread: Re: Gravitons=>Photons ??
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
