Graviton must have spin 2 according to GR, while photon has spin 1 according to quantum theory....why? And from where does that come from? Can we discuss? Schwarzschild radius is 2GM/c^2 according to GR, while quantum Schwarzschild radius is GM/c^2. From where the factor of 2 comes from in GR comparing to the point of view of quantum theory?
Perhaps I have misunderstood your question, therefore my answer I will be necessarily interlocutory.
I do not know "why" photons have spin 1. What I know is that according to the quantum theory of electromagnetic fields the photons (transverse) are vector particles with spin 1. On the other side the experimental results confirm (in a superb way) the underlying theoretical statement.
Regarding (the not yet observed) gravitons, being they associated with energy stress tensor (in contrast the photons are associated with the four current) the underlying mathematical theory naturally leads to the conclusion that, if they exist, are spin 2 bosons. It may be argued that the theory as it stands is plagued by divergence, but,waiting for a better defined formulation, at the Planck scale this is the best we have.
I am taking the question as one of understanding current theory. The photon field is associated with a four-vector electromagnetic potential, which has a transformation order of 1. The gravitational field is associated with a bilateral metric which has a transition order of 2. So if the question is what in current theory associates a spin-1 field/particle excitation with a photon and a spin-2 field/particle excitation with a graviton, then that is the answer.
If the question is more fundamental, I do not believe it can be answered.
My thought is that the Graviton (a hypothetical particle) is just that hypothetical.
Just because we can not explain something with the theory that we love (General Relativity) does not mean that we are missing a particle. There are better ways to explain the way a neutron stays in an atom than by making up some particles that may or may not exist.
The problem today is that now the Graviton has been around in science for so long that everyone just thinks it has to exist. It does not and we need to have a better way to make the theory work without a Graviton.
We could look at the particles that are neutral as having a die-pole nature nature but neutral overall and that would totally solve the graviton problem but that would take looking at the situation a lot differently.
I have put together a different model of the atom that addresses this issue but I have been told by some many people that I could not possibly be correct that I almost started believing that. The problem is that the old model of the atom is more than 100 years old and was developed only to explain the electron proton interaction in an atom. This way decades before we even knew that the Neutron existed. Once we saw that we had missed something it took time and we invented a particle that held the other particle in the atom.
To me this is not something that a scientist or even someone that thinks they are a scientist should ever do but we did.
There is not a good reason to believe that the graviton a mass-less, shapeless particle in the atom exists at all. Let solve problems by adding as much complexity as possible to the problem. Albert Einstein once said that nature loves simplicity and I think that he was correct in his evaluation of the situation. This leads me back to the thought that Occam's Razer applies here.
Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." When I read this from Newton I realize how far off base we have come to get to the point of making things up to explain the reality of not understanding the situation.
Dear Giuseppe Dattoli, Moshe Wallace Callen,
It is answered now...trust in me! Read my paper " The Quantization of General Relativity: Photon Mediates Gravitation" http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002
The problem in quantization of gravity according to Einstein's GR starts from the Einstein interpretation of the Lorentz transformation in SRT depending on objectivity, which from objectivity it is resulted the continuity. In order to Einstein keeps on the objectivity in his interpretation of the Lorentz transformation, it is required to keep on Lorentz symmetry. Lorentz symmetry is only to keep on objectivity and then resulted continuity, not to keep on Lorentz invariance. According to objectivity and then continuity, it is resulted the space-time continuum, and then when we generalize the Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz transformation in srt in case of non-inertial frames, it is resulted the curved space-time. Basis on objectivity and continuity, there is no choice for Einstein in GR just to use the concept classical acceleration to define his equivalence principle, which is resulted the decrease in the measured speed of light depends on the strength of gravitational field not on the gravitational potential of the field. The measured decrease of the speed of speed of light according to Einstein's equivalence principle depending on objectivity and continuity and according to his equivalence principle as equivalent the light passes longer path depending on the equation 1/2at^2 comparing to the local path in the accelerated lift. Now if we consider the concept of acceleration or deceleration is produced by changing velocity, which means gain or loose energy, which is quantized (discrete). The problem here is how to define the continuous path according to Einstein's equivalence principle 1/2at^2 with the gain or loose energy which is quantized. I solved this problem in my previous paper, which lead also the measured decrease in the speed of light depends on the gravitational potential, not on the strength of the field. That led also to solve the energy momentum problem in GR, and also the SN1987a , the Pond-Rebka experiment, and more! Read the recent published paper also; http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst
Dear Juan D. Bulnes,
I'm really interested in your answer, which is related directly to my theory of quantization of gravity; photon mediates gravitation http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002 . Attraction or repulsion is absorption or loosing energy of frequency f which is equivalent in classical concept of acceleration or deceleration. According to quantum physics there is no the concept of acceleration, it is only the concept of transforming from quantum state to the other quantum state. The concept of acceleration is only in classical physics depending on objectivity and then continuity which is adopted also in Einstein's interpretation to the Lorentz transformation in SRT and then it is resulted the concept of space-time continuum. In order to unify between quantum theory and relativity theory. In this case the concept of acceleration must be defines as a transforming from quantum state to another quantum state, and then in each quantum state the Lorentz transformation must be linear and then we keep on the Lorentz invariance locally in each quantum state. That is impossible under the concept of Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz transformation depending on objectivity and continuity in SRT. I solved the problem in my previous paper as I explained in my previous comment. Since according to absorption energy of frequency f leading to particle to move with relativistic velocity v, in this case and according to my equivalence principle in case of free falling object by gravity, a part of the rest mass of the free fall object under gravitational field will change to photons, and these photons will give the particle to move in a relativistic speed equals to the relativistic escape velocity. According to my equivalence principle this escape velocity must be defined as relativistic not classical, and in case of weak gravitational field, this relativistic escape velocity can be approximated to classical escape velocity. In case of strong gravitational field the escape velocity must be relativistic, because a huge amount of the rest mass will change to photons, and the relativistic mass always equals to the rest mass. When the particle falls in the quantum Schwartzschild radius, all the rest mass will change to photons and the particle then will move in the speed of light locally. But because of the red-shift, the measured decreased in the speed of light globally will lead the observer faraway from the black hole to measure the speed of light in the black hole to be c'=0. Now according to my equivalence principle, the gravitational time dilation produced as the free fall particle moves with relativistic escape velocity at any point in space in the gravitational field, which agreed completely with the result of the Pond-Rebka experiment. And the measured decreased in the speed of light globally depended on the gravitational potential not on the strength of the field as in Einstein's equivalence principle. Also same as I see red-shift for light beam in gravity, Also in case of free fall object in gravitational field, the measured relativistic escape velocity must be slightly different from the measured escape velocity locally in any point in space in the gravitational field because of the red-shift also it is depending on the the gravitational potential same as in case of light speed. Review the Pioneer anomaly, which is solving energy/momentum problem in gravity. My theory my equivalence principle and my transformation equations will give a simple interpretation of the Schrodenger equation and how the stronderger equation is related directly now to gravitational field according to my equivalence principle, and my transformation equations.Where, According to my transformation equations it is leading to the wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the commutation relations.
The gauge field, that describes the electromagnetic field, transforms as a 4-vector, the gauge field, that describes the gravitational field, i.e. the metric, transforms as a symmetric tensor under the Poincaré group. This is a standard exercise in the representation theory of the Poincaré group.
The fields, that are classical, do carry angular momentum, in the form of waves. Gravitational waves, that have been measured, from the variation of the period of binary pulsars, have properties consistent with general relativity and can be described as coherent superpositions of a macroscopic number of spin-2 particles, gravitons, just like electromagnetic waves can be described as coherent superpositions of a macroscopic number of spin-1 particles, photons. On the other hand, while photon ``shot noise'' has been observed, graviton ``shot noise'' hasn't, yet, been observed--and it may be impossible to measure, simply from the weakness of the gravitational interaction.
There isn't any such notion as a ``quantum Schwarzschild radius''. The Schwarzschild black hole is a solution of Einstein's equations and is a classical notion. That GM/c^2 has dimensions of length, implies that any length will be a multiple of GM/c^2; that something special happens when the coefficient equals 2 is a property of the Schwarzschild solution.
No, gravitational wave theories aren't linearized. The detection strategies for gravitational waves of course takes into account the nonlinearities, as did the calculation of the binary pulsar period.
Dear Stam Nicolis,
"the gauge field, that describes the gravitational field, i.e. the metric, transforms as a symmetric tensor under the Poincaré group" why????
Lorentz symmetry is only to keep on objectivity, and objectivity will lead to continuity. The factor of 2 is normally produced by the continuity according to Einstein equivalence principle. If energy is continuous, then I say, there is graviton, But since energy is quantized, it is not graviton, it is photon! Can you inform me why treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. Thus it is photon not graviton! Proponents of relativity keep silent and do not have an answer when you ask them why treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. Then the problem starts from the SRT in the Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz transformation equations depending on objectivity. Lorentz symmetry is only for keeping on objectivity, not important for the Lorentz invariance. Basis on objectivity in the Lorentz transformation equations which leads to continuity and according to the equivalence principle it is normal mathematically the gauge field, that describes the gravitational field, i.e. the metric, transforms as a symmetric tensor under the Poincaré group. Reinterpretation of the Lorentz transformation by removing objectivity as in Copenhagen school solves all the problems in physics regarded to quantum and relativity, and they become one theory. Most of Proponents of relativity understand now that I succeeded in quantization of gravity in my paper "The Quantization of General Relativity: Photon Mediates Gravitation" http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002 But they do not have what to say!!!!!!
One shouldn't confuse quantum effects with classical ones. The bending of light by the gravitational field is a classical effect and has to do with the fact that the metric couples to the energy-momentum tensor, which is the energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field. This is, indeed, an illustration of the equivalence principle.
Dear Azzam, actually, as Stam Nicolis was already suggesting, here we are not speaking about quantum effect, strictly speaking.
The point is that one refers to as "photon" and "graviton" respectively the wave solution of Maxwell (electromagnetic) and Einstein (gravitational) field equations; by the way, consider that Maxwell equations being "already" linear, photonic solution is not an approximation of them, while Einstein equations being "intrinsically" non-linear, graviton solution may exist only when gravitational field is very small.
So, once you have brought Einstein equations to the form of a linear wave equation (i.e., once you turn them into looking for a suitable zero of D'Alambert 4D operator), you solve them and you have 4-tensor waves. These tensors being symmetric, your field will transform according to a spin-2 representation of SO(3) when rotations are considered.
The same thing for the Maxwell equations (that are already linear, let me underline!) will result in a 4-vector wave solution, namely the vector potential of electromagnetic fields, which transforms according a spin-1 representation of SO(3) if you rotate the space axes.
This is pure SO(3)-algebra (well, SL(1,3) if you really really want...); THEN, if someone wants to do attach a particle meaning to the linear solutions of Einstein equations, one is brought to say that the corresponding particle should have zero mass and helicity equal to 2.
Please let me know if you want further discussion.
Dear Stam Nicolis,
Your news about the light bending by gravity are old. Review this new published paper J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008
doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008
Franson calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation. Also the Pond-Rebka experiment experiment. Proponents of the theory of General Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations of the results of the The Pound-Rebka experiment that are said to be equivalent to each other and therefore all equally correct. All make the claim that the results of the Pound-Rebka Experiment are “proof” of the Equivalence Principle even though nothing in these measurements suggests any need for the Equivalence Principle. So I hope to discuss these experiments in more details.
Dear Massimo Materassi,
You are right according to the point of view of GR. GR built basis on the interpretation of Einstein to the Lorentz transformation according to objectivity.
Objectivity means "event occurs, then it occurs for all observers" Event is independent of the observers. For example suppose a plane flies from London to Paris in a constant speed v. Now ignore the concept of classical acceleration or deceleration, because it is related to some thing in quantum. Now according to objectivity, when the plane flies from London, then the plane flies from London for the observer on the ground, and for the Pilot of the plane. And when the Plane arrives Paris, then the Plane arrives Paris for the observer on the ground and for the Pilot of the plane. Both the observer on the ground and the pilot on the plane will agree at the location of the plane at any point in space between London an Paris, and from that it is resulted the continuity as observed according to objectivity for both the observers on on the ground and on the plane basis on symmetry. Symmetry is only to keep on objectivity.
Basis on objectivity Einstein defined the Lorentz transformation depending on the concept of the relative simultaneity and the constancy of the speed of light depending on the difference between two events in space and time, which resulted the concept of space-time continuum. The Minkowski diagram provides an illustration of the properties of space and time in the special theory of relativity basis on objectivity which leads to continuity. So in GR by the equivalence principle we confined with objectivity and the Lorentz symmetry which leading to continuity, and from here it is resulted the confusion of seeing photon of spin 1 mediates gravitation, and there is no graviton of spin 2.
"Why must gravitons have a spin of 2, while a photon has a spin of 1?"
Dear Azzam K Almosallami! Excuse me, please
In the theoretical model of the physical vacuum as dense packing his elastic particles gravitons and spine does not exist. And the quanta are only portions of the parameters of moving objects. Example is in the link http://worldphysics.narod.ru/33.docx
В теоретической модели физического вакуума, как плотной упаковки его упругих частиц гравитоны и спины не существуют. И кванты являются только порциями параметров перемещения объектов. Пример в ссылке http://worldphysics.narod.ru/33.docx
The fact that one *could* detect violations of the equivalence principle does not mean that one *has* detected them. However these don't have anything to do with the spin of the photon or the graviton. Were additional fields, beyond the metric, necessary for describing spacetime (e.g. in scalar-tensor theories or in supergravity) wouldn't affect the fact that the gauge field for the metric transforms as a symmetric tensor and propagates particles of spin 2.
Dear Stam Nicolis,
You do not give me any interpretation of the Franson's calculations, and also the Pond-Rebka experiment. You just say equivalence principle is right without any interpretation. Proponents of relativity always like that!!! They just say equivalence principle is right without saying how? I told you before proponents of the theory of General Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations of the results of the The Pound-Rebka experiment that are said to be equivalent to each other and therefore all equally correct. All make the claim that the results of the Pound-Rebka Experiment are “proof” of the Equivalence Principle even though nothing in these measurements suggests any need for the Equivalence Principle. Do you think nature is wrong, and Einstein must be always right?
About objectivity and SL(1,3), consider that in arbitrarily curved Einstein's spacetime you will have them only as locally, and reference-frame-by-reference-frame (e.g., the example of an observer freely falling into a black hole, who's feeling to be smashed in a tiny lapse of time, while the distant, Minkowskian observer will look at him as red-shifting and slowing down forever on the threshold of the event horizon). My opinion is that the concept of particle itself is purely local in a generally curved spacetime.
Dear Massimo Materassi,
GR is for non-inertial frames, because of that paradoxes in relativity can be solved easier when proposing non-inertial frames. Let's talk about objectivity in SRT in case of inertial frame. Lorentz symmetry is keeping on objectivity in SRT, and then it is resulted all the paradoxes in SRT. Proponents of relativity proposing acceleration to illustrate they are not paradoxes, while SRT is only for inertial frames. To solve the Twin paradox in SRT, they proposed 5 conflicting solutions. While it is very simple to remove all the paradoxes in SRT by removing objectivity by removing the Lorentz symmetry, and that led the Lorentz transformation to be vacuum energy dependent instead of the relative velocity, and then the concept of acceleration is vacuum fluctuations. And then that will lead at the same time to the wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. All the problems related to relativity and quantum physics will be solved then.
There isn't any ambiguity about the Pound-Rebka experiment, nor about the equivalence principle. It's well known how to test the equivalence principle: if the gravitational action doesn't depend only on the metric but, also, on other fields, that cannot be eliminated by field redefinitions, these will lead to violations of the equivalence principle, if matter couples only to the metric, through its energy-momentum tensor.
(The fact that gravitational waves are nonlinear doesn't have anything to do with gravitational interactions of quantum fields.)
Stam Nicolis.
So what about the Energy-moment problem in GR? Proponents of relativity always have conflicting solutions!!!
There aren't any ``conflicting'' solutions-unless one reads history. It is understood how to define the energy-momentum tensor of matter fields, in flat spacetime and how to generalize this definition to curved spacetime and, then how to describe the situations when spacetime, defined by the metric, can become dynamical. Any textbook of the last forty years presents the solution. There are several, equivalent, ways of defining the energy-momentum tensor. These aren't in ``conflict'', since they lead to the same predictions. If the spacetime doesn't adimit a time-like Killing vector, for instance, it's simply not possible to define energy in a way independent of the reference frame chosen. But that's to be expected and what it implies can be described.
Stam
Re: The fact that gravitational waves are nonlinear doesn't have anything to do with gravitational interactions of quantum fields.
If you collect all of the problems related to relativity; Franson's calculations, the Pond-Rebka experiment, the energy momentum problem, the Pioneer anomaly, with all the problems related to relativity and quantum theory, you will understand the interpretation of Einstein to the Lorentz transformation depending on objectivity and continuity is wrong, and that made the contradictions between quantum and relativity. In fact it is not graviton of spin 2, it is photon of spin 1. Collect of all of these problems together and you will understand that. it is very simple now. Read my The Quantization of General Relativity: Photon Mediates Gravitationpaper http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002
A spin-1 field has repulsive interactions, so it can't be the principal mediator of gravitational interactions; it can be part of the multiplet in supergravity, however, and that this could lead to violations of the equivalence principle was noted by Joël Scherk, who introduced the term ``graviphoton'' for it:
J.~Scherk,
``Antigravity: A Crazy Idea?,''
Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 88} (1979) 265.
%%CITATION = PHLTA,B88,265;%%
Dear Stam,
Equivalence principle was violated according to recent experiments http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst Also the Pond-Rebka experiment.
A spin-1 field has repulsive interactions; The new equivalence principle must be an equivalence between absorption or loosing energy of frequency f, where the acceleration is changing the velocity by absorption or loosing energy of frequency f, and then defining the relativistic quantized force, and from the relativistic quantized force, you must define the relativistic quantized inertial force, and then you get the relativistic quantized gravitational force. In this case you get the escape velocity as relativistic, not classical as in GR. That is required to make a modification in the Lorentz transformation equations in the y and z coordinates to be multiplied by the Lorentz factor and then refusing the Lorentz symmetry which leading to disappearing all the paradoxes in SRT. According to that the Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent and the concept of acceleration is vacuum fluctuations which causing the observed red-shift depending on the gravitational potential not on the strength of the field. In this case you understand photon of spin 1 mediates gravitation.
Let's study this thought experiment of Einstein!
Suppose a plane flies from London to Paris in constant speed v . Now According to SRT, the observer on the ground and the observer on the plane are agreed that plane flies from London, and when the plane arrives Paris, they will be agreed that the plane arrives Paris. They agree that the plane arrives at any point in space within the distance between London and Paris. Because of that and under the postulate of the constancy, of the speed of light and the Lorentz transformation equations, the length of the plane must be contracted in the direction of the velocity of the plane, and according to the reciprocity principle, the distance between London and Paris must be contracted.
Now if we consider the Lorentz contraction is not exist in the length of the moving plane, but it exists in the passed distance of the moving plane for the observer on the plane comparing to the measured passed distance of the plane for the observer on the ground because of the effect of the time dilation. Suppose the velocity of the plane is 0.87c. Thus if the observer on the ground sees the plane arrives Paris, then according to our postulate, the observer on the plane does not see the Plane arrives Paris yet, it is still in the middle distance between London and Paris. And in order to keep on the constancy of the speed of light Locally for all observers, we must multiply the y and z coordinates by the Lorentz factor, and by removing the reciprocity principle, we get disappearing all the paradoxes in SRT. In this case space is invariant, and thus both the observers on the ground and the observer on moving plane will agree at the measured distance between London and Paris, and they will agree also at the length of the moving plane in x,y and z same if the plane is stationary. During the motion of the plane in constant speed v, it is impossible that both observer on the ground and the observer on the moving plane agree that plane arrives at the same point in space between London and Paris at the same time, and this is the core of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle when we deal with the four vector according to our new transformation. According to our new transformation the Lorentz transformation becomes vacuum energy dependent. When the observer on the ground sees the Plane arrives Paris, and then he could stop the plane, where the plane's speed becomes zero, in this case the observer on the plane finds his plane arrives Paris, where his Plane transformed from quantum state of motion when it was in the middle distance between London and Paris to the stationary state in Paris in a zero time separation. And because of the effect of time dilation and according to the clock of the plane, the measured speed the plane passed the distance between London and Paris if the velocity of plane was 0.87c is 1.74c which is faster than light which is not true but depending on the effect of time dilation. According to our new transformation the concept of acceleration or deceleration becomes vacuum fluctuations, which is related to gaining energy or loosing energy of frequency f, and that is clear when dealing with the four vector according to our new transformation. Where according to our new transformation when the plane stopped, then it lost all of its kinetic energy which is equivalent to hf. it is same from transforming from quantum state to other quantum state, and that leading to vacuum fluctuation. According our new transformation, we removed the Lorentz symmetry, but we keep on the Lorentz invariance.
Now it is easy according to our new transformation the quantization of gravity and understand how photon mediates gravitation by our new transdormation
Electron has spin 1/2 and two polarization could be converted into each other by rotation on angle of Pi. Photon has spin 1 and two polarization could be converted into each other by rotation on angle of Pi/2. Two polarizations of gravitational wave could be converted into each other by rotation on angle of Pi/4.
If discussions like this one are the future of ResearchGate then I will sign out! (All you are doing is to confuse everything with everything else.)
I must confess that I agree with the opinion expressed by prof. Frolich, the discussion does not make too much sense and is dominated by a large amount of confusion. I regret for having been the first to provide an answer.
The graviton is a mass-less particle with zero charge and a spin s = ±2 and has not been detected owing to its extremely weak interaction.
Photons have spins of s = ±1 and a rest mass of zero, and are their own antiparticles. The electromagnetic interaction has a long range because the photon is mass-less.
http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/universe/universe-chapter4.html
Dear Jürg Martin Fröhlich,
Dear Giuseppe Dattoli,
I think your comments are against of the spirit of the scientific research. The goal of my question is to understand the reality! Proponents of relativity always like that refusing any discussion related to criticize relativity when they do not have answers. I found in my research the problem between quantum theory starts from the interpretation of Einstein to the Lorentz transformation in SRT. I reinterpret the Lorentz transformation according to Copenhagen school and I found all the problems regarded to quantum and relativity solved. So I hope to inform where is the wrong in my model. What if it is photon not graviton.
Let's study this thought experiment of Einstein!
Suppose a plane flies from London to Paris in constant speed v . Now According to SRT, the observer on the ground and the observer on the plane are agreed that plane flies from London, and when the plane arrives Paris, they will be agreed that the plane arrives Paris. They agree that the plane arrives at any point in space within the distance between London and Paris. Because of that and under the postulate of the constancy, of the speed of light and the Lorentz transformation equations, the length of the plane must be contracted in the direction of the velocity of the plane, and according to the reciprocity principle, the distance between London and Paris must be contracted.
Now if we consider the Lorentz contraction is not exist in the length of the moving plane, but it exists in the passed distance of the moving plane for the observer on the plane comparing to the measured passed distance of the plane for the observer on the ground because of the effect of the time dilation. Suppose the velocity of the plane is 0.87c. Thus if the observer on the ground sees the plane arrives Paris, then according to our postulate, the observer on the plane does not see the Plane arrives Paris yet, it is still in the middle distance between London and Paris. And in order to keep on the constancy of the speed of light Locally for all observers, we must multiply the y and z coordinates by the Lorentz factor, and by removing the reciprocity principle, we get disappearing all the paradoxes in SRT. In this case space is invariant, and thus both the observers on the ground and the observer on moving plane will agree at the measured distance between London and Paris, and they will agree also at the length of the moving plane in x,y and z same if the plane is stationary. During the motion of the plane in constant speed v, it is impossible that both observer on the ground and the observer on the moving plane agree that plane arrives at the same point in space between London and Paris at the same time, and this is the core of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle when we deal with the four vector according to our new transformation. According to our new transformation the Lorentz transformation becomes vacuum energy dependent. When the observer on the ground sees the Plane arrives Paris, and then he could stop the plane, where the plane's speed becomes zero, in this case the observer on the plane finds his plane arrives Paris, where his Plane transformed from quantum state of motion when it was in the middle distance between London and Paris to the stationary state in Paris in a zero time separation. And because of the effect of time dilation and according to the clock of the plane, the measured speed the plane passed the distance between London and Paris if the velocity of plane was 0.87c is 1.74c which is faster than light which is not true but depending on the effect of time dilation. According to our new transformation the concept of acceleration or deceleration becomes vacuum fluctuations, which is related to gaining energy or loosing energy of frequency f, and that is clear when dealing with the four vector according to our new transformation. Where according to our new transformation when the plane stopped, then it lost all of its kinetic energy which is equivalent to hf. it is same from transforming from quantum state to other quantum state, and that leading to vacuum fluctuation. According our new transformation, we removed the Lorentz symmetry, but we keep on the Lorentz invariance.
Now it is easy according to our new transformation the quantization of gravity and understand how photon mediates gravitation by our new transdormation
Dear Krishnan Umachandran,
Graviton must have spin 2 according to Einstein's interpretation to the Lorentz transformation depending on objectivity and continuity and his equivalence principle in GR which is violated by many experiments, and proponents of relativity have not answers related to the violation of the equivalence principle of Einstein . But the reinterpretation of the Lorentz transformation equation according to Copenhagen solves all the problems regarded to quantum and relativity.
Thinking in objectivity in Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz transformation, and then you will understand why in Lorentz transformation in y and z coordinates remains the same where y'=y and z'=z where why they are not multiplied by Lorentz factor. and if we multiplied them by the Lorentz factor, how the length contraction and time dilation can be interpreted and what is the form of the Lorentz transformation take. According to this transformation there is no symmetry which leading to disappearing all the paradoxes in relativity, and at the same time we keep on the Lorentz symmetry. Do you know what is the concept of acceleration according to this transformation, Review my paper The Quantization of General Relativity: Photon Mediates Gravitation http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002
SRT is for an inertial frames of reference and it is not related to accelerated frames. relative to the definition of the acceleration in quantum physics and then in Cern is related to absorption or loosing energy only. Where if a particle absorbed an energy of frequency f1, then it will move with kinetic energy hf1, and if it absorbed another energy of frequency f2, then it will move with kinetic energy h(f1+f2). Now according to SRT and because of SRT is for none accelerated frames, it is only concerned for the kinetic energy which is related to hf. Here where is the concept of acceleration which is adopted by Einstein in his equivalence principle in GR. The collision is related to gaining energy or loosing energy hf which is quantized, and then it related to changing velocity according to changing energy.
Here is the idea; Since repulsion and attraction in electromagnetic mediated photons of spin 1, in this case the new equivalence principle must be related to changing velocity according to changing energy by absorption or loosing energy of frequency f. In this case Newton's second law must be defined in terms of frequency, that means it must be quantized and relativistic, and thus the inertial force must be defined as relativistic and quantized. In this case you get by the equivalence principle the escape velocity must be relativistic also and it depends on the amount value of the rest mass of the free fall particle under gravitational field that changed to photons, these photons let the free fall object to move in a relativistic speed equals to the relativistic escape velocity. In weak gravitational field this velocity can be approximated to the classical form of escape velocity, But in strong gravitational this speed is relativistic. GR is not completely relativistic. Review the Pond-Rebka experiment, and why the gravitational time dilation is equivalent to free fall object in gravitational field as moving with the escape velocity.
Believe me and trust in me; The problem is related to the interpretation of Einstein to the Lorentz transformation basis on objectivity and continuity. And then when he generalized his interpretation according to his equivalence principle which violated by many experiments, it is resulted the problem in quantization of gravity. Because of that according to GR it must be graviton of spin 2, not photon of spin 1.
Dear Jürg Martin Fröhlich,
Dear Giuseppe Dattoli,
The Goal of my question is to understand
What is the concept of acceleration or deceleration according to quantum? Edit
If we consider the concept of acceleration or deceleration in classical motion or relativistic motion is changing velocity which means gaining or loosing energy of hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is frequency which that is quantized. So, what is the concept of acceleration or deceleration according to quantum theory? And then if energy is quantized, how the accelerated particle in a uniform acceleration will moved in a continuous path 1/2at^2? Can you answer me and how that related to the equivalence principle of Einstein with the quantum theory????????
FermiLab has put out a brief article that may help.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2012/today12-10-19_NutshellReadMore.html
Dear David M. Rountree,
Thank you very much for sending me the article from FermiLab. I really liked the statement "Gravitons are a theoretically reputable idea, but are not proven. So if you hear someone say that "gravitons are particles that generate the gravitational force," keep in mind that this is a reasonable statement, but by no means is it universally accepted. It will be a long time before gravitons are considered part of the established subatomic pantheon." So, I hope from the Proponents of relativity permit me to introduce my criticism relative to relativity. I found after researching there is no graviton of spin 2, it is photon of spin 1. My paper is http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002
The problem I found is in Einstein interpretation in Lorentz transformation equations depending on objectivity and continuity, and then he generalized this concept in gravity, and according to the mathematics of objectivity and continuity we think it is graviton of spin 2 not photon of spin 1. Relativity of Einstein in a simple meaning it is a mathematics of objectivity and continuity. I'm not making the confusion in understanding physics. Who made this confusion is Planck when he discovered the quantization of energy in the black body radiation. And Einstein shared him when he introduced the photo electric effect.
Dear All,
Here is the idea again, and I wish that proponents of relativity tell if I'm wrong and why?
Here is the idea; Since repulsion and attraction in electromagnetic mediated photons of spin 1, in this case the new equivalence principle must be related to changing velocity according to changing energy by absorption or loosing energy of frequency f. In this case Newton's second law must be defined in terms of frequency, that means it must be quantized and relativistic, and thus the inertial force must be defined as relativistic and quantized. In this case you get by the equivalence principle the escape velocity must be relativistic also and it depends on the amount value of the rest mass of the free fall particle under gravitational field that changed to photons which is equal to the potential energy, these photons let the free fall object to move in a relativistic speed equals to the relativistic escape velocity, and the relativistic mass always equal to the rest mass. In weak gravitational field this velocity can be approximated to the classical form of escape velocity, But in strong gravitational this speed is relativistic. GR is not completely relativistic. Review the Pond-Rebka experiment, and why the gravitational time dilation is equivalent to free fall object in gravitational field as moving with the escape velocity. Now what is the form of the Lorentz transformation to accept with this idea. In this case in each point in space Lorentz transformation must depend on a transformation from point to point in space, where it depends on the escape velocity at any point in space which equivalent to the potential energy at any point in space where in this point the Lorentz transformation is linear . Because of that Franson calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst
Now the form that the Lorentz transformation must take in this case; same form in x and t, But we must multiply y and z by the Lorentz factor in order to be agreed with the negative result of the Michelson-Morely experiment. In this case space is invariant and because of that universe is flat, and the length contraction exists in the passed distance because of the effect of time dilation. in this case we keep on the Lorentz invariance but refusing the symmetry which leading to disappearing all the paradoxes in relativity, and we keep on the constancy of the speed of light locally. Globally there must exists a measured decrease in the speed of light in the gravitational field because of the effect of time dilation depending on the potential energy same as Franson''s calculated. According to this transformation you see the Schroedinger equation!!!
There is a recently discovered mathematical relationship between the gravitational force and the electrostatic force. I am not talking about a pet theory, I am saying that there is a simple mathematical relationship between these two forces which is undeniably true. The reason for introducing this concept here is that this mathematical relationship between forces is incompatible with gravitons. This short post can only briefly mention concepts, but a complete paper on this subject will be published in April. A preprint of this paper is available at: http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf
This paper shows that the magnitude of the gravitational force FG can be expressed as the square of the electrostatic force FE if we are dealing with two of the same mass fundamental particles and the forces are expressed in natural units (c = 1, G = 1, ħ = 1 and charge = Planck charge). A specialized case assumes that the two particles are separated by their reduced Compton wavelength. Then the force equation in dimensionless natural units is FG = FE2. At arbitrary separation distance the equation becomes (FGN2) = (FEN2)2 where N is the number of reduced Compton wavelengths separating the two particles. Note that this equation retains the square relationship between the forces and reduces to the previous equation when N = 1. All of this is incompatible with gravity being conveyed by graviton messenger particles which have no relationship to the square of the electrostatic properties.
Dear John Macken,
In fact your paper is very very fascinating for me, and I'm very interesting in it. According to the equation (FGN2) = (FEN2)2, it must not be graviton of spin 2, but it must be photon of spin 1 mediates gravitation, which I predicted in my paper "The Quantization of General Relativity: Photon Mediates Gravitation" http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002 . Simply FG =(FE)^2 can be derived from my new Lorentz transformation and my new equivalence principle, I can discuss it in details. According to my new interpretation of the Lorentz transformation equations depending on the Copenhagen school by refusing objectivity and symmetry, when we talking about an accelerated frame, we talking about four vector, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor. While the source of gravitation in GR is the stress–energy tensor, a second-rank tensor, depending on objectivity, it is a mathematics of objectivity! According to my transformation there is no space-time continuum, it only time, and space is invariant. and thus in case of accelerated frame, and then by my equivalence principle, there is no curved space-time, it is only time responsible for measuring a decrease in the speed the speed of light, which is related to the gravitational potential itself not on the strength of the in field as Einstein's equivalence principle. Removing symmetry in my transformation is not affected on the Lorentz invariance. Most of physicists confused if Lorentz symmetry is conserved in all ranges of the velocity, because according to Einstein interpretation to the Lorentz transformation depending on objectivity, it is required the Lorentz symmetry to keep on the Lorentz invariance, and then if we try to understand that according to the equivalence principle of Einstein that will make a confusion, because according to Einstein's equivalence, the escape velocity defined as classical, not relativistic, and according to my equivalence principle it is defined as relativistic. There are certain theories that assumed the violation of Lorentz invariance and others that assume Lorentz symmetry violation; which most of times assumes Lorentz invariance violation. Usually these theories are intended to interpret certain phenomena that the Lorentz transformations or special relativity can't explain, like the vacuum Cherenkov radiation and others. Now according to my transformation by removing symmetry, it is possible measuring a faster than light without violation Lorentz invariance or causality, that interpret the vacuum Cherenkov radiation and others. Read my paper "Time Contraction: The Possibility of Faster Than Light without Violation of Lorentz Transformation or Causality and the Vacuum Energy Dependent" http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.04.001
Now according to my new transformation and my equivalence principle, it removed infinity in gravity, and the zero point energy in quantum can be interpreted according to my equivalence principle and my transformation.
Dear Manuel Morales,
If you review John Macken paper and review my paper http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002 you will see John used same method of my paper in quantization of gravity..
John defined the force produced by the vacuum fluctuation which is define as radiation pressure. According to my transformations I defined the acceleration equivalent to the vacuum fluctuations, because according to my transformations, the Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent in case of inertial frame, and then when the frame accelerated that leads the vacuum to fluctuate. In this case according to my transformations, there is no space-time continuum, it is only time that lead to measure a decrease in the speed of light because of the effect of time dilation, but the light speed remains locally constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum. Because of that I found Lorentz transformation is equivalent to the refractive index in optics which is related to the energy of vacuum. Now when the frame is accelerated from 0 to v that means it absorbs or looses an energy of frequency f, that means the acceleration is defined as the changing the velocity 0 to v equivalent to changing kinetic energy from 0 to Ek when absorbing energy of hf which is quantized. In this case I defined the relativistic quantized force as the frame's velocity changed from 0 to v as Hf/v where H is Planck's energy (review how I derived this equation in my paper). This force is same the radiation pressure of light hf/c, when the rest mass of the particle equals to zero. According to my transformation it leads to the wave-particle duality as I explained in my paper. Remember according to my transformations we talking about four vector, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor. Now according to my equivalence principle, if the velocity of the train changed from 0 to v, then the velocity of the stationary rider inside the train must change from 0 to v locally, and that is because of the effect of the inertial force. This change in the velocity of the rider of the train because of the effect of the vacuum fluctuation, and it is related to the time dilation. Because of the vacuum fluctuation which is related to time dilation, a part of the rest mass of the rider will change to photons give the velocity of the rider to change from 0 to v which is relativistic also (review my equivalence principle in my paper) , where if the velocity of the train changed from 0 to c speed of light, then the velocity of the rider will change also from 0 to c locally, where all the rest mass of the rider will change to photons, and then will move in the speed of light locally, but globally because of the time dilation which causing the red-shift, you get globally the speed of light c'=0 . And from that the inertial force must be defined as a radiation pressure and relativistic also. Now if we consider this inertial force is equivalent to the gravitational force, thus the part of the rest mass that changed to photons of the free fall object under gravitational field must equal to the gravitational potential, and that let the particle to move in a velocity equals to the escape velocity at any point in space (Review the Pond-Rebka experiment), and this escape velocity is relativistic. In weak gravitational field this relativistic escape velocity can be approximated to the classical escape velocity. According to my equivalence principle the decrease of the speed of light locally is given as (1-GM/c^2r)c which depends on the gravitational potential itself, and time is only responsible for measuring that. While in according to Einstein's GR is (1-2GM/c^2r)c which is depending on space and time according to Schwarzschild geometry. According to http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst Franson calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. In case of weak gravitational field the gravitational time dilation according to Einstein depending on (1-2GM/c^2r)^.05 while according to my transformations and my equivalence principle (1-GM/c^2r) where in case of weak gravitational field they are equal exactly, but they different in case of strong gravitational field. Because of that physicists are confused when they try to understand the equivalence principle of Einstein according to Pond-Rebka experiment result. John Macken used the factor of GM/c^2r in his paper.
Continued...
Manuel, You wrote: "If this assumption can be proven correct, it has a great deal of appeal. John, how do you propose your assumption can be tested?" Your question refers to "your assumption". I presume that you are referring to my assumption that the universe is only spacetime. I will answer that shortly. First, for the benefit of other readers, I want to clarify that the equations that relate the gravitational force to the square of the electrostatic force such as: FG = FE2, etc. are not assumptions. They can be directly derived from the Coulomb law equation and Newton's gravitational equation. The hidden connection between the gravitational and electrostatic forces was actually one of several predictions which have already tested my assumption that the universe is only spacetime. When Maxwell derived that c2 = 1/µoεo, this was actually a prediction that was easy to prove correct. No experiment was required. Similarly, my wave-based model of particles and vacuum energy predicted that gravity was a nonlinear effect that scaled with wave amplitude squared and electrostatic effects scaled with wave amplitude to the first power. The equations previously referenced are proof that this prediction was correct. The equations can also be interpreted as indicating that gravitons do not exist.
There have also been several other predictions which were similarly easy to prove correct. For example, the model predicted the distortion of spacetime produced by a photon. One prediction that followed was that there should be a maximum intensity of electromagnetic radiation that spacetime could transmit. When I realized that this was a prediction, I initially thought that there must be a mistake. However, when I tested the prediction, I found that the condition that achieved 100% modulation of spacetime was exactly the condition that forms a black hole. The prediction was correct because the formation of a black hole sets an intensity limit. No experiment was necessary to prove this prediction. This and other correct predictions are explained in the previously referenced paper. Other predictions will follow because the paper gives previously unknown constants of spacetime which will permit computer modeling of particles, fields, quantum mechanical effects, etc. Such modeling will further test the validity of this concept.
Manuel: You are preaching to the choir when you say "Predictions mean nothing without knowledge of cause." Besides the paper, I have written a 370 page book and it is entirely devoted to explaining the cause of all the mysteries of quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR). In fact, the assumption that the universe is only spacetime implies that all the mysteries of QM and GR are knowable. Everything that I have written about has a logical explanation.
I wish you (John Macken) were right that everything you or other people participating in this blog have written has a logical explanation. My impression is that essentially NOTHING I am reading here has anything to to do with rational, logical thinking and the solution of a concrete problem of Physics!
Dear Jürg Martin Fröhlich,
In fact John used the core of quantum theory in order to define the force depending on vacuum fluctuation and logically and physically he is completely right to define the gravitational force in terms of the vacuum fluctuation. This is the main problem in physics! is how to define the concept of classical acceleration that adopted in Einstein's equivalence principle according to quantum concepts, which leads to quantization of gravity. I understand well that defining the force in terms of vacuum fluctuation will lead to violate the concept of Einstein of the curved space-time, which leading graviton mediates gravitation according to Einstein's equivalence principle and QFT, and I understand why? and because of that I ask my question why graviton has spin 2 while photon has spin 1. To understand why? we must back to the Einstein's interpretation to the Lorentz transformation in SRT depending on objectivity and continuity , which produces the concept space-time continuum.
The solution of a concrete problem of Physics is impossible without opening the doors for physicists to criticizing relativity of Einstein. I asked too many questions relative to violation of Einstein's equivalence principle according to experiment. Proponents of relativity have no answer!!! and I do not know why they keep silent and do not share us in the discussion by physics, they share us only by words that Einstein is right! So, every theory violates Einstein's relativity becomes not logic.
Dear Manuel Morales,
So you are keeping on objectivity, continuity, determinism and causality for both observers, the moving observer and the stationary observer on ground. Basis on that relativity theory was built. But quantum theory proved contrary of that. Remember in my theory I do not refuse deterministic and causality Locally. Because of that the speed of light is locally constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum, and locally it is impossible measuring faster than light. Globally speed of light is variable depending on time dilation which leading to the delay in the passed distance for the moving frame comparing to the stationary ground observer, which keeping on the Lorentz invariance without symmetry. Read https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
That leads to the wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which are one thing http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141219085153.htm?utm_source=feedburner
Do you what is group velocity according to my transformation, and why group velocity is variable and it leads to measuring faster than light according to group velocity.
According to my transformations it Schroedinger equation. Because of that according to my transformations acceleration is vacuum fluctuation.
“Spin” is associated with the classification of the irreducible representations of the Lorentz group. The basic irreducible representation is the 2-component spinor (spin ½). The Dirac equation is a field equation for a 4-component spinor involving two of these. Bargmann & Wigner generalized the Dirac equation, formulating equations for a “spin-s” field. Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations are essentially the “spin-1” B-W equations. The linearized Einstein equations (ie, the “weak field” approximation) turn out to be identical to the B-W “spin-2” equations. Hence it is presumed that “gravitons” (if they exist) would be spin-2 particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bargmann%E2%80%93Wigner_equations
Dear Dear Manuel Morales,
Can you give me exact solution for the question which came first the Chicken or the egg? You have three choices only;
1- Chicken before egg.
2- Egg before chicken.
3- None of them came before or after the other.
Dear Eric Lord,
"Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations are essentially the “spin-1” B-W equations. The linearized Einstein equations (ie, the “weak field” approximation) turn out to be identical to the B-W “spin-2” equations".
This the main topic of our discussion why in weak field approximation turn out to be identical to the B-W "spin 2" equations, while Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations are essentially the “spin-1” B-W equations. What about in case of strong field? GR is not completely relativistic! The problem is related to the equivalence principle of Einstein depending on his interpretation to the Lorentz transformation which is violated with many experiments such as Pond-Rebka experiment and recently by Fransons calculations http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst
Why don't you use the correct expression - HELICITY ( instead of spin) - when you speak about massless particles, such as photons and gravitons? It actually matters a little!
The spin of a field depends on how it is transformed under rotation. The naming "spin" derives from the fact that the rotation group is generated by an angular momentum operator. The j=1 representation (e g a 3x3-matrix) describes how a vector field transforms, such as the electromagnetic field. The gravitational field is in GR is described by a rank 2 tensor and so transforms by a j=2 representation. In QFT the fields are generated by particles, which are then said to have spin 1 or 2 (though the gravitation is still a conjecture).
The Schwarzschild radius comes from g44 = 1 - 2GM/c^2r. I don't know of any other value. Maybe you are thinking of the connection with the newtonian gravitational potential? This is (approximately) c^2*(sqrt(1 - 2GM/c^2r) - 1) = -GM/r (appr)
Dear! Excuse me, please!
In the theoretical model of the physical vacuum as dense packing his elastic particles gravitons and spins by themselves do not exist. And the rays are only conditional portions of parameters of moving objects, but not material objects.
Actually, photons and gravitons is essentially fictitious particles to serve specific hypotheses. What a lot of talk about them?
Dear Jürg Martin Fröhlich
Dear Bengt Månsson,
The main goal of Schwarzschild solution of the Einstein's field equation is keep on objectivity by the symmetry, which result the continuity. Because of that it is keeps on the space-time continuum in Einstein' interpretation of the Lorentz transformation equations in SRT. According to Einstein's equivalence principle depending on the classical acceleration (Review the thought experiment of the accelerated lift) and according to continuity the accelerated frame will move in continuous path y=1/2at^2. Basis on space-time continuum and according to the equivalence principle depending on the classical acceleration the source of gravitation in GR is the stress–energy tensor, a second-rank tensor. Thus according to Schwarzschild geometry the measured decrease in the speed of light must be c' =(1-2GM/c^2r)c while according to http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst Franson calculated the measured decrease in the speed of light is c'=(1-GM/c^2r)c where Franson calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. Remeber c' =(1-2GM/c^2r)c is derived according to space-time continuum (Review how deriving this equation according to Schwarzschild geometry. Also review the Pond and Rebka experiment.
Now if you consider as in quantum the force is produced as vacuum fluctuation, and force is given as a radiation pressure, you will find a violation with the concept of Einstein to the space-time continuum. In this case Lorentz transformation must defined as there is no space-time continuum, where Lorentz transformation must defined by the time only, where space must be invariant. That is possible by removing objectivity and symmetry. and when you apply that in case of gravity non-inertial frame you get there is no curved space space-time, it is only time responsible for measuring the decrease in the speed of light. That means universe is flat as in the experimental measurements. In this case when we talking about acceleration as vacuum fluctuation according to my transformation and my equivalence principle we talking about four vector, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor. According to my transformation and my equivalence principle in my paper http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002 The Lorentz factor which is depending on time only is (1-GM/c^2r) and the decrease in the speed of light depending on time only is c'=(1-GM/c^2r)c as calculated by Franson, also my equivalence principle agreed completely with the Pond-rebka experiment. So review my paper and then you will understand how I derived it is photon that mediates gravitation not graviton. The Schwarzschild radius is GM/c^2 not 2GM/c^2.
Observations illustrated also time only bends light not space. Simply now we can understand why it must be graviton of spin 2 according to GR, while it must be photon of spin of 1, it is not only mathematics, it is physics also! Most of physicists deal with relativity by math only, and think relativity is only math!
Dear Azzam ~
“What about in case of strong field?”
There will be no answer to that until we have a satisfactory unified theory of gravitation and quantum theory (if we ever do…).
“GR is not completely relativistic!”
I presume you mean that GR isn’t Lorentz invariant. But locally it is. And there is a tetrad formulation that can incorporate Lorentz-invariance as a gauge group. (That's how spinor fields are incorporated into GR.)
Dear Azzam ~
I do not agree that the SN1987 data or the Pond-Rebka experiment, etc invalidate Einstein’s theories.
You say “…Lorentz transformation which is violated with many experiments such as Pond-Rebka experiment and recently by Fransons calculations.”
Einstein’s theories (special and general) contain a fundamental constant c with the dimensions of a velocity. We habitually call it “the speed of light” because Einstein’s theories were formulated so as to bring the rest of physical law into compatibility with Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory.
Of course, the “speed of light” is exactly c in Maxwell’s theory – but that is a classical theory. Corrections from quantum effects are to be expected. According to quantum electrodynamics we should expect photons to acquire a tiny effective mass, through virtual particle-antiparticle pair creation. That is, of course, proposed as the explanation of the SN1987 "anomaly".
In that case, the “speed of light” is somewhat less than the universal constant c. Why not then call c “the speed of neutrinos”. No harm is done to Einstein’s theories: the trajectories of neutrinos in free space are given by null geodesics, those of photons by timelike geodesics (as for any other “massive” particles).
The concluding remark in the article on SN1987 that you gave the link to says:
“If, in fact, Franson is right, that is a huge, huge step in my opinion: it's the tip of the iceberg element that quantum mechanics is correct and that general relativity must be wrong.”
That’s simply not true.
Dear Eric Lord,
In fact I really thank you for your comment. Do you know why light speed variable according to quantum, because of objectivity that adopted by Einstein in interpretation of Lorentz transformation. Because of that Lorentz invariance is violated in some cases in quantum, and in some cases symmetry violated. Do you know why energy momentum problem resulted in gravity, because of objectivity in Lorentz transformation. All the Problems related to quantum physics and relativity produced by objectivity in Lorentz transformation that adopted by Einstein's interpretation in SRT, which resulted the concept of space-time continuum. In quantum theory we deal with time only (frequency), and space is invariant. while in relativity describing the massive object is by space-time continuum, in order to keep on objectivity. Because of that in relativity there is no wave-particle duality, and discontinuity. When we talking about objectivity, we must talk about symmetry, they are related to each other. In order to solve all the problems related to quantum and relativity, we must remove objectivity in the Lorentz transformations. In this case we keep on Lorenz invariance, but it is resulted there is no space-time continuum, it is only time! Space is invariant. That leads the concept of acceleration is vacuum fluctuations, which is related to change in the energy of the vacuum. In this case when we talking about acceleration we talking about four vector, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor. According to objectivity in GR and the concept of space-time continuum the source of gravitation in GR is the stress–energy tensor, a second-rank tensor, depending on objectivity, it is a mathematics of objectivity.
You said "“If, in fact, Franson is right, that is a huge, huge step in my opinion: it's the tip of the iceberg element that quantum mechanics is correct and that general relativity must be wrong.” In fact GR is wrong because it depended on objectivity in SRT. Do you know why Franson's and other scientists offer new corrections in the speed of light, to keep on objectivity in the Lorentz transformation. If you review the Franson's paper and the Pond-Rebka experiment, they are related to each other, and both of them are violated Einstein's equivalence principle. All the problems related to quantum and relativity are related to each other which related to objectivity in Lorentz transformation which leading the space-time continuum in describing the massive object. Finally I asset there is no space-time continuum, it is only time and space is invariant. Observations illustrated that. Universe is flat and the only term works in the metric is time-time, while space is not. Space-time continuum is only to keep on objectivity. In this case, energy momentum problem solved in gravity.
Dear Dear Eric Lord,
You said "According to quantum electrodynamics we should expect photons to acquire a tiny effective mass, through virtual particle-antiparticle pair creation. That is, of course, proposed as the explanation of the SN1987 "anomaly".
Neutrino has rest mas greater than zero, which is described by the space-time continuum according to objectivity in SRT. Speed of light (photon), has rest mass equals to zero, So in order to keep on objectivity in relativity, the speed of light must be corrected by acquiring a tiny effective mass !!!
Dear Eric;
SPEED OF LIGHT LOCALLY CONSTANT AND EQUALS TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT IN VACUUM. IT HAS REST MASS EQUALS TO ZERO.
Simply the problem can be solved by removing objectivity in the Lorenz transformation equations. Virtual particle-antiparticle pair creation is interpreted completely by removing objectivity in the Lorentz transformation. I told you objectivity in Lorentz transformation causing also the energy-momentum problem in gravity!!!!!
This is not all! and There are tens and tens of experiments which is related to quantum and relativity can be solved by removing objectivity in Lorentz transformation. And I'm ready to discuss them in details.
Dear Manuel Morales,
By removing objectivity (space-time continuum) in the Lorenz transformation, it is possible measuring faster than light without violation Lorentz transformation (Lorentz invariance) and causality. Read my paper Time Contraction: The Possibility of Faster Than Light without Violation of Lorentz Transformation or Causality and the Vacuum Energy Dependent http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.04.001 and according to that we could reconcile and interpret the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement (spooky action), —Casimir effect, Hartman effect— with the Lorentz transformation. I told you all the problems in physics will be solved by removing objectivity
Dear Manuel Morales,
I understand what you want to reach. All of the problems regarded to physics and philosophy are solved. Read my paper regarded to The Philosophy of the Modified Relativity Theory according to the Copenhagen school which is presented in Toward a science of consciousness 2008, Tuscon, Arizona http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0002 and you will understand all of your questions.
Dear Manuel Morales,
The main problem in particle physics and relativity produced by the concept of vacuum fluctuation in quantum and the equivalence principle of Einstein in GR depending on classical acceleration. All of the resulted problems produced from the concept of objectivity in SRT. Most of physicists think there is no problem between SRT and quantum theory...Why they think so? Because SRT describes only an inertial frames, and it says nothing about accelerated frames. The problem appears only in case of vacuum fluctuations. In case of vacuum fluctuations, it is same as non-inertial frame, which equivalent to an accelerated frame. Vacuum fluctuations in quantum controlled by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the wave-particle duality, where they are same thing, and then the discontinuity. The violation of Lorentz invariance and symmetry that produced by vacuum fluctuations, and the correction required in the speed of light, because of trying to fixing data in order to keep on objectivity in the Lorentz transformation in SRT. If objectivity in SRT is right, and thus the equivalence principle in GR which built basis on the concept of classical acceleration and objectivity in SRT, then there must not exist any problem between the concept of vacuum fluctuations in quantum theory and the equivalence principle in GR which required according to QFT graviton of spin 2 as a mediator of gravitation, and then there isn't any problem in quantization of gravity. All of physicists do not understand what is the concept of classical acceleration according to quantum theory, and how they define the concept of Newton's second law according to quantum theory. If energy is quantized, how the accelerated particle in a uniform acceleration will moved in a continuous path 1/2at^2?
Dear Azzam,
The answer comes from the spin-statistics theorem in quantum mechanics. The Relativistic gravitational potential is defined by the metric, a symmetric rank 2 tensor, which by that theorem corresponds to a spin-2 field. Furthermore, the massless spin-2 Lagrangian derived by Fierz and Pauli has been show in the 60's by S. Gupta to be in a 1:1 relation with the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian. By the same token, the photon is a spin 1 field because it corresponds to a vector gauge potential
Dear M. D. Maia,
The question discuss why graviton has spin 2 from the beginning of interpretation of Einstein to the Lorentz transformation equations depending on objectivity in SRT, and how Quantum theory refuses objectivity. So if we refusing objectivity in Einstein's interpretation to the Lorentz transformation equations, we get photon of spin 1 mediates gravitation not graviton of spin 2. Furthermore all of the problems in physics solved by refusing objectivity in SRT. Review the paper http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002
The another question; Why physicists refusing any change in SRT depending on refusing objectivity although the GR and quantum theory are inconsistent. GR built basis on objectivity in SRT.
Dear Manuel Morales,
Simply reinterpretation of Lorentz transformation equations by refusing objectivity will lead to the wave particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. That means Zeno's paradox are solved according to physics.
Zeno's paradox:
In his Achilles Paradox, Achilles races to catch a slower runner–for example, a tortoise that is crawling away from him. The tortoise has a head start, so if Achilles hopes to overtake it, he must run at least to the place where the tortoise presently is, but by the time he arrives there, it will have crawled to a new place, so then Achilles must run to this new place, but the tortoise meanwhile will have crawled on, and so forth. Achilles will never catch the tortoise, says Zeno. Therefore, good reasoning shows that fast runners never can catch slow ones. So much the worse for the claim that motion really occurs, Zeno says in defense of his mentor Parmenides who had argued that motion is an illusion. Zeno in this paradox was talking on the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Now have you understood why physicists refusing any change in SRT. They may accept any change in GR, But SRT, and objectivity not. Physics now is a big game, and then GAME OVER!!!
Dear Eric Lord,
Can I have your answer relative to our discussion in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_zero_point_energy_explain_the_rotation_curve_of_a_typical_spiral_galaxy_the_flat_appearance_of_the_velocity_curve_out_to_a_large_radius2
This is another proof that my quantization of GR is right and photon mediates gravitation, and there is nothing named graviton of spin 2. And objectivity in SRT is the big problem in the unified theory. I think it is not fair to say something is right or wrong without continue the discussion in front of the public. I replied to your comment by physics, but you did not answer, Why? If one equation solves all the problems in physics, why do not you give time to discuss it? Why you try to hide the reality?
Dear friends, your questionis why Graviton has Spin 2 and why Photon has 1?
Thank you for your discussions.
I donot understand much, but as much I can understand that both are Bosons, so Spins 1 & 2 both are Integer. Fermions have half-integral spin.
Now what we mean by 'Spin' ?
A particle has Spin indicates that (i) the particle has Intrinsic-Rotational motion and it is rotating around its own body axis. Now
(ii) how to quantify the spin?
As much my knowledge is concerned, Photon has Spin 1 means a Photon has an Intrinsic Angular Momentum 1(h-cut) = 1 (h/2pi), h/2pi is the unit of angular momentum, when h is the Planck constant defined in Bohr-model of atom.
Graviton has Spin 2, means it has an Intrinsic Angular Momentum = 2 (h-cut).
I would feel happy if my help benefit you.
Dear Azzam ~
no need to feel offended that I didn’t get drawn into a discussion with you about your ideas. Some things simply lie outside my knowledge.
I answered your question about the spin of the graviton, according to what I happen to know about Einstein’s theories. I have neither the time, the mental energy, nor the interest to study alternative theories that claim there is something wrong with those theories. They could turn out to be incorrect for all I know, I’m not concerned about that. It’s quite possible that there are no such things as gravitons. All I’m saying is that, if they exist, and if Einstein’s theories are correct, there are reasons to expect them to have spin-2.
You said: “I think it is not fair to say something is right or wrong”. That’s unfair to me. I never said anything about “right” or "wrong”!
You gave me a link to your question about zero point energy and spiral galaxies. I have nothing to say about that because I know nothing about the subject. I can only respond to questions according to what I actually know.
I see in your posts that you speak repeatedly of the “objectivity” of SR. I don’t know what you mean by that.
You’ve spoken of “The violation of Lorentz invariance and symmetry produced by vacuum fluctuations”. I do not know what you are referring to (the SN1987 data perhaps? – I thought I had given my view on that).
You’ve said that “SRT describes only inertial frames, and it says nothing about accelerated frames”. That’s simply untrue. SRT is the formulation of classical physics in the absence of gravitation. Of course it includes accelerations! Indeed, it was by thinking about "accelerated frames" in SRT that led Einstein to the Equivalence Principle and thence to GRT.
You say “...Lorentz transformation which is violated with many experiments such as Pound-Rebka experiment and recently by Franson's calculations.” I don’t know who Franson is. I looked up the Pound-Rebka experiment with a view to replying to you about it. The Pound-Rebka experiment is not in conflict with the Lorentz transformation. It confirms the predictions of GRT. It doesn't "violate" SRT.
Best wishes
~ Eric
Dear Eric Lord,
Thank you very much for your response. At first most of proponents of relativity when I discussed with them about the Franson's calculations in his paper which published in New journal of physics answered me the same of your answer "we don’t know who Franson is. I do not know why they concern about the author, and they do not concern about the paper itself, which is published in a good journal, and its results solve the unsolved problem in physics related to SN1987a. They do not need to discuss it because it introduce a violation of equivalence principle of Einstein, as they want to hide the reality.
Relative to Pond and Rebka experiment I told you before, and it well known for most of physicists Proponents of the theory of General Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations of the results of the The Pound-Rebka experiment that are said to be equivalent to each other and therefore all equally correct. All make the claim that the results of the Pound-Rebka Experiment are “proof” of the Equivalence Principle even though nothing in these measurements suggests any need for the Equivalence Principle. You just say Pond-Rebka experiment does not violate Einstein equivalence principle, is hidden the reality as you try to hide the reality of Franson calculations. I wish you read my paper and see how my equivalence principle agree completely with Pond and Rebka experiment and Franson's calculations. Please can you give me your answer about the Bond-Rebka experiment. How can you describe the Pond-Rebka experiment results according to the equivalence principle of Einstein.
You said "SRT is the formulation of classical physics in the absence of gravitation. Of course it includes accelerations! Indeed, it was by thinking about "accelerated frames" in SRT that led Einstein to the Equivalence Principle and thence to GRT".
At first SRT described inertial frames not accelerated frames. Basis on the concept of classical acceleration Einstein generalized his interpretation of Lorentz transformation in SRT depending on objectivity which was adopted in classical physics to describe gravity by his equivalence principle. Because of that GR describes only the weak gravitational field only, and say nothing about the strong gravitational field. The equivalence principle of Einstein describes the motion on classical physics, where low speed velocity not relativistic and classical acceleration, and because of that it describes weak gravitational field only. GR is not completely relativistic. All the attempts that tried to describe the strong gravitational field are failed and there is no any exact solution to define the strong gravitational field. Because of that all the attempts that try to unified the gravitational force according to the equivalence principle of Einstein with micro world are failed. Einstein equivalence principle does not describe the relativistic motion, it is only classical, while in micro world the motion is relativistic. I say to you if GR described the strong gravitation field well, then there is no violation between the four forces in nature.
Objectivity
Objectivity was adopted in classical physics before Einstein built his SRT. Simply, according to objectivity in classical physics, if a train is moving between two pylons A&B, then both the observer on the ground and the observer on the moving train will agree if the train started to move from pylon A, and when the train arrives to pylon B, then both of them will agree that the train arrived pylon B. Both of the two observers will agree that the train arrives at any point in space within the distance between the two pylons A&B. Basis on this concept of objectivity in classical physics, Lorentz built his transformation equations, and then Einstein interpreted them according to his SRT under the constancy of the speed of light and then the relative simultaneity.
From that it is resulted the continuity in the train motion. and then it is disappeared the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle in classical physics and in relativity. Because of that, basis on objectivity in classical physics, relativity theory of Einstein says nothing about the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty, and it keeps on continuity as in classical physics. In relativistic motion it must appear the wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty. They are one thing. Relativistic motion is leading to quantum theory and quantum theory leads to relativity by the equivalence principle, but not that of Einstein equivalence principle, because it depends on classical motion not relativistic motion. I have proposed a discussion which is related to adopting Einstein to the classical acceleration in his equivalence principle, so I hope to get your answer
Dear Eric Lord,
I think proponents of relativity try always to hide the reality. My paper three times endorsed to be posted in arxiv.org. Because one of the proponents of relativity sent an email to arxiv moderators to not post my paper in arxiv and he has the power to do that, and the copy of the email is with me. arxiv moderators removed my paper. This man informed me 99.9% of posted papers in arxiv are wrong or nonsense, but we refuse to post your paper in arxiv although it is completely right! Is that honest in physics? Where is the Scientific integrity, where is the Honesty? When I asked the arxiv moderator why you removed my paper 3 times, there is no answer. Just because one of the proponents of relativity told them that, and he has the power to do that. This man understand well after 4 years a discussion with him, he understnd well a student in a high will understand I'm right and Einstein wrong! Simply gravitational field according to my transformation and my equivalence principle can be described completely by the black body radiation of Planck solution.
Continued....
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_concept_of_acceleration_or_deceleration_according_to_quantum
Azzam ~
Thank you for the detailed response. I may find time to find time to give it careful thought. For now, just a few comments to clarify my viewpoint:
Einstein’s theories (SR and GR) are classical theories. That those theories are in conflict with quantum theory as been well-known for a long time (eg, the EPR paradox). Theories in physics are valid within the limits of their applicability. Einstein’s theories are applicable and correct in situations where quantum effects can be neglected. Hence we should expect anomalies to arise when we try to understand phenomena in which both SR and QM are involved. That doesn’t mean that SR is “wrong”. It means that the situation is one that pushes SR beyond the limits of its applicability. It means that we do not have a unified theory. One day we may.
On the other hand:
Quantum field theory (eg, QED) is relativistic. It is Lorentz-invariant. Virtual pair creation by a photon, giving the photon a small effective mass, doesn’t affect that symmetry, it means only that the universal constant c is not exactly “the speed of light”. The “speed of light “ is subject to small quantum corrections but the constant c in the Lorentz transformations is unaffected.
I sympathize with your experience with arxiv. Though I’ve never submitted anything to them myself, I’m indirectly aware of the shoddy behaviour of arxiv administrators towards anything the least bit “controversial”. That is well-known.
Dear Eric,
Basis on objectivity in classical physics which is adopted in interpretation of Lorentz transformation in SRT, we do not have a unified theory. One day we may. I understand that well! The conflict in quantum theory and relativity theory produced by objectivity in Lorentz transformation in SRT. Because of that EPR, and faster than light is impossible to be explained according to SRT. Basis on objectivity on SRT, it is required to keep on Lorentz invariance, you must keep on Lorentz symmetry, and that lead to appear all the paradoxes in SRT Twin paradox, Ehrenfest paradox, Ladder paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox, and we can't reconcile and interpret the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement (spooky action), —Casimir effect, Hartman effect— with the SRT. Objectivity in macro world appeared clearly because in macro world in case of low velocities, the length contraction and time dilation is negligible, and can't be appeared. because of that GR succeeded -but not completely- in describing the weak gravitational field, because Einstein depended in his equivalence on the concept of classical motion which is related to low velocities and classical acceleration. Most of the attempts in order to unify between quantum and relativity are tried to fixing the experimental results of quantum theory with the theory of relativity basis on keeping on objectivity in the Lorentz transformation, and that means keeping on Lorentz invariance by keeping on Lorentz symmetry. According to that Quantum field theory (eg, QED) is relativistic. It is Lorentz-invariant. Virtual pair creation by a photon, giving the photon a small effective mass, doesn’t affect that symmetry, it means only that the universal constant c is not exactly “the speed of light”. The “speed of light “ is subject to small quantum corrections but the constant c in the Lorentz transformations is unaffected. So to keep on objectivity Virtual pair creation by a photon, giving the photon a small effective mass.
Virtual particles are related to vacuum fluctuations, which is related to changing velocity in a relativistic motion, not low velocities )classical as in Einstein's equivalence principle), So what equivalence principle of Einstein says in case changing velocities in a relativistic motion, not classical motion, and that equivalent to strong gravitational field???
All the paradoxes in SRT can be solved by proposing acceleration....why??? and what about the acceleration in case of relativistic motion. To understand that review how all the paradoxes all disappeared in my transformation.
I adopted that the unified theory must be according to reinterpreting Lorentz transformation by removing objectivity. and that lead to there is no space-time continuum as Einstein predicted according to objectivity, it is only time!
My new interpretation to the Lorentz transformation leads to the Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent instead of the relative velocity in Einstein’s interpretation to the Lorentz transformation equations in the SRT. Furthermore the Lorentz factor is equivalent to the refractive index in optics. In my interpretation to the Lorentz transformation I refuse the reciprocity principle (symmetry) which was adopted by Einstein in the SRT. Refusing the reciprocity principle in my theory leads to disappearing all the paradoxes in the SRT; the Twin paradox, Ehrenfest paradox, Ladder paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox. Furthermore, according to my interpretation I could reconcile and interpret the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement (spooky action), —Casimir effect, Hartman effect— with the SRT in this paper in case inertial frame. My new interpretation to the Lorentz transformation equations leads also to the wave-particle duality as in quantum theory, and thus agrees with Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The generalization of my transformation leads also the concept of acceleration or deceleration is vacuum fluctuations as in quantum field theory. Now according to my transformation, the equivalence principle must be modified according to expressing about the relativistic velocity, and the change in the velocity by the change of energy which is quantized and equivalent to the vacuum fluctuations. According to my equivalence principle, the resulted escape velocity of the free fall particle must be relativistic, not classical as Einstein predicted by his equivalence principle. And the relativistic escape velocity approximated to classical escape velocity in case of weak gravitational field, and the Pond-Rebka experimental result agreed completely with that. And because there is no space-time continuum, which is time is only responsible for measuring a decrease in the speed of light, then the decrease of the speed of light must depend on the gravitational potential itself, not on the strength of the field as in Einstein's equivalence principle, which agreed completely with Franson's calculations. And according to the wave-particle duality in my transformation, a free fall of massive objective, its escape velocity must be decrease (Pioneer anomaly) by the same factor of decreasing the speed of light which leads to solving the momentum energy problem in gravity.
In strong gravitational field, the escape velocity is relativistic. which leads photon of spin 1 mediates gravitation, and that clear from my transformation by removing objectivity, not graviton of spin 2.
Azam ~
“…all the paradoxes in SRT Twin paradox, Ehrenfest paradox, Ladder paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox…”
None of these things are “paradoxes”. They are all the result of misunderstanding the correct interpretation of the Lorentz transformation. I’ve discussed that in detail on other RG discussion boards and don’t want to repeat myself. There are no paradoxes in the classical relativistic theories.
Paradoxes arising from the conflict between classical relativity and quantum theory are a different matter. They are extremely puzzling. If you can resolve them by modifications of the classical relativistic theories, introducing quantum-mechanical effects that come into play when there are massive particles with speeds close to c, or when there are very high accelerations or very intense gravitational fields, I would have no objection.
Dear Eric Lord,
Paradoxes arising from the conflict between classical relativity and quantum theory are a different matter. Which means, paradoxes produced by objectivity in Lorentz transformation in SRT. As I told you in classical motion in macro world quantum effect is not appeared why? Most of physicists think because h (Planck's constant) approaches to zero. But that is not the real cause.
The real cause is because in case of low velocity in classical motion the length contraction and time dilation are negligible and are not appeared. Length contraction and time dilation are appeared in case of high speed near the speed of light , and thus in this case quantum effect will appear. where according to my theory quantum effect produced by the new interpretation and understanding to the length contraction and time dilation according to refusing objectivity and then the Lorentz symmetry in the Lorentz transformation where in this case Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent instead of relative velocity. In this case Lorentz symmetry is not affected in the Lorentz invariance, where we keep on Lorentz invariance while refusing Lorentz symmetry. Lorentz symmetry is only to keep on objectivity.
In this case in case of relativistic speeds for macro world (high speeds) the wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle appear also. Then by refusing Lorentz symmetry it is disappeared all the paradoxes. So relativistic motion for micro world or macro world will lead to quantum effect. Where quantum and relativity are one theory leading to each other by my new equivalence principle. Because of that entropy and temperature are related to time dilation in relativity, which related to vacuum energy.
Dear Azzam ~
Some (not all) of what you’ve been saying seems reasonable to me, though I admit I haven’t thoroughly understood. You may be onto something − who am I to judge?
I’m a mathematician − I get confused by wordy arguments about physics. Words can be imprecise and misleading. (I don’t understand, for example, “…keep on Lorentz invariance while refusing Lorentz symmetry.” To me, “”invariance”and “symmetry” in physics are the same thing.) I need to see physics concepts worked out mathematically before I feel that I’ve really understood. Accordingly, I’ve downloaded “The Quantization of General Relativity - Photon Mediates Gravitation”. When I have time I’ll read it, think about it, and will get back to you if I have anything of interest to say. Till then, that’s all I have to say.
In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton must be mass less (because the gravitational force has unlimited range) and must be a spin-2 boson. This is because the source of gravitation is the stress-energy tensor, a second-rank tensor, compared to electromagnetism, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor. Additionally, it can be shown that any mass less spin-2 field would be indistinguishable from gravitation, because a mass less spin-2 field must couple to (interact with) the stress-energy tensor in the same way that the gravitational field does. This result suggests that, if a mass less spin-2 particle is discovered, it must be the graviton, so that the only experimental verification needed for the graviton may simply be the discovery of a massless spin-2 particle.
Dear Eric Lord,
Relative to your comment “…keep on Lorentz invariance while refusing Lorentz symmetry.” To me, “”invariance”and “symmetry” in physics are the same thing.)
In fact this the big problem in physics and in philosophy also. This is the main problem relative to unifying between quantum theory and relativity. The problem is very simple to be solved as I illustrated in my paper, and then all the problems in physics and philosophy are solved also.
Lorentz symmetry and Lorentz invariance are same thing...yes you are right! but that according to objectivity in classical physics. Because of that and according to objectivity Einstein defined the length contraction to be along the length of the moving frame in the direction of the velocity, and in Lorentz transformation y and z remain the same where delta (y)=delta (y') and delta (z)=delta (z'). That is according to objectivity. In this case to keep on Lorentz invariance you must keep on Lorentz symmetry. Review the relative simultaneity in Einstein's interpretation to the Lorentz transformation. Basis on objectivity there is no way to interpret Lorentz transformation other than Einstein's interpretation to Lorentz transformation in SRT.
Now if you generalize this interpretation in SRT according to non-inertial frames and according to the equivalence principle of Einstein, you get the source of gravitation in GR is the stress–energy tensor, a second-rank tensor, depending on objectivity, and the produced concept of space-time continuum, it is a mathematics of objectivity. That is basis on objectivity.
Lorentz symmetry is only for keeping on objectivity. Now if you remove objectivity in the Lorentz transformation, that means you reinterpret the length contraction and time dilation by other way. That means because of time dilation the length contraction is not exist in the length of the moving frame in the direction of the velocity, it exists in the passed distance of the moving frame comparing to the measured passed of the moving frame relative to the observer on the ground. That means if the plane flies from Paris to London in constant speed 0.87c. and if the observer on the ground sees the plane arrives London, then for the pilot of the plane the plane is not arrived London yet during the motion in constant speed 0.87c, where the plane is still flies in the middle distance between Paris and London because of the effect of time dilation, it is resulted the delay also in the passed distance for the observer on the moving plane. In this case it is impossible that the observer on the plane and the observer on the ground agree that the plane reached to the same point in space at the same time, which is the core of Heisenberg uncertainty principle. According to this interpretation and in order to keep on the Lorentz invariance by refusing objectivity, y and z must be modified by multiplying y and z by the Lorentz factor. In this case space is invariant, where both the observer on the ground and the observer on the moving plane must agree at the measured length of the plane in x,z and y, and also they will be agreed at the measured distance between London and Paris.
That leads the Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent and the Lorentz factor is equivalent to the refractive index in optics. In this case also the Lorentz transformation leads to the wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If you generalize this transformation according to none inertial frames, we get four vector, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor which is related to vacuum fluctuations described by Schroedinger equation which means photons mediates gravitation. Here according to this transformation if the observer on the plane looks at the clock of the ground, he will not see it moving in a slower rate than his clock as predicted by Einstein's SRT, he will see the clock on the ground moving in a same rate of his clock on the plane, where the events that the observer on the moving plane gets from the earth are considered as events happened in the past relative to the observer on the ground. Here we refuse the symmetry and at the same time all the paradoxes are disappeared, and at the same time we keep on the Lorentz invariance. According to this transformation there is no space-time continuum, it is only time!
Dear Hasi Ray,
According to my theory, the unification of quantum and relativity. The theory that governs the micro and macro world are the same. According to my theory I could reconcile and interpret the experimental results of faster than light and quantum tunneling and entanglement (spooky action), —Casimir effect, Hartman effect— with the Lorentz transformation. That means in the future the motion and the technology of the macro world will be controlled by quantum theory. So the transportation will be according to quantum theory. If I'm right then the sand will change to Gold in the macro world in the future because of the application of quantum theory in the macro world, and it is the end of all diseases in the world. Who can believe before 500 years we reach to this technology nowadays! I think nowadays we do not believe the technology that will come in the future according to applying quantum theory in the macro world.
The photon is also the graviton, but with twice the gravity of an energy-equivalent particle. The spin of two for the graviton is a hypothetical statement. Read on.
The photon is also the graviton , but with twice the gravity of an energy-equivalent particle.
The photon is part of the quantum theory. Through photon-graviton duality, gravity follows the same theoretical treatment as the photon. This does not automatically include all of General Relativity. Indeed, GR has not been able to resolve many of the enigmas of the Universe. An untenable proposal is negative energy and dark matter as atomic, proton, neutron-type particles. The expansion of the Universe is NOT caused by some negative energy, but by the standard mass-loss due to mass to photon conversion. The condensation of all energy at the end of the Universe is due to the double-gravity of photons vs. mass. free moving photons are gathered by black holes, whose interior totally consists of photons. They are the pre-cursers of the pre-Universe energy-singularity which contained all energy making up the Universe.
Photons have the spin of one and are ideal to form Bose-Einstein condensates. Black holes and the pre-U energy, which consist of photons, are thus B-E condensates. In contrast the Universe, which is made of half-spin protons and electrons. is a Fermion State. Many Enigmas or the Universe have bee solved by the revised Cosmology in agreement with standard physics. No ghosts or spirits, fairies, or wizards!
For more information, see my publications in ResearchGate. more are in progress to be submitted.
Cheers,
Ingo H. Leubner
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Electromagnetics
- Electromagnetic Fields