Electromagnetic radiation transfers energy of course but mass distributions need much much more information carriers for modifications in the spacetime curvature... neutrinos perhaps?
I would say that - in the context of classical general relativity - the answer is gravitational radiation. In much the same sort of way you linearise Maxwell's equations, you can do something similar with Einstein's field equations. You think of a classical fixed background and then small ripples that communicate small changes in the gravitational field.
Applying quantum theory to this will give quantum general relativity, which can only be considered as an effective theory. It is not so well-behaved as quantum electrodynamics. But anyway, if your question is about the quanta of gravity then I would say gravitons... which we can only really discuss in any detail within perturbative quantum general relativity understood as an effective theory. You can make some calculations up to one-loop without any real problems.
Are neutrinos electromagnetic radiation? I think Gravitation mutates itself. Gravitation has all the cosmic information stored in it. Entire universe is working based on these informations.
Dear Esa, I studied that in the context of the Sun, where I found that the Sun's spin has a very strange empirical relationship with the gravitational constant G.
The empirical equation reads: f = GM/(2cR²) in which “f” is the frequency of the Sun's spin at the equator, and M and R are the mass and the equatorial radius of the Sun.
I hypothesize that it is strictly related to the gravitational constant by a proces of gravitons interaction, and I control that hypothesis with the Sun's differential rotation.
I could show that the dynamics of the Sun correspond with Newton's gravity by applying the mechanical Coriolis force interaction between gravitons and particles.
It seems a bit alchemic at the first sight, but one should follow the reasoning step by step.
I try to explain:
An approach by gravitons, which clearly shows the process of an attraction force, is given by the assumption that gravitons orbit about particles at speed "c", like the groove of a longplaying music vinyl disc, and when hitting a particle (which is spinning by definition), they exert a purely mechanical Coriolis interaction, that points to the center of the first particle (in a static case), hence attraction.
Gravitons in the groove can try to leave it, but will be pushed back by the gravitons on the nearby orbits ("grooves").
This interaction perfectly coincides with Newton's gravity force at the Sun's equatorial surface, and perfectly links the Sun's dynamics (mass, radius, rotation) with both Newton and gravitons by a mechanical Coriolis-force.
The annexed paper explains the perfect fit and so, the very interesting approach of these hypothesized gravitons.
Article Is the Differential Rotation of the Sun Caused by a Coriolis...
From there, it is possible to consider that the gravity constant G is linked to the Sun's dynamics, because the other components in the equation f = GM/(2cR²) are known and defined by the Sun.
Hence, the gravity constant G in the Newtonian gravity connects inertial masses to gravity masses.
More research should be performed to come to a more complete answer to your question, but I seriously doubt that the empirical Solar data are a coincidence with respect to the gravitational constant and Newton's gravity.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
there is no such a carrier, so the whole question makes no sense
As I said em radiation is a carrier. Because it obviously doesn't transfer information enough to change gravitational field, more are needed. Gravitons are hypothetical so I bet for neutrinos.
I think gravitational waves can be emergent of carriers of gravitational information radiation (neutrinos?).
When the light bends in the gravitational field, its energy becomes part of the field. It is undeniable that the distance from the world line of the light is shorter to the other side than to the opposite side.
The light transfers energy and participates in gravity changes. But em radiation is not enough for carrying information from mass distribution changes for changes in gravitational field. So we need something more: gravitons, neutrinos - they are the same, perhaps.
Because of the curving radiation participating the gravitational field as energy we can wonder if the mass distrubition changes by the curving radiation. Em radiation is energy conserving by nature, its spin is zero. Does neutrino radiation conserve its energy by similar way? Maybe not, its spin is ½. Hence, it could more effectively oscillate its energy state and mirror its propagation direction too if needed...
So, we have a huge amount of need for gravitational change information carriers, we have whole lotta distribution changes, we observe bounded states of galaxies / star systems explaining them with dark matter. If only there are bouncing information carriers as gravitating energy in galaxial dynamics as bounded states - maybe as bouncing neutrinos oscillating back and forth defining local dark mass?
Esa Säkkinen Neutrinos don't have the right properties to be a "graviton". They are fermions. The graviton - in standard theories - must be a spin-2 particle.
Similarly, neutrinos don't have the right properties to be a gravitino.
Dear Andrew James Bruce,
We can easily see there is no way with standard model and quantum gravity. Besides, as dark mass it's more likely being spin½ particles concerned than anything else. Also, gravitational quanta could be, say, like spatiality based on fine structure constant rather than some energy quanta...
Esa Säkkinen I think you never intended to listen any answers given by people. I am not sure why you asked.
Anyway bottom line... no body thinks that the neutrino is the graviton. If you disagree and think that it is, then you need to build a model that in some limits gives a theory phenomenologically identical to general relativity.
Of course we can find new particle for dark matter or for graviton. But while waiting, it's fun to scrutiny possibilities deeper with particles already found.
Still, if not achieved a consistent theory maybe the understanding about neutrinos, for example, can be little bit increased by toy modelling...
In fact, when I said betting for neutrinos, I really didn't mean neutrinos being gravitons. In this sight I'd prefer there would be no gravitons but only orderings of spacetime and maybe Higgs field and neutrinos could be linked some way...
So more questions than solutions so far.
There is no known direct link between gravity and the Higgs field. In particular, most of the mass of macroscopic bodies - which is where general relativity provides the best description of gravity - comes from binding energy ad not the Higgs.
And what do you mean by orderings of spacetime?
There is an elfish paradox: If not the Higgs field, the masses of bound structures are reduced by the amount of initial masses of fundamental particles? ;)
I mean that orderings of spacetime can be found between all actions, wave or particle, as the causality - just like Seth Lloyd said that maybe we already know all energy quanta and that's enough; they define the whole spacetime...
https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/2625
From 3:40...
Dear Andrew,
Do I understand well that you give a total faith to standard model and general relativity?
Don't you see that these theories have reached a dead end since a long time?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Thierry De Mees
>Do I understand well that you give a total faith to standard model and general >relativity?
It depends what you mean by total faith. So far, there is no experiment that does not agree to some high degree of accuracy with the standard model or general relativity, depending on the scales you are looking at. So, if someone asks a question related to particle physics I go for the standard model (or just beyond), and if some asks about gravity I go for general relativity (or maybe something close if the question warrants it).
But I am well aware that neither is complete.
>Don't you see that these theories have reached a dead end since a long time?
I would not go that far, but for sure neither is a complete theory in the sense that it can cover phenomenology across all scales.
So, the opening question is about the "quanta" of gravity. As we have not discovered gravitons the best we can do us discuss them in the context of an established theory. It makes sense to think in terms of quantum general relativity. And as no one has asked any technical questions, we probably don't need to think of anything else. Also this mimics how we get to photons from Maxwell's equations.
The suggestion was that the neutrino is the "graviton", i.e., the quanta associated with gravitation. But we know from some general arguments, which I think go back to Feynman, that fermions as exchange particles does not lead to a theory like gravity.
Maybe one could find some loop-holes in the arguments, drop some assumptions used in QFT or something and construct a theory using something that matches neutrinos. Until someone does that, the answer has to be that neutrinos are not the quanta of gravity. Even then, if you have a theory, I would make it clear that this is not the widely accepted model.
Dear Andrew,
Is the "widely accepted model" of any significance to you?
Napoleon said that history is a succession of lies agreed upon.
Why would science that cannot be verified with direct means be different?
Don't you find that general relativity gives only very few direct observational agreement apart from Mercury's perihelion advance and light bending, for which it has been fabricated from since the beginning?
The LIGO results are very well explained by geophysics, since each alleged discovery preceded a major earthquake.
To get stable disc galaxies, one needs gigantic quantities of dark matter, because general relativity doesn't suffice.
For the standard model, what has been proven during the last few decades? The Higgs boson? What a joke! CERN was going to stop its search for it, and because of massive protest from the fanatics, they suddenly "found" something that *could* maybe agree with the order of magnitude of the theoretical Higgs boson.
Sure, if you crash two cars at very high speed, maybe you will find something in the debris that resemble to what you postulated after crashing them fast enough, again and again...
Mainstream relativity, gravity, cosmology, recent standard model, it's all indirectly approved by ad hoc explanations, and the results are poor, very poor.
How then could one possibly claim to predict something about gravitons?
By the way, you speak of "photons" and "Maxwell". Are you suggesting that light consist of particles at the speed of light?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
>Is the "widely accepted model" of any significance to you?
While science is subject to change and is self-correcting, yes, I would rather give an answer to a genuine question that falls within accepted science. Naturally questions on the frontier may need more speculative answers, but they will be highlighted as such.
I am shocked that anyone would hint that I do otherwise.
Dear Andrew,
Life is more than being a mainstream Xerox.
If you dig into mainstream sciences like astronomy, cosmology, relativity, and gravity, you will find many issues that are nothing more but "lies agreed upon". Some with a purpose, some not.
However, mostly nationalism and religion made them.
Why do you think that Lemaître invented Big Bang? Because he was a priest!
Who do you think is lobbying Einstein's relativity, even with totally false interpretation and false arguments that are in fact only valid for electromagnetic charges?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Thierry De Mees
This seems to be totally off topic.
The self-correcting nature of science is off topic. Nationalism and religion are off topic. Lemaître being a priest is off topic.
The only thing that could be relevant is the success of general relativity in describing a wide range of gravitational phenomena. The agreement between the theory and experiments is amazing. No serious scientist denies this.
I suggest you have a look at he following review: Article The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment
I will add that the opening question does not specify that the discussion should be in the context of some other theory. So, unless specified I would assume gravity/gravitational etc. to mean general relativity. Just as anyone would assume that by electromagnetism you mean Maxwell's equations (or QED). Moreover, as we have not detected gravitons, all I can do is discuss them in the context of a theory - the usual one would be quantum general relativity as an effective theory. Given the success of classical GR, any quantum theory of gravity would in some limits look like quantum general relativity.
So, with this all in mind, the opening question was can neutrinos be the "force carriers" of a quantum theory of gravity. The answer is no, for sure no if you want a fundamental particle to be the carrier, and even if we drop that, it is not clear if it is possible to use a collection of fermions as the carriers to phenomenologically recover something like gravity.
In particular, from some general arguments (due to Feynman) we know that even integer spin particles always produce attractive forces, while odd integer spin may produce repulsive forces. Given that and the Weinberg-Witten theorem the only possible spins for the carriers of an attractive force like gravity are spin-0 and spin-2. (I am assuming I am working with Lorentz invariant QFT on Minkowski space-time, so a weak limit of gravity. ) So, unless one has theories that avoids these theorems, people stick to gravity as being carried by a scalar field and a rank two symmetric tensor field.
One could then ask about supergravity. So we throw a gravitino into the mix. This is spin-3/2 and so cannot be a neutrino. We could then ask about the superpartner of the spin-0 dilaton. I am not an expert in supergravity, but for sure the dilatino cannot be a neutrino within standard supergravity theories. You would need to explain the flavours.
Dear Andrew,
You are not deciding what is off-topic. Science is not sound anymore, but infested by such manipulations.
"the success of general relativity in describing a wide range of gravitational phenomena"
Funny! Which successes, verifiable by independent direct observation?
"unless specified I would assume gravity/gravitational etc. to mean general relativity"
Hahaha! Why? It has lead us to...nothing at all! Only Mercury's perihelion advance and light bending has been observed directly!
"Lorentz invariance" is total nonsense. They even invent "new coordinate systems" to explain the violations in atomic observations! Hence, Weinberg-Witten theorem is total nonsense! It is only propaganda for Einstein by nationalists!
They even have put "Lorentz invariance" in Maxwell's electromagentism without any observational evidence!
It's fraud!
Special relativity, on which "Lorentz invariance" is based, cannot change events like (force)fields do. Special relativity is only optics, as seen from elsowhere by using light signals. It's nothing more.
"Lorentz invariance" is only a trick to making gravitomagnetism suspicious, which however is a sound theory of gravity, which is experimentally proven by the Gravity Probe B experiment in satellites around the Earth, and which denies a relativistic time-dimension!
Gravitomagnetism is not only straightforwardly explaining Mercury's perihelion advance and light bending, but also stable disc galaxies without "dark matter", and numerous direct observations in the cosmos!
Do you deny direct observation, Andrew?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Thierry De Mees It is clear you are just a quack. I won't be replying to any more of your comments.
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single [scientific] argument left."
~Margaret Thatcher
- Badges
- Science topic