| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Rolf Guthmann" |
| Date: |
08 Mar 2005 07:08:08 PM |
| Object: |
The Graviton |
The Graviton?
Theoretically predicted but never observed, this hypothetical particle
with no electric charge and no mass is supposed to be responsible for
the gravitational interaction between matter and energy.
The following summary will show how its existence can be predicted and
why we can eliminate it from the new theory of gravity.
Its existence has traditionally been justified by the need for an
element responsible for gravitational mediation, to carry out the
transmission of energy between objects or particles, because physics
does not accept the conversion of force into energy. It is presumed
that the graviton disappears and is converted into energy when it acts
on an object or particle.
We know that when a force acts on a particle, its energy is altered,
and that this energy is quantised in multiples of h (Planck=E2=80=99s
Constant), as established by quantum theory and confirmed
experimentally. We can thus analyse the following relations between
force and energy.
Force is equal to change in momentum over change in time.
We therefore have: F =3D =CE=94P/=CE=94T [N or (kg.m) /s/s].
(1)
Force is also equal to change in energy over change in distance.
We therefore have: F =3D =CE=94E/=CE=94x [N or (kg.m2)/s2/m].
(2)
Where: =CE=94E =3D (E2 =E2=80=93 E1) [(kg.m2)/s2].
(3)
When a force acts on an object or particle, its energy is changed,
which is to say that work is done. This work is a change in energy,
with the same units as the energy itself, thus:
W =3D =CE=94E =3D E2 =E2=80=93 E1=3D F.=CE=94x [Joules or N.m or (kg.m=
2)/s2]. (4)
From 4, we can see that, as work is a change in energy, and as this
energy is quantised, we can state that the work must also be quantised.
If one is quantised, the other must also be.
Returning to 2, the force must therefore also be quantised, assuming
that any change in distance is a continuous quantity.
We can now ask whether the distance is indeed continuous, which we
cannot state with absolute certainty. It may be theoretically possible
to always find a new point between any two given points, but quantum
mechanics shows that the shortest measurable distance is Planck=E2=80=99s
length (Lp).
Using the gravitational energy of an isolated mass given here:
Eg =3D=3D 3/5.Gk.m2/r [Joules or N.m or (kg.m2)/s2], (5)
we can deduce Planck=E2=80=99s length (Lp) as follows:
Lp =3D ((h/2pi). Gk/c3)^(1/2) [m]. (6)
This Lp could theoretically generate the lowest quantised work (Wq),
and this could be used to define the lowest quantum of gravitational
force (Fq). Here is the graviton.
It was shown in chapter 7 of the QTG that the Universal Gravitational
Constant (Gk) is not entirely constant, but was calculated for this
part of the universe and could assume different values depending on the
presence of objects or masses that could modulate the frequency of the
local time reference. We can thus conclude that Lp will also vary from
place to place, which will be of significance later.
As gravity is the weakest force, the graviton would theoretically be
its elementary unit. In this case, it would be a quantum of work by
Planck=E2=80=99s length (Lp), and the graviton would have the following
force:
Fq =3D Wq/Lp [N or (kg.m /s/s)]. (7)
From 7, we can see that this quantum of gravitational force (Fq) has
the units of force [N], while gravity has the units of acceleration
[m/s/s]. As force is classically the product of mass and acceleration,
we have:
F =3D m.a [N or (kg.m /s/s)]. (8)
It was strategically determined that the graviton should have zero
mass:
m =3D 0 [kg],
We should therefore theoretically have a lowest quantum of
gravitational force equal to zero:
Fq =3D m . 0 =3D 0 [N ou (kg.m /s/s)]. (9)
For this to occur, convention determined that this quantum of
gravitational force be magically converted into inertia. In chapter 6
of the QTG, it was shown that this artifice is unnecessary, with the
demonstration that a difference in the relative forces of the atom
results in a force without mass or inertia, thereby respecting all the
laws and postulates of the classical theories of physics.
In chapter 2 of the QTG, it was shown that gravity is generated only
when an atom is found in a gravitational field, without which there can
be no temporal reference, this being defined by the presence of at
least one other atom, and that the gravity generated also depends on
the intensity of the gravitational field.
We can conclude that it is not a force that generates gravity, but the
presence of a gravitational field. That is to say, we do not have the
conversion of force into energy, but the conversion of the influence of
a gravitational field into gravitational energy, because, as shown in
chapter 8 of the QTG, =E2=80=9Cgravity gravitates=E2=80=9D.
SEE: http://www.geocities.com/rolfguthmann/QTG/qtg.html
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
08 Mar 2005 08:05:06 PM |
|
|
"Rolf Guthmann" <rolfguthmann@uol.com.br> wrote in message
news:1110330488.535448.47470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The Graviton?
Theoretically predicted but never observed, this hypothetical particle
with no electric charge and no mass is supposed to be responsible for
the gravitational interaction between matter and energy.
The following summary will show how its existence can be predicted and
why we can eliminate it from the new theory of gravity.
<SNIP>
Hello crackpot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
08 Mar 2005 11:33:04 PM |
|
|
Gravity is a continuum.
Mitch Raemsch
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
08 Mar 2005 09:31:06 PM |
|
|
Rolf Guthmann wrote:
"Gravity is generated only when an atom is found in a gravitational field,
without which there can be no temporal reference..."
Gravity is full accounted for by General Relativity. There has NEVER been
a prediction of General Relativity that was contradicted by an observation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
09 Mar 2005 03:35:11 AM |
|
|
Rolf Guthmann wrote:
The Graviton?
Theoretically predicted
Not really. We don't have a working quantum theory of gravity yet.
"hypothized to exist" would be better.
but never observed, this hypothetical particle
with no electric charge and no mass
To be precise, no rest mass. BTW, also baryon number and lepton number
zero, no colour charge, no weak isospin; and spin two.
is supposed to be responsible for
the gravitational interaction between matter and energy.
Vaguely right.
The following summary will show how its existence can be predicted and
why we can eliminate it from the new theory of gravity.
Rrrrigggghhhttt.
Its existence has traditionally been justified by the need for an
element responsible for gravitational mediation, to carry out the
transmission of energy between objects or particles,
Vaguely right.
because physics
does not accept the conversion of force into energy.
Gibberish.
It is presumed
that the graviton disappears and is converted into energy when it acts
on an object or particle.
Vaguely right.
We know that when a force acts on a particle, its energy is altered,
Right.
and that this energy is quantised in multiples of h (Planck’s
Constant), as established by quantum theory
Wrong. h does not have the unit of energy, so obviously energy
can't be quantized in multiples of h!
and confirmed experimentally.
Since what you wrote was wrong, this obviously was *not*
confirmed experimentally.
You probably refer to the photo effect. But that effect did not
show what you claimed above. It showed that the energy *in an
electromagnetic wave* is quantized in multiples of h *times the
frequency of the wave*.
You missed the two parts enclosed in stars, and therefore what you
wrote was simply wrong.
We can thus analyse the following relations between
force and energy.
Force is equal to change in momentum over change in time.
We therefore have: F = ΔP/ΔT [N or (kg.m) /s/s].
(1)
Force is also equal to change in energy over change in distance.
We therefore have: F = ΔE/Δx [N or (kg.m2)/s2/m].
(2)
Where: ΔE = (E2 – E1) [(kg.m2)/s2].
(3)
When a force acts on an object or particle, its energy is changed,
which is to say that work is done. This work is a change in energy,
with the same units as the energy itself, thus:
W = ΔE = E2 – E1= F.Δx [Joules or N.m or (kg.m2)/s2]. (4)
From 4, we can see that, as work is a change in energy,
Congratulations, you got all that right.
and as this
energy is quantised, we can state that the work must also be quantised.
If one is quantised, the other must also be.
Well, but since the first is not quantised in general...
[snip lots of stuff based on false premise]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
09 Mar 2005 05:39:45 AM |
|
|
Right.
It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
where action = ergs x seconds.
Would anyone agree?
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
09 Mar 2005 06:43:10 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Right.
It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice: Bohr-Sommerfeld's
version of QM is outdated.
where action = ergs x seconds.
Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of action
in one particle system of units merely.
Would anyone agree?
No.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
09 Mar 2005 05:44:28 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Right.
It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice: Bohr-Sommerfeld's
version of QM is outdated.
where action = ergs x seconds.
Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of action
in one particle system of units merely.
Would anyone agree?
No.
Then educate us, tell us what you have been
told what action is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
09 Mar 2005 11:42:16 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1110411868.681520.318520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
| > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| > > Right.
| > > It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
| >
| > No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
| > and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
| > be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice: Bohr-Sommerfeld's
| > version of QM is outdated.
| >
| >
| > > where action = ergs x seconds.
| >
| > Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of action
| > in one particle system of units merely.
| >
| >
| > > Would anyone agree?
| >
| > No.
|
| Then educate us, tell us what you have been
| told what action is.
This article seems to agree with Ken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29
I have always thought that action had units of energy*time in any unit
system. hbar/2 is the smallest amount of "action" there can be.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
10 Mar 2005 04:39:44 AM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1110411868.681520.318520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
| > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| > > Right.
| > > It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
| >
| > No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
| > and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
| > be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice: Bohr-Sommerfeld's
| > version of QM is outdated.
| >
| >
| > > where action = ergs x seconds.
| >
| > Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of action
| > in one particle system of units merely.
| >
| >
| > > Would anyone agree?
| >
| > No.
|
| Then educate us, tell us what you have been
| told what action is.
This article seems to agree with Ken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29
Pardon???
Ken says that action is quantized. The article says nothing like that.
Ken says that action = ergs x seconds. The article says nothing like
that. In contrast, it says (like me) that action is the time integral
of the Lagrangian, and has the *dimension* of energy x time.
I have always thought that action had units of energy*time in any unit
system.
And I did not dispute that in any way!!!
I merely pointed out that the equation "action = ergs x seconds" is
wrong!
hbar/2 is the smallest amount of "action" there can be.
Why do you think so?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
11 Mar 2005 03:23:28 PM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d0p85g$nsb$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| > news:1110411868.681520.318520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
| > | > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| > | > > Right.
| > | > > It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
| > | >
| > | > No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
| > | > and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
| > | > be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice:
Bohr-Sommerfeld's
| > | > version of QM is outdated.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > > where action = ergs x seconds.
| > | >
| > | > Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of action
| > | > in one particle system of units merely.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > > Would anyone agree?
| > | >
| > | > No.
| > |
| > | Then educate us, tell us what you have been
| > | told what action is.
| >
| > This article seems to agree with Ken.
| >
| > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29
|
| Pardon???
|
| Ken says that action is quantized. The article says nothing like that.
|
| Ken says that action = ergs x seconds. The article says nothing like
| that. In contrast, it says (like me) that action is the time integral
| of the Lagrangian, and has the *dimension* of energy x time.
You're nitpicking.
| > I have always thought that action had units of energy*time in any
unit
| > system.
|
| And I did not dispute that in any way!!!
|
| I merely pointed out that the equation "action = ergs x seconds" is
| wrong!
You're nitpicking.
| > hbar/2 is the smallest amount of "action" there can be.
|
| Why do you think so?
Spacetime charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c). If this is true, then all action
is quantised.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
14 Mar 2005 03:42:27 AM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d0p85g$nsb$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| > news:1110411868.681520.318520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
| > | > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| > | > > Right.
| > | > > It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
| > | >
| > | > No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
| > | > and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
| > | > be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice:
Bohr-Sommerfeld's
| > | > version of QM is outdated.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > > where action = ergs x seconds.
| > | >
| > | > Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of action
| > | > in one particle system of units merely.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > > Would anyone agree?
| > | >
| > | > No.
| > |
| > | Then educate us, tell us what you have been
| > | told what action is.
#### | >
| > This article seems to agree with Ken.
| >
| > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29
|
| Pardon???
|
| Ken says that action is quantized. The article says nothing like that.
|
| Ken says that action = ergs x seconds. The article says nothing like
| that. In contrast, it says (like me) that action is the time integral
| of the Lagrangian, and has the *dimension* of energy x time.
You're nitpicking.
In no way! The statements "action = ergs x seconds" and
"action has the dimension of energy x time" are totally different!
[snip]
| > hbar/2 is the smallest amount of "action" there can be.
|
| Why do you think so?
Spacetime charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c). If this is true, then all action
is quantised.
Well, that's a big "if", don't you think?
Bye,
Bjoern
#
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
14 Mar 2005 08:58:14 PM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d13ma3$rr9$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
| > message news:d0p85g$nsb$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| > | FrediFizzx wrote:
| > | > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| > | > news:1110411868.681520.318520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
| > | > | > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| > | > | > > Right.
| > | > | > > It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
| > | > | >
| > | > | > No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
| > | > | > and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
| > | > | > be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice:
| > Bohr-Sommerfeld's
| > | > | > version of QM is outdated.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > > where action = ergs x seconds.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of
action
| > | > | > in one particle system of units merely.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > > Would anyone agree?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > No.
| > | > |
| > | > | Then educate us, tell us what you have been
| > | > | told what action is.
| >#### | >
| > | > This article seems to agree with Ken.
| > | >
| > | > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29
| > |
| > | Pardon???
| > |
| > | Ken says that action is quantized. The article says nothing like
that.
| > |
| > | Ken says that action = ergs x seconds. The article says nothing
like
| > | that. In contrast, it says (like me) that action is the time
integral
| > | of the Lagrangian, and has the *dimension* of energy x time.
| >
| > You're nitpicking.
|
| In no way! The statements "action = ergs x seconds" and
| "action has the dimension of energy x time" are totally different!
Whatever. I understood what Ken meant. Too bad you didn't.
| > | > hbar/2 is the smallest amount of "action" there can be.
| > |
| > | Why do you think so?
| >
| > Spacetime charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c). If this is true, then all
action
| > is quantised.
|
| Well, that's a big "if", don't you think?
Nope. It's pretty easy to model spacetime as if it has bound charge.
Modified Dirac Sea is all it is really. The Higgs boson would just have
to be a composite as all bosons would.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
14 Mar 2005 09:26:43 PM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:d13ma3$rr9$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
| > message news:d0p85g$nsb$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| > | FrediFizzx wrote:
| > | > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| > | > news:1110411868.681520.318520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
| > | > | > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| > | > | > > Right.
| > | > | > > It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
| > | > | >
| > | > | > No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
| > | > | > and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
| > | > | > be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice:
| > Bohr-Sommerfeld's
| > | > | > version of QM is outdated.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > > where action = ergs x seconds.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of
action
| > | > | > in one particle system of units merely.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > > Would anyone agree?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > No.
| > | > |
| > | > | Then educate us, tell us what you have been
| > | > | told what action is.
| >#### | >
| > | > This article seems to agree with Ken.
| > | >
| > | > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29
| > |
| > | Pardon???
| > |
| > | Ken says that action is quantized. The article says nothing
like
that.
| > |
| > | Ken says that action = ergs x seconds. The article says nothing
like
| > | that. In contrast, it says (like me) that action is the time
integral
| > | of the Lagrangian, and has the *dimension* of energy x time.
| >
| > You're nitpicking.
|
| In no way! The statements "action = ergs x seconds" and
| "action has the dimension of energy x time" are totally different!
Whatever. I understood what Ken meant. Too bad you didn't.
| > | > hbar/2 is the smallest amount of "action" there can be.
| > |
| > | Why do you think so?
| >
| > Spacetime charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c). If this is true, then all
action
| > is quantised.
|
| Well, that's a big "if", don't you think?
Nope. It's pretty easy to model spacetime as if it has bound charge.
Modified Dirac Sea is all it is really. The Higgs boson would just
have
to be a composite as all bosons would.
FrediFizzx
Thanks Fredi,
Let's have a look at Weinberg's pg 84, down the
pg to "Incidentally, the gravitational red shift..."
Weinberg recognizes a connection between the
invariance of Planck's "h" and the PoE,
(Principle of Equivalence).
((BTW, I wrote a paper on that in the 60's,
that's why Weinberg was unable to provide
refs, I didn't publish.))
Anyway, if you read carefully, you'll find
the PoE and "h" have a natural connection.
I'll add this is in accord with the Pound-
Rebka experiment.
Finally, I think that is an intimate connection
where QT and GR are concerned.
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
15 Mar 2005 12:38:38 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1110857203.429399.11400@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
| > message news:d13ma3$rr9$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| > | FrediFizzx wrote:
| > | > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
in
| > | > message news:d0p85g$nsb$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| > | > | FrediFizzx wrote:
| > | > | > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| > | > | >
news:1110411868.681520.318520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
| > | > | > | > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| > | > | > | > > Right.
| > | > | > | > > It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
| > | > | > | > and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
| > | > | > | > be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice:
| > | > Bohr-Sommerfeld's
| > | > | > | > version of QM is outdated.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > > where action = ergs x seconds.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of
| > action
| > | > | > | > in one particle system of units merely.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > > Would anyone agree?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > No.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Then educate us, tell us what you have been
| > | > | > | told what action is.
| > | >#### | >
| > | > | > This article seems to agree with Ken.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29
| > | > |
| > | > | Pardon???
| > | > |
| > | > | Ken says that action is quantized. The article says nothing
| like
| > that.
| > | > |
| > | > | Ken says that action = ergs x seconds. The article says
nothing
| > like
| > | > | that. In contrast, it says (like me) that action is the time
| > integral
| > | > | of the Lagrangian, and has the *dimension* of energy x time.
| > | >
| > | > You're nitpicking.
| > |
| > | In no way! The statements "action = ergs x seconds" and
| > | "action has the dimension of energy x time" are totally different!
| >
| > Whatever. I understood what Ken meant. Too bad you didn't.
| >
| > | > | > hbar/2 is the smallest amount of "action" there can be.
| > | > |
| > | > | Why do you think so?
| > | >
| > | > Spacetime charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c). If this is true, then all
| > action
| > | > is quantised.
| > |
| > | Well, that's a big "if", don't you think?
| >
| > Nope. It's pretty easy to model spacetime as if it has bound
charge.
| > Modified Dirac Sea is all it is really. The Higgs boson would just
| have
| > to be a composite as all bosons would.
| >
| > FrediFizzx
|
| Thanks Fredi,
| Let's have a look at Weinberg's pg 84, down the
| pg to "Incidentally, the gravitational red shift..."
|
| Weinberg recognizes a connection between the
| invariance of Planck's "h" and the PoE,
| (Principle of Equivalence).
Yeah, this whole section is very interesting. Oops, I think I am going
to get distracted for a minute. ;-)
| ((BTW, I wrote a paper on that in the 60's,
| that's why Weinberg was unable to provide
| refs, I didn't publish.))
Send me a copy if you still have it. :)
| Anyway, if you read carefully, you'll find
| the PoE and "h" have a natural connection.
|
| I'll add this is in accord with the Pound-
| Rebka experiment.
|
| Finally, I think that is an intimate connection
| where QT and GR are concerned.
Ya don't have to convince me that QT and GR have an intimate connection.
The concept of bound spacetime charge makes it easier to see, IMHO. It
provides a mechanism for spacetime to be "curved" or "tilted" as I like
to put it. When I was first thinking about and figuring out spacetime
charge, it produced the uncanny effect that mass would have to be a
partial hole in the structure of spacetime because an elementary fermion
is only part of what would have to be to comprise bound spacetime charge
equilibrium. Practical mass (atoms, etc.) would maybe be attracted to
each other gravitationally because being partial holes relative to
spacetime equilibrium, there is slightly less "pressure" between them.
The holes want to come together to try to fill each other in and restore
the equilibrium. But the Pauli exclusion principle prevents that. Only
"pure" pairs like the electron and positron or up and anti-up quark,
etc. can restore the equilibrium.
Now do you think Bjoern will come and hack this up and ask a question
after every sentence or do you think he might be able to respond to my
paragraph with a paragraph of his own? ;-) =>=>=>OOO
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
15 Mar 2005 01:12:15 AM |
|
|
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39ndtvF62nfbjU1@individual.net...
| "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| news:1110857203.429399.11400@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| |
| | FrediFizzx wrote:
| | > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
| | > message news:d13ma3$rr9$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| | > | FrediFizzx wrote:
| | > | > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
| in
| | > | > message news:d0p85g$nsb$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| | > | > | FrediFizzx wrote:
| | > | > | > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| | > | > | >
| news:1110411868.681520.318520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| | > | > | > |
| | > | > | > | Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
| | > | > | > | > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| | > | > | > | > > Right.
| | > | > | > | > > It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
| | > | > | > | >
| | > | > | > | > No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
| | > | > | > | > and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always
to
| | > | > | > | > be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice:
| | > | > Bohr-Sommerfeld's
| | > | > | > | > version of QM is outdated.
| | > | > | > | >
| | > | > | > | >
| | > | > | > | > > where action = ergs x seconds.
| | > | > | > | >
| | > | > | > | > Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of
| | > action
| | > | > | > | > in one particle system of units merely.
| | > | > | > | >
| | > | > | > | >
| | > | > | > | > > Would anyone agree?
| | > | > | > | >
| | > | > | > | > No.
| | > | > | > |
| | > | > | > | Then educate us, tell us what you have been
| | > | > | > | told what action is.
| | > | >#### | >
| | > | > | > This article seems to agree with Ken.
| | > | > | >
| | > | > | > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29
| | > | > |
| | > | > | Pardon???
| | > | > |
| | > | > | Ken says that action is quantized. The article says nothing
| | like
| | > that.
| | > | > |
| | > | > | Ken says that action = ergs x seconds. The article says
| nothing
| | > like
| | > | > | that. In contrast, it says (like me) that action is the time
| | > integral
| | > | > | of the Lagrangian, and has the *dimension* of energy x time.
| | > | >
| | > | > You're nitpicking.
| | > |
| | > | In no way! The statements "action = ergs x seconds" and
| | > | "action has the dimension of energy x time" are totally
different!
| | >
| | > Whatever. I understood what Ken meant. Too bad you didn't.
| | >
| | > | > | > hbar/2 is the smallest amount of "action" there can be.
| | > | > |
| | > | > | Why do you think so?
| | > | >
| | > | > Spacetime charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c). If this is true, then
all
| | > action
| | > | > is quantised.
| | > |
| | > | Well, that's a big "if", don't you think?
| | >
| | > Nope. It's pretty easy to model spacetime as if it has bound
| charge.
| | > Modified Dirac Sea is all it is really. The Higgs boson would
just
| | have
| | > to be a composite as all bosons would.
| | >
| | > FrediFizzx
| |
| | Thanks Fredi,
| | Let's have a look at Weinberg's pg 84, down the
| | pg to "Incidentally, the gravitational red shift..."
| |
| | Weinberg recognizes a connection between the
| | invariance of Planck's "h" and the PoE,
| | (Principle of Equivalence).
|
| Yeah, this whole section is very interesting. Oops, I think I am
going
| to get distracted for a minute. ;-)
|
| | ((BTW, I wrote a paper on that in the 60's,
| | that's why Weinberg was unable to provide
| | refs, I didn't publish.))
|
| Send me a copy if you still have it. :)
|
| | Anyway, if you read carefully, you'll find
| | the PoE and "h" have a natural connection.
| |
| | I'll add this is in accord with the Pound-
| | Rebka experiment.
| |
| | Finally, I think that is an intimate connection
| | where QT and GR are concerned.
|
| Ya don't have to convince me that QT and GR have an intimate
connection.
| The concept of bound spacetime charge makes it easier to see, IMHO.
It
| provides a mechanism for spacetime to be "curved" or "tilted" as I
like
| to put it. When I was first thinking about and figuring out spacetime
| charge, it produced the uncanny effect that mass would have to be a
| partial hole in the structure of spacetime because an elementary
fermion
| is only part of what would have to be to comprise bound spacetime
charge
| equilibrium. Practical mass (atoms, etc.) would maybe be attracted to
| each other gravitationally because being partial holes relative to
| spacetime equilibrium, there is slightly less "pressure" between them.
| The holes want to come together to try to fill each other in and
restore
| the equilibrium. But the Pauli exclusion principle prevents that.
Only
| "pure" pairs like the electron and positron or up and anti-up quark,
| etc. can restore the equilibrium.
Well heck, I forgot the most important part and relative to "The
Graviton" subject of this thread. Now if we have spacetime with a
structure of bound spacetime charge, then gravitions have to be somewhat
like photons. Composites of fermions, virtual fermions or "less than
virtual" fermions. As they travel along. IOW, the three different
types of fermions are just a relativistic medium; they don't actually do
the "traveling". My naive research shows that a basic free space photon
is 2 wavelengths long. This gives it an overall 4pi "twist" for the
lack of a better term for helicity of 1. This also possibly corresponds
to the spin of the fermions that are the momentary composite. I think a
graviton might just be a longer photon-like entity. 4 wavelengths long
for an overall 8pi "twist" and helicity of 2. Plus gravitons are
probably very low in frequency. Gravity seems to be a somewhat slow
process overall as far as large masses are concerned. For quantum
objects gravitons would not be able to be seen by them that much. IOW,
a low frequency graviton's energy density volume would also be huge
size-wise compared to the size of a quantum object. But the energy in
that volume would be very very small. So we kind of hit correspondence
principle problems here.
OK, shields up; start the spitballs.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
14 Mar 2005 09:58:38 PM |
|
|
In article <1110857203.429399.11400@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Ken S. Tucker <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
Thanks Fredi,
Let's have a look at Weinberg's pg 84, down the
pg to "Incidentally, the gravitational red shift..."
In the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
Weinberg recognizes a connection between the
invariance of Planck's "h" and the PoE,
(Principle of Equivalence).
Good advice is often annoying, bad advice never.
((BTW, I wrote a paper on that in the 60's,
that's why Weinberg was unable to provide
refs, I didn't publish.))
A pessimist is one who builds dungeons in the air.
Anyway, if you read carefully, you'll find
the PoE and "h" have a natural connection.
Live with wolves, and you learn to howl.
I'll add this is in accord with the Pound-
Rebka experiment.
Report the results were positive for minute particles of lead.
Finally, I think that is an intimate connection
where QT and GR are concerned.
Let us stick our insulting to those who do not know, but it does not
make it through while the light and those who do not think that is
Very interesting, care to elaborate.
Ken S. Tucker
I am not sure I am sure we keep track of the internet is a good thing
is there a reference to you.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Tell me something Lady C...are you a FEMbot...with a penchant for
evul? And do you run on Linux? Cause I value stability in an
application." -- Onideus Mad Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
15 Mar 2005 04:56:12 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[snip]
Let's have a look at Weinberg's pg 84, down the
pg to "Incidentally, the gravitational red shift..."
Which book by Weinberg do you mean?
Weinberg recognizes a connection between the
invariance of Planck's "h" and the PoE,
(Principle of Equivalence).
I suspect that you misread him.
((BTW, I wrote a paper on that in the 60's,
that's why Weinberg was unable to provide
refs, I didn't publish.))
Wow. Read up "arrogance".
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Hanrath" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
15 Mar 2005 11:47:06 AM |
|
|
I am not the best with communicating things to people but I see things
clearly when things are explained properly to me.
I have cut out the destructive rude comments revamping and/or
recapping in general some of the discussions with my injections and
perceptions to instill some thought provoking ideas to influence
everyone to think beyond just the known. Go beyond the theory's of
other and let us break new ground!
The Graviton would be better classified a unit of measure having no
electric charge no mass is supposed to be responsible for the
gravitational interaction of all energy.
 "Gravity is not "generated" it is a continuous existing
interactive force with an exponential and degenerative constant etc.
etc.
 On the molecular scale an atom is found in a weak
gravitational field unless when other atoms (with the magnetic forces,
nuclear strong and weak forces) are more densely compacted into
amassed "objects" of energy even so compacted to the point of a black
hole. Then it is the strongest force. Begs to ask the question of is
it all one force? That is a different story deal with that another
time!
(This could change how we think of the big bang; QMs put bring Gravity
to the forefront of Physics)
Gravity is not getting the credit it deserves!!!!!!!!
Measuring devices and making better calculations will give us a better
picture of our universe because waves of energy are warped by gravity
and time that on a super computer we could show this has the potential
to prove that the big bang Theory will be clarified.
 Gravity is accounted for by General Relativity. There has
never been a prediction of General Relativity that was contradicted by
an observation.
The traditional theory of gravity, is wrong of course but its
existence has traditionally been justified by the need for an
"Element"(Elements consists of energy) responsible for gravitational
mediation, to carry out the transmission of energy between the energy
of OBJECTS" or "PARTICLES"(A MASS of ENERGY),
(Really there "IS" no such "THING" as "MATTER" "OBJECTS" or
"PARTICLES" are compacted energy)
We know that when gravity acts on energy, (the Objective mass of
energy) is altered, and that this energy is quantized in multiples of
h (Planck's Constant), as established by quantum theory and confirmed
in part experimentally not perfectly though.
Example Anomalies will always exist. The effect of Jupiter on the GFZ
Potsdam project GRACE
http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/html/projects/index-en.html will have an
impact on the calculating of gravitational forces of the earth the
measurements will be close but never exact, we could never measure the
exact gravitational pull of any relative energy distance in at certain
time because to measure all the gravitation of all energy at a certain
given time is an infinitely precise measure and calculation.
We can thus partly analyze the following relations between
Forces, energy, relative distances and time no experiment can give a
perfect result in practical sense but in theory part can be explained.
Force is equal to change in momentum over change in time.
We therefore have: F = ΔP/ΔT [N or (kg. m) /s/s].
(1)
Force is also equal to change in energy over change in distance.
We therefore have: F = ΔE/Δx [N or (kg.m2)/s2/m].
(2)
Where: ΔE = (E2 – E1) [(kg.m2)/s2].
(3)
When a force acts on an object or particle, its energy is changed,
which is to say that work is done. This work is a change in energy,
with the same units as the energy itself, thus:
W = ΔE = E2 – E1= F.Δx [Joules or N.m or (kg.m
2)/s2]. (4)
From 4, we can see that, as work is a change in energy, and as this
energy is quantized, we can state that the work must also be
quantized.
If one is quantized, the other must also be.
Returning to 2, the force must therefore also be quantized, assuming
that any change in distance is a continuous quantity.
We can now ask whether the distance is indeed continuous, which we
cannot state with absolute certainty. It may be theoretically possible
to always find a new point between any two given points, but quantum
mechanics shows that the shortest measurable distance is Planck's
length (Lp).
Using the gravitational energy of an isolated mass given here:
Eg == 3/5.Gk.m2/r [Joules or N.m or (kg.m2)/s2], (5)
we can deduce Planck's length (Lp) as follows:
Lp = ((h/2pi). Gk/c3)^(1/2) [m]. (6)
This Lp could theoretically generate the lowest quantized work (Wq),
and this could be used to define the lowest quantum of gravitational
force (Fq). Here is the graviton........NOT!!!!!

It was shown in chapter 7 of the QTG that the Universal Gravitational
Constant (Gk) is not entirely constant, but was calculated for this
part of the universe and could assume different values depending on
the
presence of objects or masses that could modulate the frequency of the
local time reference. We can thus conclude that Lp will also vary from
place to place, which will be of significance later.
As gravity is the weakest force, the graviton would theoretically be
its elementary unit. In this case, it would be a quantum of work by
Planck's length (Lp), and the graviton would have the following
force:
Fq = Wq/Lp [N or (kg.m /s/s)]. (7)
From 7, we can see that this quantum of gravitational force (Fq) has
the units of force [N], while gravity has the units of acceleration
[m/s/s]. As force is classically the product of mass and acceleration,
we have:
F = m.a [N or (kg.m /s/s)]. (8)
It was strategically determined that the graviton should have zero
mass:
m = 0 [kg],
We should therefore theoretically have a lowest quantum of
gravitational force equal to zero:
Fq = m . 0 = 0 [N ou (kg.m /s/s)]. (9)
For this to occur, convention determined that this quantum of
gravitational force be magically converted into inertia. In chapter 6
of the QTG, it was shown that this artifice is unnecessary, with the
demonstration that a difference in the relative forces of the atom
results in a force without mass or inertia, thereby respecting all the
laws and postulates of the classical theories of physics.
In chapter 2 of the QTG, it was shown that gravity is generated only
when an atom is found in a gravitational field, without which there
can
be no temporal reference, this being defined by the presence of at
least one other atom, and that the gravity generated also depends on
the intensity of the gravitational field.
We can conclude that it is not a force that generates gravity, but the
presence of a gravitational field. That is to say, we do not have the
conversion of force into energy, but the conversion of the influence
of
a gravitational field into gravitational energy, because, as shown in
chapter 8 of the QTG, "gravity gravitates".
Gravity is a continuum.
Not really. We don't have a working quantum theory of gravity yet.
"hypothized to exist" would be better.
There is no "rest mass". BTW, also baryon number and lepton number
zero, no colour charge, no weak isospin; and spin two.
is supposed to be responsible for the gravitational interaction between energies of different mass!
The following summary will not show the Gravitons existence and why we
can eliminate it from the new theory of gravity.
Its existence has traditionally been justified by the need for an
"Element" or "Energy" responsible for gravitational mediation, to
carry out the Transmission of energy between different energies,
Physics does not accept the conversion of force into energy.
It is wrong to presume that the graviton disappears and is converted
into energy when it acts on objective or particulate of energy.
We know that when a force acts on a particle energy is altered,
It's "action" that's quantized not energy!
where action = ergs x seconds.
Would anyone agree?
It's "action" that's quantized not energy!
No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice: Bohr-Sommerfeld's
version of QM is outdated.
where action = ergs x seconds.
Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of action
in one particle system of units merely.
Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of action
in one particle system of units merely.
This article seems to agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29
I agree with the thought that action had units of energy*time in any
unit
system. hbar/2 is the smallest amount of "action" there can be.
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr and Sommerfeld
proposed (the integral p dx has always to be a multiple of h), but, if
you did not notice: Bohr-Sommerfeld's version of QM is outdated where
action = ergs x seconds. Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the
*units* of action in one particle system of units merely.
 The Graviton would be better classified a unit of measure!
 "Gravity is a continuous existing interactive force with an
exponential constant relative to distance and time.
 On the molecular scale an atom is found in a weak
gravitational field unless when other atoms (with thier magnetic
forces, nuclear strong and weak forces) are more densely compacted
into amassed "objects" of energy even so compacted to the point of a
black hole.
(This could change how we think of the big bang, QMs put bring Gravity
to the forefront of Physics)
Measuring devices and making better calculations will give us a better
picture of our universe because waves of energy are warped by gravity
and time that on a super computer we could show this has the potential
to prove that the big bang Theory will be clarified.
Think about this:
Light from all that exists in the universe has not all reached us it
is only be a spark of energy that we can see compared to what is
really out there.
The best way to broaden ones mind beyond the thought of the so called
"big bang" is to think of it as just a spark.
Then and only when you get out of that rut of the "BIG BANG" thought
you come to realize that there is way more out there.
The way to solve the big bang is through gravity.
Gravity will show us what is really out there!
It will revolutionize the science of physics and Quantum Mechanic's.
Bring us closer to the theory of everything.
Think out side of the box learning the basic theory's is good, but use
your wildest imaginations basing them on theory's and you will be
happy then to see the big picture like I do and you will find out my
theory to be closer to the truth
Matt Hanrath
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
10 Mar 2005 04:35:34 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Right.
It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice: Bohr-Sommerfeld's
version of QM is outdated.
where action = ergs x seconds.
Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of action
in one particle system of units merely.
Would anyone agree?
No.
Then educate us, tell us what you have been
told what action is.
Time integral of the Lagrangian (or, alternatively,
spacetime integral of the Lagrangian density).
That's what you will find in *all* physics text books.
And even on Wikipedia!
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29>
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
10 Mar 2005 03:42:58 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Right.
It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice: Bohr-Sommerfeld's
version of QM is outdated.
where action = ergs x seconds.
Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of action
in one particle system of units merely.
Would anyone agree?
No.
Then educate us, tell us what you have been
told what action is.
Time integral of the Lagrangian (or, alternatively,
spacetime integral of the Lagrangian density).
Is that a continuum or a quantum field,
(I'm guessing you're somehow using AE's
"HAMILTON'S PRINCIPLE...." (PoR 1916).
That's what you will find in *all* physics text books.
And even on Wikipedia!
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29>
BUT THAT'S,
QUANTUMPHYSICALITYEXPELIDOTIOUS.
Is that what you mean???
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
11 Mar 2005 04:12:41 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Right.
It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice: Bohr-Sommerfeld's
version of QM is outdated.
where action = ergs x seconds.
Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of action
in one particle system of units merely.
Would anyone agree?
No.
Then educate us, tell us what you have been
told what action is.
Time integral of the Lagrangian (or, alternatively,
spacetime integral of the Lagrangian density).
Is that a continuum or a quantum field,
Huh? I did not mention a field anywhere above.
(I'm guessing you're somehow using AE's
"HAMILTON'S PRINCIPLE...." (PoR 1916).
Hamilton's principle was not invented by Einstein. As the name
says, it comes from Hamilton. It has been in use *decades* before
Einstein was even born already.
And no, I am not using that principle here. I am merely telling
you how "action" is defined. Using that principle would lead us
from the action to the equations of motions.
That's what you will find in *all* physics text books.
And even on Wikipedia!
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29>
BUT THAT'S,
QUANTUMPHYSICALITYEXPELIDOTIOUS.
Is that what you mean???
The above is (as usual from you) incoherent and almost not understandable.
If you want claim that the action and the Lagrangian are part
of quantum physics and not classical physics (or the other way round),
then you are wrong. They appear in both. And no, quantum physics
does not say that action is quantized. If you think it does, feel
free to bring up a reference which says that. (hint: a reference
to a modern QM text, not to Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization)
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
11 Mar 2005 05:48:32 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Right.
It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice:
Bohr-Sommerfeld's
version of QM is outdated.
where action = ergs x seconds.
Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of action
in one particle system of units merely.
Would anyone agree?
No.
Then educate us, tell us what you have been
told what action is.
Time integral of the Lagrangian (or, alternatively,
spacetime integral of the Lagrangian density).
Is that a continuum or a quantum field,
Huh? I did not mention a field anywhere above.
(I'm guessing you're somehow using AE's
"HAMILTON'S PRINCIPLE...." (PoR 1916).
Hamilton's principle was not invented by Einstein. As the name
says, it comes from Hamilton. It has been in use *decades* before
Einstein was even born already.
And no, I am not using that principle here. I am merely telling
you how "action" is defined. Using that principle would lead us
from the action to the equations of motions.
That's what you will find in *all* physics text books.
And even on Wikipedia!
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29>
BUT THAT'S,
QUANTUMPHYSICALITYEXPELIDOTIOUS.
Is that what you mean???
The above is (as usual from you) incoherent and almost not
understandable.
If you want claim that the action and the Lagrangian are part
of quantum physics and not classical physics (or the other way
round),
then you are wrong. They appear in both. And no, quantum physics
does not say that action is quantized. If you think it does, feel
free to bring up a reference which says that. (hint: a reference
to a modern QM text, not to Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization)
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern, you're a bit funny.
I avoid Lagrange, instead I use covariant
derivatives, it's tougher sure, but the
results are more secure.
That's the foundation of GR's geodesic.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
11 Mar 2005 06:11:18 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Right.
It's "action" that's quantised not energy!
No, action is also not quantized. That was what Bohr
and Sommerfeld proposed (the integral p dx has always to
be a multiple of h), but, if you did not notice:
Bohr-Sommerfeld's
version of QM is outdated.
where action = ergs x seconds.
Action is not ergs x seconds. These are the *units* of action
in one particle system of units merely.
Would anyone agree?
No.
Then educate us, tell us what you have been
told what action is.
Time integral of the Lagrangian (or, alternatively,
spacetime integral of the Lagrangian density).
Is that a continuum or a quantum field,
Huh? I did not mention a field anywhere above.
Care to tell me what field you meant?
(I'm guessing you're somehow using AE's
"HAMILTON'S PRINCIPLE...." (PoR 1916).
Hamilton's principle was not invented by Einstein. As the name
says, it comes from Hamilton. It has been in use *decades* before
Einstein was even born already.
And no, I am not using that principle here. I am merely telling
you how "action" is defined. Using that principle would lead us
from the action to the equations of motions.
Did you get that? Apparently not.
That's what you will find in *all* physics text books.
And even on Wikipedia!
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29>
BUT THAT'S,
QUANTUMPHYSICALITYEXPELIDOTIOUS.
Is that what you mean???
The above is (as usual from you) incoherent and almost not
understandable.
If you want claim that the action and the Lagrangian are part
of quantum physics and not classical physics (or the other way
round), then you are wrong.
Care to tell me if you meant that?
They appear in both. And no, quantum physics
does not say that action is quantized. If you think it does, feel
free to bring up a reference which says that. (hint: a reference
to a modern QM text, not to Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization)
No reference? No surprise.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern, you're a bit funny.
And you are still trolling, I see.
I avoid Lagrange, instead I use covariant
derivatives, it's tougher sure, but the
results are more secure.
Err, there are lots of examples of Lagrangians (and
resulting equations of motions) which *contain* covariant
derivatives, if you did not notice.
So it's actually the other way round: using the Lagrangian
approach is tougher, but the results are more secure.
That's the foundation of GR's geodesic.
Indeed. And, again, if you did not notice: both the
GR geodesic equation and the GR field equations can be
derived from an actio (i.e. from an integral over
a Lagrangian), using Hamilton's principle. Hey, the second
was the whole point of the article you mentioned above!
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
11 Mar 2005 03:20:15 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[snip]
Err, there are lots of examples of Lagrangians (and
resulting equations of motions) which *contain* covariant
derivatives, if you did not notice.
So it's actually the other way round: using the Lagrangian
approach is tougher, but the results are more secure.
That's the foundation of GR's geodesic.
Indeed. And, again, if you did not notice: both the
GR geodesic equation and the GR field equations can be
derived from an action (i.e. from an integral over
a Lagrangian), using Hamilton's principle. Hey, the second
was the whole point of the article you mentioned above!
This is difficult for me to explain, so I may
bail out of this thread, through no fault of
yours, and I rather doubt you'll get my PoV.
Return to good old vector analysis and recall
the GRAD (DEL potential) produces a magnitude
and direction that is a maximum.
For example a rain drop on a car window will
follow that GRAD.
The circumstances of the field at that point
determine the behaviour of the particle, wrt
the field.
If that made sense, then we can discuss generally
covariant details, in particular AE's use of
a "continuous field" where action (h) is quantised.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
11 Mar 2005 03:36:39 PM |
|
|
Gravity is a continuum.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
11 Mar 2005 04:07:31 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Gravity is a continuum.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
How can we prove that?
Ken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Graviton |
14 Mar 2005 03:45:13 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[snip]
You snipped a lot of my questions asked for clarification.
I wonder why...
Err, there are lots of examples of Lagrangians (and
resulting equations of motions) which *contain* covariant
derivatives, if you did not notice.
So it's actually the other way round: using the Lagrangian
approach is tougher, but the results are more secure.
That's the foundation of GR's geodesic.
Indeed. And, again, if you did not notice: both the
GR geodesic equation and the GR field equations can be
derived from an action (i.e. from an integral over
a Lagrangian), using Hamilton's principle. Hey, the second
was the whole point of the article you mentioned above!
This is difficult for me to explain, so I may
bail out of this thread, through no fault of
yours, and I rather doubt you'll get my PoV.
Return to good old vector analysis and recall
the GRAD (DEL potential) produces a magnitude
and direction that is a maximum.
For example a rain drop on a car window will
follow that GRAD.
Do you mean the well-known statement that the gradient
gives the "vector of steepest descent"? If yes, you
expressed that in a rather strange way.
The circumstances of the field at that point
determine the behaviour of the particle, wrt
the field.
Err, what field do you have in the case of a raindrop
on a car window? Do you mean the gravitational field,
or what?
If that made sense,
Barely.
then we can discuss generally
covariant details, in particular AE's use of
a "continuous field" where action (h) is quantised.
I notice that you still have not supplied a reference for
your assertion that action is quantised. I wonder why...
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
