How do "Gravitons" interact with Space ?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Let me see if I get it. Graviton is strictly a quantum mechanical construct, lensing, and curvature of space is strictly a relativity construct. Since QM is not consistent with GR, then a description that ask about the relationship between graviton, and curve space makes no sense.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

Since there are actual pictures of a double projection of a Galaxy and other such like phenomena explained in so far due to lens effect distortions caused in space by huge chunks of matter in the path of light, any theory which aims to explain the workings and the Law´s of our Universe will have to take those in consideration and eventually build some kind of mechanical model capable of explaining them in a satisfactory manner...I naturally wondered about Gravitons once they are the particles related with gravity in M Theory, but there could be of course many other potential forms of explanation depending on the model one chooses to go with and the variables who turn out to be relevant...that means exactly the opposite of your conclusion...at the very least curvature of space if not to be granted as an actual phenomena must be explained away as an apparent effect caused by any other kind of process that eventually will make the logical comprehensive connection between both theory´s... so, bottom line, I am left wondering what in the hell are you talking about...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I'm surprised at your attempt to prop-up "pictures" here. You seem to think that that the phrase "space is curved" has an essential pictorial reality when in essence all it does is make the calculations of trajectories more convenient. Maybe you also think the earth actually does "orbit the sun" when in fact it is just more convenient/elegant model from an astronomical point of view. Unless we are astronomers notice that we base our daily experiences on a geocentric model !

Its the "truth issue" again, is it not !

2 Replies

@fresco,

I fear that your message, couched as it is in elegant English, will be lost on somebody who writes stuff like "Law´s of our Universe".

1 Reply

@fresco,

No fresco...I meant photography´s ! Actual footage of distant galaxy´s that show up at 2 different points in mirrored by the bending of space...

...and what do you mean with the Earth not orbiting the Sun ? I wonder...

...now, if we were to imagine that all objects in this Universe like in a three-dimensional virtual reality set, were nothing but binary strings of code in a program, that alone, in turn would still not change the relational function between them...so if it was the case that a virtual earth, a string of code, would orbit a virtual sun, another string of code, it would still be true that the function of that string of code would be to establish a relation with the other string in a way that we use to call "orbiting" thus the function being preserved... and this is mainly what I have being trying to explain you in multiple threads and that you always seam to miss out...

1 Reply

@contrex,

Its the influence of my Latin main Language...I am sure you can understand the reason why that happens...of course if I take a few more seconds immediately the correct expression comes into my mind, that is, "Universal Law´s" instead of "the law´s of our Universe" which directly translates from the Portuguese "As Leis do nosso Universo", although we also have "Leis Universais" the intent was, the Law´s at work in our Universe...in fact such expressions often are misleading in the meaning they convey...still I am waiting for a positive contribution for this thread...maybe it is not to late for you to actually bring something of substantial value into the debate...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

"Universal Law´s" instead of "the law´s of our Universe" which directly translates from the Portuguese "As Leis do nosso Universo"...

You miss my point. Writing "Law" (sometimes!) with a capital L, and using apostrophes for plurals are both wrong in a way which cannot be blamed on anything "Latin". As far as I know Portuguese does not capitalize non-proper nouns. (It's German that does that).

1 Reply

@contrex,

oh I see...I apologise for that...actually I thought that you were addressing something substantial for the proper comprehension of the idea itself...
I often use capitals only to re-enforce the importance of the terms, a personnel choice...I do it in Portuguese also...still I was a A+ student in Portuguese Literature...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I'm going to let you in on a couple of little secrets. There is no such thing as a graviton, a gravity wave, "space-time(TM)", dark energy, dark matter, black holes, or any of that stuff. Relativity is a bunch of bullshit just like evolution, and this century is going to see a return to classical physics.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

..it may well be that some things (Theory´s, Ideas...) go backwards while others keep progressing the way we are predicting...that is the natural course of Evolution in Science...still you are mixing apples with oranges, it smells like "religion" there...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Note I did not say "the earth does NOT orbit the sun". I said that that "picture" has astronomical usage, whereas the alternative has daily usage. The question of "reality" depends on what works for whom. . It has no independent status. (This point is often underestimated by atheists would raise the issue of "evidence" with fundamentalists. As the Pope said to Gallileo..."I don't need to look down your telescope" )

Now the same can be said for your "photographs". Interpretation of such images depends on purpose. Meaning lies in the eye of the observer, and that meaning will be determined by the current scientific paradigm, which is always open to negotiation. Heisenberg..."We never see the universe directly, only the results of our interactions with it" (paraphrase)

2 Replies

@fresco,

But I did n´t oppose to interpretation, quite the opposite...just read my posts on that regard...what I am doing is deepening the sense we have upon the concept of function...in turn, the contradiction in your point of view rests upon regarding such meta-phenomenal relations, its intrinsic functionality, as not being truthful...they are valid you know !
... some around the place may regard my heated debates with you in this and other such matters, as conflictive, maybe even offensive somehow, but it only shows they know nothing about me...I appreciate much of what you say, there´s enough content there to be taken seriously into consideration...to my view it all just needs some "tweaking", a mater of personal inclination, not a true contend...still I respect your grounds.

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

By the way, your "symmetry view" of functionality presupposes an transcendent observer. That observer has its own agenda ! Berkeley call that observer "God" ! What you say "I miss" is what you don't see should be avoided. Calling it "Truth" does not work.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...the true independent status can only be achieved with the full length of the string of info which encompasses the Whole of Reality...its not for "objects" who depend on the observer and the function they serve...I take the entire set of functions, the entire set of roles that a object can fulfil in relation to any point in time/space, to any system/s, or agent/s, and bring/raise each perspective as a valid one, but not as a unique one...of course some need some good explaining, as they are a "French mix" of various intertwined relations between several layers of reality, if you get my meaning...to a four years old child Donald Duck is a true person...and it is if it works as such in the time being...as I said, it all just needs some good explaining...in my unique metaphors, a mater of layers in the System and the way they relate with each other...I see LOGOS everywhere !...

0 Replies

@fresco,

No...it presupposes you and I "exist"...it presupposes all views in relation to each other...that´s the bottom line right there...
...such "GOD" is the entirety of the thing, all relations matching together in a big string puzzle of info...and not something/someone out of the System...
...mark my words..."out" is really OUT ! (its not there)

0 Replies

@fresco,

I never was interested in Politics precisely to avoid such inconveniences...but I see at what your getting at...you guy´s have a big problem there in the US...I recently saw the documentary "War on Science"...my jaw dropped...middle ages on the horizon...one questions if we ever did really get out of it...you can´t change people ! In the 70´s we used to think we could...I was raised to believe so, now I know better...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Since there are actual pictures of a double projection of a Galaxy and other such like phenomena explained in so far due to lens effect distortions caused in space by huge chunks of matter in the path of light, any theory which aims to explain the workings and the Law´s of our Universe will have to take those in consideration and eventually build some kind of mechanical model capable of explaining them in a satisfactory manner...I naturally wondered about Gravitons once they are the particles related with gravity in M Theory, but there could be of course many other potential forms of explanation depending on the model one chooses to go with and the variables who turn out to be relevant...that means exactly the opposite of your conclusion...at the very least curvature of space if not to be granted as an actual phenomena must be explained away as an apparent effect caused by any other kind of process that eventually will make the logical comprehensive connection between both theory´s... so, bottom line, I am left wondering what in the hell are you talking about...

What the hell am I talking about? really? You the **** are you talking about?
Do you even have a point in this whole thread, or are you just being you?

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

Quote:

Gravitational lens
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. This effect is known as gravitational lensing and is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Although Orest Chwolson is credited as being the first to discuss the effect in print in 1924, the effect is more commonly associated with Einstein, who published a more famous article on the subject in 1936.

Fritz Zwicky posited in 1937 that the effect could allow galaxy clusters to act as gravitational lenses. It was not until 1979 that this effect was confirmed by observation of the so-called "Twin QSO" SBS 0957+561.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

0 Replies

If some people were to pay a minimum of attention they would understand that is the observed phenomena who needs explanation in light of any QM model who aspires to become a Theory of Everything like M Theory...
Gravitons were the natural candidate in a query at a start point in this debate and they certainly don´t need to be the end of it...only plain, sheer stupidity can´t see the difference...

0 Replies

How do "Gravitons" interact with Space ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know