The Nobel Prize in Physics 1965 was awarded jointly to Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Julian Schwinger and Richard P. Feynman "for their fundamental work in quantum electrodynamics, with deep-ploughing consequences for the physics of elementary particles".
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/
QED rests on the idea that charged particles (e.g., electrons and positrons) interact by emitting and absorbing photons, the particles that transmit electromagnetic forces. These photons are “virtual”; that is, they cannot be seen or detected in any way because their existence violates the conservation of energy and momentum.
http://kids.britannica.com/nobelprize/article-9062163
In quantum electrodynamics (QED) a charged particle emits exchange force particles continuously. This process has no effect on the properties of a charged particle such as its mass and charge. How is it describable?
In this article, according to the experimental observations, I generalize the Maxwell equations of electromagnetism to the gravitational field. I have used the pair production and decay to show that a charged particle acts like a generator, the generator input and output are gravitons and virtual photon. The negative charged particle produces positive virtual photon and positive charged particle produces negative virtual photon. A negative and a positive virtual photon combine with each other in the vicinity of a charged particle and cause the charged particle to accelerate. Although this approach to Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is presented, it has some differences. The mechanism of negative and positive virtual photons interaction is easier and more realistic than exchange particles of QFT, and it also has no ambiguities of QFT. After all, I explain the real photon and its structure by using the virtual photons.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279288309_Graviton_and_virtual_photons?ev=prf_pub
Article Graviton and virtual photons
The strong interaction or strong force is today understood to represent the interactions between quarks and gluons as detailed by the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The strong force is the fundamental force mediated by gluons, acting upon quarks, antiquarks, and the gluons themselves.
This article shows how positive charge particles absorb each other in very small distance. Generally, two positive charged particles produce binding energy, in small distance.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280113834_Graviton_Virtual_photon_and_Quantum_Chromodynamics?ev=prf_pub
Article Graviton: Virtual photon and Quantum Chromodynamics
@ Peter
I do not need RG score, because it is not important for me.
So, you are wrong.
Please stop judging my goal and answer my question.
Do you know how an electric charged particle produces electric field?
I don’t know if my response will be suitable for You. But if You put this problem, Iet us return to the single mode field, studied in many problems of the Quantum optics. For example, if You decided to declare, that we have "one" electron, or "one" photon, or "two" pi mesons, two photons, etc., in the mode of the field appear the question : " We what must do with uncertainly principle in quantum physics?". If we reduce uncertainly principle to indefinite of the number of particles, N, and phase, Δφ, of the mode ΔNΔφ ≥1, in this case You have the contradiction between the fixed number of particles (one for example) ΔN=0 and the phase definition, Δφ=∞. The last correspond to totally random phase on the particle trajectory.
As this is correct we may follow the Handbook of J.D. Biorken and S.D. Drell, "Relativistic Quantum Field", in which it is proposed the renormalization procedure of the mass of particles in interaction on the target (see chapter 16). In this aspects, the existence of uncertainty number of particles on the interaction target corresponds to the renormalization of their mass and in the higher order of perturbation theory. The solution was to realize that the quantities initially appearing in the theory's formulae (such as the formula for the Lagrangian), representing such things as the electron's electric charge and mass, as well as the normalizations of the quantum fields themselves, did not actually correspond to the physical constants measured in the laboratory.
Hossein,
Why is it that people vote down the question? It must be that they do not understand its importance. If we knew all there was to know about the sub-atomic then this would be a meaningless question, however we know only what "Theory" tells us and that is obviously wrong.
There needs to be a new model to the atom and we have known this ever sense Niels Bohr proposed the current model more than 100 years ago.
Even at the time Bohr knew that this was only a way to look at the atom and not the answer, yet we look at it at the truth.
The question puts into question our reasoning behind theory that has no bases in reality. If there is objection to this line of questioning then logic has no place in science.
Where are the researchers that understand logic?
Dear George
I appreciate your view on new questions, thank you so much.
Scientific way does not reach to stalemate, only by new question.
Dear Nicolae
According to quantum mechanics concepts, I agree with you. I have not any problem with QED and Feynman diagrams, in my view they work well. Take a new Look at pair production and decay.
There is a photon before of pair production and after, two fermions appear that each of them has itself electric field. In my view "During the conversion of energy into electron and positron, the interaction properties are transferred from photon to fermions and bosons". How we can describe it without using uncertainty principle?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237009789_Sub_quantum_space_and_interactions_properties_from_photon_structure_to_fermions_and_bosons?ev=prf_pub
Article Sub quantum space and interactions properties from photon st...
The ideas go back to the atomic model and the way we look at the atom as well as what we think a Photon and Positron are in relationship to the atom.
If there is not a new model that describes what is really going on then the speculation is going to lead astray.
I have been debating the ideas that I have had for some decades now about the atom. In the late 1990's I started looking at the structure, (not the math) but just the structure of the atom. It does not fit reality and it leaves us with lots of questions that are not answered. The one that has always bothered me is why are the quarks different in size? The only reason is that it could not have worked with the difference in size of the Proton and the Neutron. This made me also think that there was something wrong with this idea and the internal structure of the way we put the atom together.
An other question arises to point-like particle.
In quantum mechanics, the concept of a point particle is complicated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because even an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume. There is nevertheless a distinction between elementary particles such as electrons, photon or quarks, which have no internal structure, versus composite particles such as protons, which do have internal structure. According to the quantum mechanics that photon is an unstructured particle, how can we explain the relationship between the photon energy and frequency, and also pair production and decay?
I think that what is happening here is that there are so many ways to look at things that no one really knows what you are talking about when you say "point particle" or "Massless". These things do not have good definitions and therefore are seen to be different depending on your view of the question.
This is exactly what is wrong with the definitions today.
Photons "must have" internal structure. The problem is that we think this can not fit the model of the atom that we have today and my point is that the model is at best incomplete and there by needs updating to reality.
I can envision a model of the atom that has all of the subatomic parts as particles some with charge and some that appear to have no charge. The fact of the matter is that when you look at the way we look at it today it only works if we make some stuff up. This is not science but wishful thinking.
For example, if a proton and an electron are collapsed they would appear to have a zero charge. This is fine from a stand point that we can not measure a charge but what if we look at the parts of this setting together and realize that there is a non zero distance separation difference between the positive and negative charge and therefore on a subatomic level it is a dipole not a zero charge.
This will affect the uncertainty in an atoms center by placing charges that overall can not be measured but on the level of the quanta it is vital to understand the differences.
The model of the atom will then affect how you look at what we call "virtual" and "actual".
It would be my logical conclusion that virtual has a actual existence.
A charged free particle, when it accelerates produces radiating changes in the electric and magnetic fields which surround any moving charged particles. These propagating fields will have electric and magnetic fields which satisfy Maxwell's equations but may not transfer enough total energy or angular momentum, when interacting with other charged systems to make up a quantum of energy equivalent to h\nu or of angular momentum equal to \hbar, to transfer to the other system. Those propagating signals may reduce in amplitude as a function of distance from the particle so that there is no net radiation from the system. One may consider these disturbances to be "reabsorbed" by the propagating particle. Nevertheless there are changes in the electric and magnetic fields and these are termed "virtual photons" as they do not get sufficient transfer of energy to another system to be a full photon exchange. QED
Hossein,
Much of current theory is effective in mathematically representing particles and mathematically representing/calculating their interactions. However, there is also a need to mechanically describe the make-up of particles and mechanically describe the mechanisms for their interactions, all in plain language and detailed diagrams. It seems rather impossible to have a complete theory without this. Questions like yours bring this problem into focus.
Based on our work, photons do mediate the electric force by a mechanism similar to that utilized in QED. However, they are real photons and are not emitted nor absorbed by the charged particles. Instead, the photons that are part of each of two particles interact with each other; due to these interactions, the electric force is mobilized between the two particles. As used in this post, “particles” refer to charged fermions.
We all know that a cylindrical B-field is mobilized when the electron translates. Our work shows that this cylindrical B-field is, not only a component of the electron, it is the electron. Please see Figure 2 in the link for a view of the electron. The cylindrical B-field isn’t measurable for the at-rest electron because each half of the B-field oscillates inward and outward along the longitudinal z-axis of the cylindrical B-field; thus the rotational direction of the B-field constantly reverses, making it immeasurable. For a translating electron, there is a net movement of the B-field in the translating direction along its longitudinal z-axis. This gives a net rotational direction of the B-field that allows for its measurement.
Our work shows the cylindrical B-field, that constitutes the electron, is made-up of photons. The structure of the photon can be understood from the following reasoning in italics.
The Photon: Maxwell, Planck, and Einstein established the basic properties of radiation. Maxwell’s work indicated that radiation translated at the speed of light in a waveform and has magnetic and electric properties. The work of Planck and Einstein indicated radiation is made up of quanta (photons) and is not continuous.
It should be recognized that Maxwell’s wave equations only indicate that radiation translates in a waveform but is not necessarily a wave itself. Therefore, by extension, the quanta (photons) derived by Planck and Einstein are the constituents that trace a waveform when they translate.
As proposed in Figure 1 in the link, the photon is an oscillating fiber. The energy of a photon fiber, given by Planck’s law E = hν, arises from its light-speed oscillatory motion along its length and about its origin (which is at its mid-length), rather than its translational motion. Its oscillatory motion is perpendicular to its translation; thus, a waveform is traced as it translates, as derived in Maxwell’s work. Hence, light and radiation, in general, are not waves but are photon fibers that trace waveforms when they translate. The energy given by the fiber oscillation is related to its oscillation range or stroke; shorter strokes yield shorter wavelengths and higher frequencies, and thus greater energies.
Per Figure 1, perpendicular elements develop along the fiber length, due to Lorentz length contraction, as it oscillates back and forth at light-like speed along its length. These perpendicular elements give the photon’s B-field as it also twirls about its origin. The electrical force potential (E) of the photon fiber is derived from and is synchronized with “B”; changes in “B” give “E” per Maxwell’s equations and is perpendicular to “B”. It should be noted that “B” is a field and “E” is a force potential that results from movement of the field. From Maxwell’s work, we know that radiation has B and E components.
Please consider another basic argument in italics: As you know, Maxwell’s differential wave equations were derived from his differential calculus equations. Therefore, these two sets of equations have to be closely related – in other words, one cannot understand the makeup of particles without understanding the makeup of EM radiation. If this is the case, then it becomes intuitive to think that a particle (physical theory) can be understood in terms of it being a bound field, from which EM radiation is emitted.
Hence, if the makeup of EM radiation is determined, then one can determine the makeup of a particle or vice-versa. In our work, Maxwell’s differential calculus is utilized to derive the bound cylindrical B-field that comprises the electron and gives its properties. Based on the argument above, the elements of the bound field of the electron must then be the same elements that together constitute EM radiation.
During the derivation of the bound electron field, its elements were found to be oscillating fibers; thus, these fibers must also be the elements of EM radiation, per the reasoning above. It was later realized that such fibers trace a waveform when they translate because they oscillate perpendicular to their translation. As we know, radiation propagates in a waveform. Therefore, the oscillating fibers must not only be the elements that together constitute EM radiation, they must also be the photons (discrete entities) that were proposed by Einstein.
From this, it can be seen that the photon must be the common element, by which, a close relationship exists between Maxwell’s differential calculus equations (which works with particles) and his differential wave equations (which works with EM radiation), since photons are the constituents of both particles and radiation.
In our work, multiple photon fibers strongly combine into a group due to their electric properties and thus, form a cylindrical B-field, which is due to the oscillation and twirling of the photon fibers about the longitudinal z-axis of the cylindrical field. So when the half B-fields of two particles overlap, each particle “feels” a change in B, which mobilizes the electric force between the particles.
Thus, the mediation of the electric force is due to the interactions of multiple photon fibers of one particle with those of another particle. Interchanging of photon fibers between particles is also possible, making it similar to the mechanism used in QED. The 2nd link shows an example of the mechanism that mediates the electric force between two particles.
Research Derivation of the Electron (Post #2 Updated)
Article What is the Electron Charge and How Does It Work (Post #3)
Not pretending to cover the topic, just an observation of my own. The difference between real and virtual photons is somewhat exaggerated. It is well defined only for a solitary particle in free space, where energy and momentum conservation prohibit emission of real photons. (Free means "no other particles" and not "no interactions".) Already for a pair (Hydrogen atom), spontaneously emitted photons may be seen as virtual particles turning real. Another observation is that the difference between real and virtual photons is defined only asymptotically. For finite time intervals, they very much "remain undecided".
Dear Hossein!
I am amazed that so many people votes down your question. In German we say: There are no stupid questions, but stupid answers only.
George said: "...the model(s) is(are) at best incomplete and there by needs updating to reality." We cannot assume that current theories are the absolute truth. Maybe the scientists in 100 years greet with smiles.
Hans
Hans,
Thank you for the kind words. Even at the time of Bohr's model he knew that it was as best an ad hoc solution to the problems. The fact that scientists even today would see them as reality is a mystery to me.
I go back to this all the time but when I was a child of teenage years I know better but was so beat up by the teachers about my misunderstanding of the science that it took me decades to realize they were not right. This does not mean I was correct but they if they are wrong then everyone should be trying to correct this problem.
John Archibald Wheeler said something about this that sticks in my mind:
"Surely someday, we can believe, we will grasp the central idea of it all as so simple, so beautiful, so compelling that we will say to each other, “Oh, how could it have been otherwise! How could we have been "So blind" "So long!”
Wheeler was a brilliant Physicist and a teacher of some of the most brilliant minds of the last century. He knew that things were not correct and that we had made them way to complex to be real. Nature is simple and strait forward. We on the other hand like to add mathematical complexity where there should be non.
I still do not understand the "Down" votes on some of the comments?
Is there something wrong with thinking that others may have it wrong and exploring the options? We do not progress in society and fix the problems of today by the thinking that put us here.
The charged particle and it's mass must interact with the local vacuum and make some transient stress strain relationship with the Zero Point oscillators. Stress of an oscillator means the amplitude and frequency of vibration must change in an action reaction principle. From the electric charge virtual mass is suppressed. From the particle mass virtual electric charges are suppressed all in the microstate oscillators. The topic is important but not popular. It leads to understanding of momentum and inertia.
Dear George
"Photons "must have" internal structure." I agree with you, the question is how we can describe photon structure? I have found we should consider to behavior of photon in the gravitational field.
Dear Dan
I studied your article "What is the Electron Charge and How Does It Work", that shows you have a new view on electron.
"... they are real photons and are not emitted nor absorbed by the charged particles. "
We can detect real photon (that a charge particle emits it), how can we detect a virtual photon?
Dear Bruce
"...they do not get sufficient transfer of energy to another.." I agree with you, because in my view virtual photons do not carry energy, they carry electromagnetic energy, and a positive virtual photon combines with a negative photon, and a real photon appears.
Dear Hans
I appreciate your honestly view, thank you so much.
Before this topic, I did not knew that the number of answers has affect on RG score.
Dear Jerry
Thank you for interesting mentions.
What means "virtual mass"?
The vacuum potential can spontaneously produce pairs of particles and antiparticles that become real and separate by more than one wave length distance. If they recombine they produce gamma rays that propagate energy away. More often the vacuum potential is not sufficient in a location to produce real particles, but is sufficient to start the process of making particles that fail to become real and are destroyed without producing gamma rays or separating more than a wave length. It happens fast and often everywhere. The particles that don't become real are said to be virtual potentials, with virtual mass and maybe virtual charge that interact locally with anything that passes by. It is the mechanism of inertia and conservation laws. So a spinning electron in orbit around a proton can continue indefinitely without losing kinetic energy in magnetic field waves because the vacuum absorbs the energy and returns it to the electron. In doing so the local vacuum Is stressed which is expressed in a change of polarity, frequency, and wave lengths for the virtual pairs. It is the theory of microstates and vacuum partition.
Dear Jerry
Thank you for detail. In my view, there is three sub spaces in vacuum, real spacetime, virtual spacetime and non-obvious space. They interact wich other. For detail please see following article:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270339919_Interactions_Between_Real_and_Virtual_Spacetimes?ev=prf_pub
Article Interactions Between Real and Virtual Spacetimes
Just to try to answer the question a bit more directly, the input to making a virtual photon or even a "full" photon, is obviously the acceleration of a charged particle. Charged particles are accelerated by an existing electromagnetic field. The movement of the charged particle modifies that existing field and so produces changes in the EM fields in accordance with Maxwell's equations. So the 'input' is the existing 'static' field, the output is disturbances in that field which are often described as virtual photons.
Dear Bruce
You are right. But consider that acceleration does not refers only to linear acceleration.
Look at the electron and positron. Electron is in the centre of a spherical space. This rotational sphere-like (electron spinning) is in a look into gravitons. The electron has two opposite interactions on gravitons around itself, and converts them to virtual photon and emits them. For more detail please see following article.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237009789_Sub_quantum_space_and_interactions_properties_from_photon_structure_to_fermions_and_bosons?ev=prf_pub
Article Sub quantum space and interactions properties from photon st...
Hossein, you mentioned: “We can detect real photon (that a charge particle emits it), how can we detect a virtual photon?” Fermions do emit and absorb real photons, but in the mediation of the electric force by real photons, absorption and emission of them is not necessary as explained in our earlier post on page 2. Virtual photons are not a needed concept in our work.
Dear Dan
"Virtual photons are not a needed concept in our work." According to old theory you are right and I agree with you for QED, but old theory is not able to solve modern physics problems without using virtual photon concept.
Hossein, In particle physics, our work shows that the makeup and interactions of particles can be understood without utilizing virtual photons, although you may have a different approach.
Hossein Javadi, Of course all accelerations are included, I did not exclude them. The nice thing about motion in a circle and the virtual photons which result, is that in certain configuration they don't radiate. That is, at a distance, the surface integral of the Poynting vector will sum to zero, so no radiation. The consequence of this for quantum mechanics is obvious and highlighted in papers by Schott in 1930 and Goedecke in the 1960s. Of course atoms in ground state configurations are examples of this non-radiating phenomenon but no one suggests that the EM fields inside an atomic system don't exist or don't change with time. It's just that certain configurations of charge don't radiate even though there is an acceleration.
Dear Dan and Bruce
I do not disagree with you. In my view, there is a different between electromagnetic energy and electromagnetic force. Real photons carry electromagnetic energy, but virtual photons carry electromagnetic force. So, there is two kind virtual photons, negative and positive virtual photons. When a negative virtual photon combine with positive virtual photon, they made a real photon. And it is the reason why"charge don't radiate even though there is an acceleration".
Dear Hossein,
your question focuses an important aspect of quantum physics and no serious scientist can consider it just solved inside QED !
You recall the Nobel awards obtained by Tomonaga, Schwinger and Feynman for their great results in QED. This is correct ! But it does not mean that quantum physics ends with QED ...
Let me emphasize the central aspect of your question:
'QED rests on the idea that charged particles (e.g., electrons and positrons) interact by emitting and absorbing photons, the particles that transmit electromagnetic forces. These photons are “virtual”; that is, they cannot be seen or detected in any way because their existence violates the conservation of energy and momentum.
http://kids.britannica.com/nobelprize/article-9062163
In quantum electrodynamics (QED) a charged particle emits exchange force particles continuously. This process has no effect on the properties of a charged particle such as its mass and charge. How is it describable? '
To seriously answer to this question it is necessary to understand that QED is not a complete theory, even if it has obtained the greatest results in quantum physics. In other words it is necessary to formulate a new theory that should solve all the actual problems in quantum physics, by unifying Einstein's GR, and Quantum Mechanics, and containing as particular cases QFT, Standard Model, String Theory and M theory.
Nowadays this new quantum gravity theory exists and it is founded on my quantum (super) PDEs geometry. See the following paper:
[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1468121812000491
Further developments are contained in the following works:
[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2894
[3] http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856.
In particular with respect to the Hossein's question it is possible to understand the following important facts:
1) Quantum phenomena are encoded by quantum (super) Yang-Mills PDEs and by means of their nonlinear quantum propagators.
2) Observed quantum particles are not point-like objects, but transverse sections of observed nonlinear quantum propagators.
3) Observed quantum energy conservation law holds for the observed quantum (super) Yang-Mills PDEs. But the geometric structure of observed nonlinear quantum propagators can produce defect of quantum energy between initial and final quantum particles entering in quantum reactions.
5) In particular, photons exchanged between electrically charged quantum particles, are real photons and satisfy observed quantum energy conservation laws whether the observed quantum system in encoded by a nonlinear quantum propagator encoding a steady state.
6) Virtual photons exist when interactions concern massive particles. In fact in such cases photons identify massive photons. For example in hydrogen atom proton and electron necessarily interact by means of massive photons ... In other words an hydrogen atom is a bound state between proton, electron and photons. This is a mathematical consequence of the geometric structure of the observed quantum super Yang-Mills PDEs.
By conclusion also so-called virtual photons do not violate observed quantum energy conservation law !
All the best,
Agostino
My Quantum gravity theory:
General relativity, LQG, String theory, Quantum gravity theories are wrong theories because are limited to the speed of light and do not explain the Gravitation.
“I am the first who Understood and Explained the Gravitation with high speed gravitons v = 1.001762 × 10^17 m/s, with Negative Impulse, Negative Mass and Negative Energy” Adrian Ferent
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287331589_Ferent_Gravitation_theory
@ Adrian Ferent ,
please look to my answer to your companion post in the following question:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_would_fund_this_falsification_of_GRT#view=5676d78a7c19200ab08b45cd
Dear Agostino
I agree with you that QED works well. But as you said, it is not the end of theories.
What I am saying is that there is a difference between the electromagnetic force and electromagnetic energy. Real photon carries electromagnetic energy, virtual photon carries the electromagnetic force. This attitude better than QED can describe the electromagnetic interactions.
Dear Hossein,
the quantum force in my quantum gravity theory is interpreted by the quantum curvature. In fact my theory is a quantum gauge theory, able to include as particular cases actual theories in particle physics. What you call virtual photons do not exist as you consider, ... Virtual photons as interpreted in my theory are massive particles that appear when photons interact with matter. My criticism to your point of view is that this invents objects that do not exist, or better, that it is not necessary to introduce ... Furthermore in your formulation cannot be recognized the noncommutative logic of the quantum world !
It is not enough to invent a new fundamental particle list or recipe to pretend to have invented a quantum gravity theory !
'A quantum PDEs salus ... '
Dear Agostino
I have not invented virtual photons, they exist and I have described them. If they do not exist why they are able fields and mechanism of QED?
Dear Hossein,
you are right when state that virtual photons are used in QED ... but these are only artificial objects used in the perturbative method by means of Feynman diagrams ... In QED such methods work well since perturbative methods converge. However such perturbative methods cannot be applied outside QED, for example in QCD, or more generally in quantum gravity ... The representation of scattering processes in quantum physics by means of Feynman diagrams are not allowed, for the simple reason that perturbation methods cannot work outside QED. But this is well-known !
Regards,
Agostino
Dear Agostino
That was not the way I have worked.
Exchange particles for me, I have used them in my model before I studied QED. When I knew virtual particle concept in QED, I used virtual photon in my model. Earliest my papers show it (that I published in Persian). So, I think virtual photons and gravitons exist, but they are not directly detectable.
Best Regards
Hossein
I see Hossein !
But you claim also
'These photons are “virtual”; that is, they cannot be seen or detected in any way because their existence violates the conservation of energy and momentum.'
...
Whether you refer to the actual Standard Model, you can find other objects that are not yet directly detected, e.g., quarks ..., but they should not violate quantum energy conservation laws ! ...
All the best,
Agostino
Dear Agostino
"These photons are virtual; that is, they cannot be seen ...." This claim it is not mine, it belongs to QED.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec17.html
In my view, force, energy and mass are convertible to each other. In other word, in generally mass-energy is not conserved, in fact, force, energy and mass is conserved.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280626794_Unified_Force_Energy_and_Mass?ev=prf_pub
Regards
Hossein
Article Unified Force, Energy and Mass
Dear Hossein,
I read again your quoted paper, but frankly I cannot recognize there something that could be seriously defined a quantum unified particle theory !
Where is the noncommutative logic of quantum world therein ? In order to talk of quantum conservation law you must fix a quantum dynamical PDE ... where is yours ?
Sorry but your claim is not supported by the content of your paper !
'Ab hoc et ab hac ...'
Agostino
Dear Agostino
"...your claim is not supported by the content of your paper!" Maybe. Perhaps one of papers does not, but set my papers do.
Please consider that my work is a step to way for finding a quantum gravity theory, no more.
Regards
Hossein
Dear Hossein,
my criticism is not only focused on a singular your paper ... By the way, whether there exists some paper of yours where you can answer to my criticism please inform me ... I will be glad to read it.
You claim:
'Please consider that my work is a step to way for finding a quantum gravity theory, no more.'
This mind should be worthy of prise whether my quantum gravity theory should be yet to be formulated ...
Therefore it should be more useful whether you should have a more direct criticism ... whether one occurs ...
'Acta non verba ...'
Agostino
Dear Agostino
Can I ask you please explain your massive graviton in a few lines without using mathematical formulas? What is properties of your massive graviton in cluding speed, is its speed constant? Is its identity stable or does change? Is its mass constant? How your massive graviton behavior in interaction with photon?
Best Regards
Hossein
Dear Hossein,
in my theory any solution of quantum super Yang-Mills PDEs, (YM), identifies a quantum graviton, namely a quantum metric. The concept of quantum graviton as quantum particle is instead related to a particular observed solution, namely a solution of the observed quantum super Yang-Mills PDEs, say (YM)[i], such that its transverse space-like section has quantum spin 2. When such a solution is outside of the sub-Higgs-PDEs, quantum graviton has not mass-gap, otherwise it acquires a mass. For example, massive quantum gravitons can be found inside protons. Since observed quantum particles are extended objects, the usual kinematics of SR, as considered in QFT, loses its importance. It is more important to know their constitutive structures and their mass-gap structures. Really massive gravitons can be made by bound states of gluons ... but also by bound states of photons ... Similar considerations hold for their velocities. What about interactions between graviton and photon particles ? In my unified approach gravitons and photons can naturally interact between them at the quantum level !
Let me emphasize that the type of your questions is largely influenced by the QFT and the old scattering theory. In fact in that theory, where the scattering is a black-box, and particles are considered point-like objects, the uniquely important information was obtained by freely-travelling particles, satisfying suitable linear quantum PDEs, and some fundamental kinematical relations. Nowadays, with my quantum (super) PDEs geometry, the situation is completely changed !
Best regards,
Agostino
Dear Agostino
Thank you for answer.
I do not claim I am right and you are wrong. But my understanding of graviton makes us to describe how nature works. For example, how a block hole explodes? how charge particles priduce electric field ...
So, I disagree with that graviton acquires a mass, the mass of graviton is constant and does not change, but its spin does change. Also speed of graviton is greater than light speed.
So, seems we can not convince each other.
Best Regards
Hossein
No Hossein !
The situation is different ! My quantum gravity theory exists. Yours does not exist !
Regards,
Agostino
No Hossein !
The situation is different ! My quantum gravity theory exists. Yours does not exist !
Regards,
Agostino
Dear Agostino
Ok, no problem. Your graviton with spin 2 comes of the stress energy momentum tensor. My graviton's spin is changeable that comes of experiments and physical fact.
Regards
Hossein
Dear Agostino
No problem. Your massive gravity has spin 2 that refers to old concept of stress energy momentum, it does not work. But my graviton has constant speed and energy and it is able describe all quantum field well.
Best Regards
Hossein
“I am the first who Understood and Explained Gravitation with high speed gravitons v = 1.001762 × 10^17 m/s, with Negative Impulse, Negative Mass and Negative Energy” Adrian Ferent
No Hossein !
You did not read my work and you pretend to give your point of view ... completely unrelated to my quantum gravity theory. In fact you claim:
'Your massive gravity has spin 2 that refers to old concept of stress energy momentum, it does not work.'
This means that you consider my quantum gravity theory founded on the Einstein's GR ... This is completely wrong ! A quantum graviton has spin 2 because it interprets the quantum particle corresponding to the quantum graviton field, just introduced in my theory. Please look
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1468121812000491.
Therefore, its quantum spin must be fixed, even if its energy can change. The situation is similar to the quantum e.m. field. Really my quantum gravity theory is a quantum gauge theory. In fact a photon is a quantum particle with fixed spin 1, but its energy can change !
You claim also:
'But my graviton has constant speed and energy and it is able describe all quantum field well.'
Neither photons can have constant speed ! You talk of nothing ... Where is your theory ? In your papers I cannot recognize something that can be seriously called a quantum gravity theory ! You talk of graviton but you never defined it ... Where is the noncommutative logic of the quantum world in your papers ? Where is the quantum PDEs of your theory ?
Your claims are only trivial stupidities !
In the web (... and unfortunately also on RG posts ...) one can find a lot of people that pretend to launch similar 'clever claims' supported by similar empty papers ...
Sorry, but your statements are non-sense ...
No Hossein !
You did not read my work and you pretend to give your point of view ... completely unrelated to my quantum gravity theory. In fact you claim:
'Your massive gravity has spin 2 that refers to old concept of stress energy momentum, it does not work.'
This means that you consider my quantum gravity theory founded on the Einstein's GR ... This is completely wrong ! A quantum graviton has spin 2 because it interprets the quantum particle corresponding to the quantum graviton field, just introduced in my theory. Please look
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1468121812000491.
Therefore, its quantum spin must be fixed, even if its energy can change. The situation is similar to the quantum e.m. field. Really my quantum gravity theory is a quantum gauge theory. In fact a photon is a quantum particle with fixed spin 1, but its energy can change !
You claim also:
'But my graviton has constant speed and energy and it is able describe all quantum field well.'
Neither photons can have constant speed ! You talk of nothing ... Where is your theory ? In your papers I cannot recognize something that can be seriously called a quantum gravity theory ! You talk of graviton but you never defined it ... Where is the noncommutative logic of the quantum world in your papers ? Where is the quantum PDEs of your theory ?
Your claims are only trivial stupidities !
In the web (... and unfortunately also on RG posts ...) one can find a lot of people that pretend to launch similar 'clever claims' supported by similar empty papers ...
Sorry, but your statements are non-sense ...
Sorry Agostino
You have written "Your claims are only trivial stupidities!" It is your opinion, so I will not continue discussion with you.
Yes Hossein ! I agree with your last resolution ! Whether for you to discuss it means to launch non sense claims, supported by nothing, it is better that you be silent.
Here we are not discussing of two different opinions ...
One cannot abuse of the patience of users ... with non-scientific fancies !
'Ad perpetuam rei memoriam ...'
Agostino
Agostino
Be honest. Spin-2 graviton comes from? Is experience has shown?
According to interaction between graviton and photon, I found spin of graviton is not stable.
I think that questioning and debates, both are useful to improve our understanding. I think that even a non-sense question is useful to create a sense.
I think that it is my lackings if I discourage other rather than expressing my own inability of understanding.
I request everybody for more learning and to acquire more knowledge.
I believe the statement of Late Prof. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, the Missile-Man in India, - for whom India is successful in Mars Mission, that "Never try to defeat, but always try to win".
I believe that God lives within everybody, so I must honour everybody as I believe in God.
Dear Prof. Hossein Javadi, I am thankful for the question you placed and links you supplied. Please look at the progresses in positronium physics, annihilation, antimatter physics etc. - I think these will help you.
Best wishes and my regards to all of you participated in the discussion. Again I wish you an enriched and successful new year 2016.
Dear Hasi
I appreciate your attention. I'm sure as I know, still low. I also agree with you that in discussion will our understanding of nature grow. Thank you so much.
Dear Prof. Hossein Javadi ,
Thank you for your kind reply. I read both the links suggested by you. I agree with you, but these are too old. There are lot of progresses in the subject - please make a search and you will get good links in internet.
In scattering theory, when two particles collides - the interaction effect depend on the energy of the particles. Direct electron-positron annihilation never occurs producing single photon.
I have no idea about direct electron-positron annihilation. But when low energy positron interacts with atoms, it can form positronium (Ps). Depending on the spins of positron and electron, it may be divided into two categories - one in ortho-Ps with total spin S=1 and another para-Ps with total spin S=0.
Ortho-Ps has lifetime ~ 10^(-7) second, and Para-Ps has lifetime ~ 10^(-10) second.
So Para-Ps annihilates immediately after its production and releases two photons having energies 511 MeV each to conserve the energy and momentum.
The annihilation rate of Ortho-Ps is 10^(-3) times smaller than Para-Ps. It may produce three photons, it alsop conserves energy and momentum - but excuse me my knowledge is very limited.
Regarding virtual photons - I understand all the photons are virtual.
The radiation means wave, contains wavelength and frequency with momentum in some specified direction. So photon has no real existence, it is just a concept.
Just like de Broglie's hypothesis of wave-particle dualism to define matter waves. The matter is the real particle and wave is the virtual concept.
These are according to my understanding only.
Hossein I see that you continue to address to me your fancies and furthermore invite me to be honest !
It is now clear that you do not understand what you are saying !
Warning ! I try for the last time to prove that your claims are non-sense and completely unrelated to my quantum gravity theory (that you never read...).
1) In a previous your post you claimed:
'Your massive gravity has spin 2 that refers to old concept of stress energy momentum, it does not work.'
You refer to the usual idea in particle physics that a quantum graviton has spin 2 since this should related to the quantization of the Einstein's PDEs where it appears the 'stress energy momentum'. On the other hand, by means of this way one cannot obtain a satisfactory quantum gravity formulation. In fact quantum gravity is not a quantum fluctuation of the macroscopic gravity. Therefore, whether I should considered the quantum graviton particle with spin 2 by adopting that usual point of view, my choice should be a non-correct one ! Instead in my quantum gravity theory, as formulated in
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1468121812000491,
I introduced a new quantum field, called quantum graviton, associated to any solution of the quantum super Yang-Mills PDEs. The geometric structure of such a quantum field allows us to state that observed quantum graviton particles have spin 2.
You instead claim:
'Agostino
Be honest. Spin-2 graviton comes from?'
My quantum gravity theory proves that I am honest, ... but you ? ... at least you misunderstand what I posted ...
2) Furthermore you claim too:
'According to interaction between graviton and photon, I found spin of graviton is not stable.'
This is a non-sense since in order to talk of stability at the quantum level it is necessary to have a quantum PDEs. But in your papers does not exist such a structure !
You really talk of nothing, but you pretend in advance to teach honesty to me !
This is really too much !
'Ad perpetuam rei memoriam ...'
Dear Hasi
Thank you for kindly suggestion. I agree with you that "direct electron-positron annihilation never occurs producing single photon."
I have analyzed a pair production and annihilation, in my article, I knew in direct electron-positron annihilation two or three photons appear. I have not spoke about other cace such as positronium. Thank you for mention about it.
Please correct me if am I wrong, in my understanding 'Photoelectric effect and Compton scattering are explained by photons, but cannot be explained by light as a wave.'
Also, QED rests on the idea that charged particles (e.g., electrons and positrons) interact by emitting and absorbing photons, the particles that transmit electromagnetic forces. These photons are virtual.
In my view there is a difference between virtual and real photons. Virtual photon carries electromagnetic force, but real photon carries electromagnetic energy.
A positive virtual photon combines with negative virtual photon and a real photon appears.
Dear Agostino
You have claimed that spin 2 of your massive photon is independet of old concepts.
Can you please show me a physical evidence (not mathematical reasoning) why spin of graviton is 2?
Hossein I am afraid that you are in a big confusion !
I never claimed what you reported in your last post:
'You have claimed that spin 2 of your massive photon ....'
I talked of the spin 2 of the quantum graviton particle in my quantum gravity theory.
Furthermore you ask:
'Can you please show me a physical evidence (not mathematical reasoning) why spin of graviton is 2?'
This your question shows again once more that you do not understand what you say ! In fact, in order to talk of something in Mathematical Physics it is necessary to define it. (Of course this is not your case, since you usually talk of nothing ... )
The quantum particle, corresponding to the quantum graviton field, as introduced in my quantum gravity theory, must have spin 2 just for mathematical reasons. But you ask for 'a physical evidence' ... This means that you ask for an experimental evidence that my quantum gravity theory works.
Well ! My answer is the following.
Read please the following my papers where you can find many examples of reactions well encoded by my theory. In particular therein you can find also experiments that could show experimental evidence for massive quantum graviton particles with spin 2.
[1-2] http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2894;
[3] http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856
Agostino who will pay to see your Gravitation theory, limited to the speed of light?
“I am the first who Understood and Explained Gravitation with high speed gravitons v = 1.001762 × 10^17 m/s, with Negative Impulse, Negative Mass and Negative Energy” Adrian Ferent
@Adriant Ferent
Your post addressed to me proves to all RG users that you are a non-serious user !
You posted:
'Agostino who will pay to see your Gravitation theory, limited to the speed of light?'
This your sentence is a non-sense completely unrelated to my quantum gravity theory and to all I posted in the RG questions.
But are you able to understand something ?
I am now sure that you will not be able to read my work ... But you are so stupid to launch non-sense sentences against me. At this point the right question is the following:
Adrian who pay you to be so stupid ?
I read your paper for the which you claimed:
'I am the first who Understood and Explained Gravitation with high speed gravitons v = 1.001762 × 10^17 m/s, with Negative Impulse, Negative Mass and Negative Energy.'
As I have said in a my already post in the following question
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_would_fund_this_falsification_of_GRT/5
your contribution could not be more ridiculous ... Please look therein for details.
Adrian who pay you to be so stupid ?
Dear Agostino
I'm confused. Maybe I am wrong, please see:
"Such particles can have spin = 0, 1, 2. For example for s = 0, can be identified with a Higgs-particle H0, for s = 1 can be taken as Z0 and for s = 2, we can consider as a massive graviton G′." (page 16 of your article: arXiv:1206.4856v19).
"massive graviton particle (G′, mass-gap mG′ GeV , spin s = 2)." Above link page 17).
"In fact, inside such protons two gluons ca be constrained to generate a quantum bound state with spin s = 2, namely a massive-colour quantum graviton cG′." Above link page 21).
With Best Regards
Hossein
'Agostino who will pay to see your Gravitation theory, limited to the speed of light?' I think a lot of people will pay because they think like you limited to the speed of light!
I am the first who realized that the gravitons with the speed of light will not escape a black hole. This means if the (gravitation) gravitons have the speed of light like Einstein field equations confirm, the black holes will not attract anything.
General relativity, LQG, String theory, Quantum gravity theories are wrong theories because are limited to the speed of light and do not explain Gravitation.
“I am the first who Understood and Explained Gravitation with high speed gravitons v = 1.001762 × 10^17 m/s, with Negative Impulse, Negative Mass and Negative Energy” Adrian Ferent
Adrian> “I am the first who Understood and Explained Gravitation..."
No! You are not even the first to have misunderstood gravitation.
There is a significant difference between on-shell and off-shell gravitons, and how these objects are able to mediate gravitational interactions. The same is true for electromagnetic forces explained as an effect of exchange of on-shell (real) and off-shell (virtual) photons. One must be able to do serious calculations to appreciate such "details".
Hossein,
as you can understand I am talking of 'graviton' as a particle with spin 2 !
In your previous post you attributed to me the wrong claim that is photon with spin 2...
Regards,
Agostino
Dear Agostino
Oh, sorry, it was my mistake in writing.
However, graviton with constant spin 2 is not acceptable for me.
Regards
Hossein
Dear Agostino
Because identity of graviton is changeable.
When some gravitons are around a photon (or other particles) they convert to color charges and enter into the structure of photon. Color charges around particles/objects
interact with each other. There exists so much graviton around any particle. There are many layers of gravitons around a photon. The first layer is closed with photon, so that its gravitons interact with charge and magnetic fields in the structure of photon. The second layer interacts with the first layer and third layer and so on. Therefore; when a stone is falling in the gravitational field of the Earth, two layers of gravitons are applied to it, first layer up (at high h) and second down (at high h-dh). In down layer, the density of graviton is greater than up, so the stone falls and its kinetic energy increases.
No Hossein !
I was right when I suspected that you are living in a big confusion ...
In fact in your last post you stated:
'When some gravitons are around a photon (or other particles) they convert to color charges and enter into the structure of photon. Color charges around particles/objectsinteract with each other. There exists so much graviton around any particle.'
Thus, you can easily understand that you are not more discussing of gravitons, but of interactions of these particles with other ones (...photons, quarks, ...) Results of such interactions are new 'particles' ... these last cannot be more simply called gravitons ! ...
Therefore your statement:
'Because identity of graviton is changeable.'
is not a correct answer to my 'WHY'.
By conclusion, you confused gravitons with the products of their interactions ...
'Ad perpetuam rei memoriam ...'
Sorry Agostino
It is your opinion, and I think you are in a wrong way.
Graviton should works for weakest force and my definition of graviton works well.
No Hossein !
When you talk of gravitons, photons and so on ... you are talking of quantum world ! Furthermore, when one considers quantum gravity it means that we are talking of quantum systems at unified energy levels ... Therein all particles can interact between them ...
These are not opinions !
I must insist. You confuse macroscopic point of view with microscopic one !
All the best.
Nobel Prize for Gravitation!
Who is the smartest to explain Gravitation?
900 Nobel Laureates and they were not able to explain Gravitation, the most important force in nature.
In my view the graviton must have a speed higher then the speed of light; the gravitons with the speed of light will not escape a black hole.
General relativity, LQG, String theory, Quantum gravity theories are wrong theories because are limited to the speed of light and do not explain Gravity.
“I am the first who Understood and Explained Gravitation with high speed gravitons v = 1.001762 × 10^17 m/s, with Negative Impulse, Negative Mass and Negative Energy” Adrian Ferent
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287331589_Ferent_Gravitation_theory
Dear Agostino
"I must insist. You confuse macroscopic point of view with microscopic one !"
There are various theories in physics, but nature is unique. This is not nature's problem that we have various theories; nature obeys simple and unique law.
Macroscopic objects are made up of microscopic things.
The stars emit energy, because the pressure of gravity, subatomic particles collide with each other or they are combined with each other.
Regards
Dear Hasi
I am glad that our discussion is interesting. Thank you so much.
Dear Hasi,
thanks for your wishes that I reciprocate.
My best regards,
Agostino
Dear Hossein,
I completely agree with you:
'... nature obeys simple and unique law.'
In fact my quantum gravity theory is an unified theory. It is able to encode microscopic phenomena as well macroscopic ones.
I must insist.
Read more carefully my work please.
My best wishes for the next year 2016.
Agostino
Dear Agostino
Let me mention briefly to explain the my problem with modern.
Since 1962 I doubted on Newton's laws in high school. I did not accept the infinitive speed and I found un-vivid the laws of gravity and time.
I learned the Einstein's Relativity, thus I found some answers for my questions. But, I had another doubt of Infinitive Mass-Energy. And I wanted to know why light has stable speed?
Well, I wanted to know what is the basis of time. Then I asked, is there any event that time has not effect on it?
In 1971, I have started to study mathematical science at Shahid Beheshty univesity (National university of Iran). I studied modern physics.
On 1972 I was asking to myself why in the low speeds (v
Dear Hossein,
thanks for your personal story ... I am sure that you believe in what you do ... I sincerely appreciate your efforts to understand our world !
In your last post you have written:
'So, I have stated my work (a lang years ago) with reconsidering relativistic Newton's second law. I have not seen anything about relativistic Newton's second law in you papers. Let me know your opinion on it.'
Even if I have already given my opinion about your approach, let me add that in what you propose there is nothing of new with respect to the Einstein's SR and Einstein's photon theory. In fact you substantially combine these theories to particles like gravitons and photons and other ones, but not well defined and without specify the dynamics, that remains what you call reconsidered relativistic Newton's second law. Remaining inside this framework we could no do enough road ...
Sorry but reality is very more complex !
Let me enumerate some important steps that it is impossible recognize in your approach.
1) When you talk of quantum particles, these should be encoded in a geometric world satisfying the noncommutative logic of the quantum world. Where is this logic in your formulation ?
2) Quantum particles cannot be considered point-like objects. Therefore their dynamics should be encoded by PDEs (partial differential equations). But your dynamical equation is a revised relativistic Newton equation !
3) Dynamical equations should be quantum PDEs in order to satisfy noncommutative logic of the quantum world. But your dynamical equation is the commutative revised relativistic Newton equation !
4) Quantum reactions of quantum extended particles should be encoded inside a dynamical quantum PDE. But you have not such a PDE. Therefore, in your approach we cannot encode reactions between quantum particles. In fact in your approach you combine particles like a LEGO game. You do not use a dynamical approach. What advance with respect to older approaches ?
5) You do not distinguish between macro-world and micro-world. This is completely wrong ! ... because in the macro-world it is well-known that the logic is commutative. In fact you follow the same commutative logic also in the micro-world. Unfortunately this does not work therein !
6) In a previous post you have written:
'... nature obeys simple and unique law.'
I said that I share this opinion ... But this does not mean that we are authorized to consider the same logic at the macroscopic level and at the microscopic one. It instead means that we must use an unique big theory able to distinguish between the two levels.
I stop here my just too long answer, but of course I could go on ...
Sorry but reality is very more complex !
This is well encoded by my quantum gravity theory.
My best wishes for the new year.
Agostino
Dear Agostino
"Sorry but reality is very more complex !" I agree with you.
But Consider that general relativity and quantum mechanics (even string theory) are described with advanced mathematics.
This theories are based on physical principles and concepts have been created. If the principles and basic concepts of false, advanced mathematics have not results.
I have a new look on relativistic Newton's second law and gravity, then I have propounded a new definition of singularity.
You have written: " I have not seen anything about relativistic Newton's second law in you papers."
Please see; pages 15-21 of "Reconsidering relativistic Newton's second law and its results" and page 9 of "Graviton and Newton's second law" that linked in my last comment.
Also see following articles:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263083376_Reviewing_Friedmann_Equation_and_Inflation_Theory_by_Sub_Quantum_Energy?ev=prf_pub
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236142150_Definition_of_singularity_due_to_Newton%27s_second_law_counteracting_gravity?ev=prf_pub
Best Regards
Hossein
Article Reviewing Friedmann Equation and Inflation Theory by Sub Qua...
Data Definition of singularity due to Newton’s second law counter...
Dear Hosssein,
You claim:
'... But Consider that general relativity and quantum mechanics (even string theory) are described with advanced mathematics.
This theories are based on physical principles and concepts have been created. If the principles and basic concepts of false, advanced mathematics have not.'
I do not understand to what you refer ! You talk about GR and QM as they should be stupidities ... Despite they are not complete theories, their success is universally recognized ! However, my quantum gravity theory is not GR and neither QM !
Why you do not refer to my theory whether you have some criticism against it ?
I am afraid that you are yet confused ! In fact you write:
'You have written: " I have not seen anything about relativistic Newton's second law in you papers."'
The quoted sentence that you report is not mine but yours ... look to your previous post.
Furthermore you invite me to read some your papers. I know these works. Unfortunately I must confirm my previous opinion ... By the way I take this occasion to add that your definition of 'sub-quantum energy' is a non-sense !
Sorry but reality is very more complex !
This is well encoded by my quantum gravity theory .
Dear Agostino
"By the way I take this occasion to add that your definition of 'sub-quantum energy' is a non-sense !" Ok, I have no other word than the sub quantum energy. If in your opinion it is a non-sense, so the discussion is inconclusive.
Best Regards
Hossein
I agree Hossein, you continue to talk of nothing !
'Ad perpetuam rei memoriam ...'
Dear Agostino
Ok, I will do, thank you for your suggestion.
Regards
Hossein
Newton and Einstein were two legendary alchemists.
They studied all their life what they did not understand: Gravitation!
When they were young they stolen from others theories, but after people started to watch them and they were not able to steal anything, they did not discover anything.
General relativity, LQG, String theory, Quantum gravity theories are wrong theories because are limited to the speed of light and do not explain Gravitation.
“I am the first who Understood and Explained Gravitation with high speed gravitons v = 1.001762 × 10^17 m/s, with Negative Impulse, Negative Mass and Negative Energy” Adrian Ferent
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287331589_Ferent_Gravitation_theory
Agostino you did not understand Gravitation! Nobody will pay for your theory limited to the speed of light!
Adrian it is now clear to all RG users that you are not a serious scientist !
You spend stupid words against my quantum gravity theory, but you never read my work. On the other hand looking to your quoted paper it is also clear that you have not enough mathematical background to understand my work. This is evident also from your statement:
'Nobody will pay for your theory limited to the speed of light!'
that is completely unrelated to my theory.
On the other hand nobody can seriously consider a people that posts the following stupidities:
'Newton and Einstein were two legendary alchemists.
They studied all their life what they did not understand: Gravitation!
When they were young they stolen from others theories, but after people started to watch them and they were not able to steal anything, they did not discover anything.
General relativity, LQG, String theory, Quantum gravity theories are wrong theories because are limited to the speed of light and do not explain Gravitation.'
Adrian who pay you to be so stupid ?
Of course I will not more answer to similar posts addressed to me.
'Dum nihil habemus maius, calamo ludimus ...'
Agostino nobody read your theory because the speed of graviton is the speed of light, with positive momentum, positive energy...
Dear Adrian
I appreciate your point of view on speed of light. In my view graviton moves faster than light. But consider that dear Agostino is a serious scientist, prolific and advanced understanding.
Regards
Hossein
Adrian Ferent is not able to read my work since he is not able to understand serious scientific works !
'Asinus asinum fricat ...'
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics