Graviton?

Timo Nieminen wrote in message ...

Dear Timo Nieminen

On Wed, 7 Oct 2003, Starblade Darksquall wrote:

Uncle Al wrote in message ...
Starblade Darksquall wrote:

Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
one place to another through gravitons?

They don't.

Well that's good that there are alternate theories. Is there a list of
alternate theories to the graviton?

Well, there is the general theory of relativity.

Direct experimental refutation of the theory, indicated by you is
given below.

From my point of view, so called "the theory", indicated by you is one
from numerous Mathematical Chimeras of XX Century.

Please, give destructive criticism or disapproval of my article from
point
of view of a scientific methodology (is adduced below):

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com


It is interesting to learn, how you came to connection between
a gravitation and so called "spacetime curvature" and/or quantum
theory?

Sincerely yours,

Aleksandr Timofeev

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
one place to another through gravitons? Couldn't it just as easily be
that timespace curvature cannot simply GET from one place to another
unless there is a form of energy that is transferred between the two
places?

Quantization of a field basically means that DeBroglie's relation applies.
It works for light, it works for electrons, it's thought to work for
gravity, too. You can use a Fourier transform to represent a classical
field as a sum of plane waves, and you can use something like a Fourier
transform to represent a quantum field as a sum of photons.

Imagine a stretched string. Wiggle it and you can get a standing wave
with one bump, two bumps, or more. Any wave on the string can be
represented as a sum of standing waves, the Fourier transform.
Quantization means that the amplitude of each standing wave is not
arbitrary but an integral multiple of something, and also that when the
string interacts (e.g. hits something) which mode it interacts with
is statistical, it's not simply the sum of all modes.

It's thought that DeBroglie's relation must also apply to gravitational
radiation, and that there should be a way to represent a gravitational
field as a sum of gravitons. It doesn't matter whether we're talking
about a field of force or a curvature of spacetime. Think of normal modes
on the rubber sheet analogy of gravity.

Rather than assuming that energy anywhere will somehow influence the
timespace some time and place in the future, why not make ALL of GR's
effects 100% local, and then try to figure the equations for some form
of energy that is passing from the first point to all the space around
it?

GR is already local. What happens at a particular spacetime point depends
only on what happened in the space immediately around it and the time
immediately before. Non-local means action at a distance.

Direct experimental refutation of the theory, indicated by you is
given below.

From my point of view, so called "the theory", indicated by you is one
from numerous Mathematical Chimeras of XX Century.

Please, give destructive criticism or disapproval of my article from
point
of view of a scientific methodology (is adduced below):

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com


It is interesting to learn, how you came to connection between
a gravitation and so called "spacetime curvature" and/or quantum
theory?

Sincerely yours,

Aleksandr Timofeev

This is easily reconcilable with GR, and quantizing the field might be
a bit easier. So has anybody done this?

I am a bit skeptical of gravitons. I know my ideas seem a bit crazy,
but trust me, I'm going somewhere with this. But, just wondering, what
are the difficulties with such an approach? And if you claim it won't
work, then can you tell me exactly why it wouldn't? I am eager and
curious to know. Maybe we won't have to worry about quantizing
timespace just yet!

Quantum gravity is not really my thing, so I can't say much more about it
than I already have.

(Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message om...
Timo Nieminen wrote in message ...
On Wed, 7 Oct 2003, Starblade Darksquall wrote:

Why do people automatically assume that spacetime curvature gets from
one place to another through gravitons?

They don't. However, without gravitons, gravity is fundamentally different
from the other known forces - problematic for unification.

Couldn't it just as easily be
that timespace curvature cannot simply GET from one place to another
unless there is a form of energy that is transferred between the two
places?

Rather than assuming that energy anywhere will somehow influence the
timespace some time and place in the future, why not make ALL of GR's
effects 100% local, and then try to figure the equations for some form
of energy that is passing from the first point to all the space around
it?

Is this not already the case in GR?

I don't know. They always explained to me that the rate at which
'gravity' moves from one place to the other is at the speed of light.
But how can this be if all gravitational effects are local?
Furthermore, how can the timespace curvature of a place change if the
stress energy tensor doesn't? That has never been explained to me.

Basically, they're treating space as if it was a flat rubber sheet and
that gravity is because particles rest on it, and when particles move
they create elastic disturbances.

I never liked this description, but it seems to be the type of
thinking that they're engaging in when they explain how timespace
curvature gets from one place to the other.

Dear Starblade Darksquall, do not evade.

Direct experimental refutation of the theory, indicated by you
is given below:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

1. Here SPACE and TIME are eliminated from the given EMPIRICAL THEORY.

2. THE GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE is ALONE physical VARIABLE in the given
EMPIRICAL THEORY.

3. The given EMPIRICAL THEORY demonstrates EXPERIMENTALLY QUANTIZATION
of a GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE.

Please, give destructive criticism or disapproval of my article from
point of view of a scientific methodology.

Do not evade.


Sincerely yours,

Aleksandr Timofeev



(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)