The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The dark ages of physics  (Read 21500 times)

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #25 on: 30/08/2006 15:16:33 »
A recent article in 'Nature' discussed possible techniques for detecting gravitons and compared them to the means for detecting neutrinos which is difficult enough.
It suggested that the interactions with matter was weaker by a factor of 10^11 than that of neutrinos and although four separate means of detection were discussed none were remotely possible.This is seperate question from detecting gravitational waves for which technology is under development but the detection of actual graviton particles seems quite impossible.

syhprum
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #26 on: 30/08/2006 19:28:14 »
There is no such thing as gravitons. Just throwin out there.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #27 on: 30/08/2006 20:55:23 »
Theres no such thing a quarks, quote an experiment where an isolated one has been detected or describe a hypothetical experiment how it could be done.

syhprum
 

Offline bostjan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #28 on: 31/08/2006 04:17:15 »
finding a distinct particle of gravitation is not the same as finding a gravitational wave.  i agree that there should have been an observation by now, but i wouldn't call the graviton hypothesis in the standard model absurd.

as for quarks, i didn't think there was any argument as to their existance at this point.  the reason they don't last very long outside of the nucleus is due to very high binding energies, as well as confinement.  the energy it takes to snap a quark out of the nucleus is enough to form two new quarks- one to pair with the old one, and one to take it's place.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #29 on: 30/08/2006 05:48:50 »
quote:
Originally posted by Mjhavok

Fortunatley for dark matter to exist it doesn't require anyones belief.
Do you mean that you have objective proofs of its existence? We are very interested in!
 

Offline bostjan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #30 on: 30/08/2006 05:55:47 »
why is the existance of gravitons absurd?

i think string theory is very beautiful, even though i have a handful of issues with some of the details.  any experiment to directly observe string theory would require too much energy, but there ought to be clever ways of indirrect observations.  unfortunately, i feel skeptics will deny any evidence without coming up with any conter-theories.
 

Offline Nieuwenhove

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
    • http://http://home.online.no/~avannieu/darkmatter/
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #31 on: 30/08/2006 07:02:56 »
quote:
Originally posted by bostjan

why is the existance of gravitons absurd?

i think string theory is very beautiful, even though i have a handful of issues with some of the details.  any experiment to directly observe string theory would require too much energy, but there ought to be clever ways of indirrect observations.  unfortunately, i feel skeptics will deny any evidence without coming up with any conter-theories.



Let us assume (for a short moment) that gravitons exist and consider the attraction between an apple and the earth .. So, one has gravitons moving in between these two to mediate the gravitational force. However, these gravitons should also feel the gravitational force BECAUSE the Einstein field equations are nonlinear (curvature as a source of curvature). This means then that there should be graviton - interactions inbetween the gravitons. But these gravitons interacting between gravitons should also be subject to gravitation and hence even more gravitons are needed. Easy to see that this leads to an infinity of gravitons (for an arbitrary small volume of space). This looks an absurd situation (to me) and hence one is led to conclude that gravitons do not exist.

As regard to string theory : There are many signs now that string theory is loosing ground (mainly because it does not seem to predict anything useful) and that other theories like loop quantum gravity are looking more promising.
 

Offline bostjan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #32 on: 30/08/2006 11:23:39 »
why not have interactions between gravitons?  this doesn't mean that two gravitons form a third graviton in the interaction.  anyway, who says they interact directly?

string theory was one way to have gravitons without infinities, but loop quantum gravity seems promising as it doesn't depend on the existance of gravitons.  the dimentionality of four and use of the same metric at all scales and energies could be great, but are just as bold of assumptions as most of the assumptions string theory makes, so i don't see it as a significant breakthrough just yet.  it is a very interesting move, though, and may well be the kind of progress we need to keep things fresh.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #33 on: 30/08/2006 14:25:44 »
You are not thinking through the situation properly. In most physical situations it is important to think about the true scale of things.

Let us start by thinking about how electrons and electromagnetic radiation works.  When an electron changes its orbit in the outer layers of a atom  a photon is either emitted or absorbed the interaction produces visible light light with wavelengths of less than one micron and frequencies of hundreds of terahertz. The frequency of the radiation is a measure of both the energy change and the time the interaction takes.  Large lumps of material like the surface of the earth have a temperature and emit infra red radiation as heat at room temperature as a result of the molecules jostling together.  One of the coldest natural things we are aware of is the cosmic microwave background which peaks at a two and a bit degrees kelvin. This radiation is still in the gigahertz region of freqiencies.  in other words the interactions take less than a thousanth of a millionth of a second.  

Remember also that the energy of the photon is Plancks constant times the frequency so the lower the frequequency the lower the energy in the individual photon (or graviton).

Now consider gravitiational interactions in the same context and the frequency of the gravitational radiation involved in the interaction.  Planets take years to go round their stars do their gravitational radiation is measured in fractions of cycles per year  If I drop something, it falls through the air under gravity in seconds and stops in milliseconds.  The fastest large scale gravitational interactions are expected to be two orbiting stellar mass black holes merging and this produces frequencies in the low to mid audio band of around  1kHz  All these are at least a million times slower than even the coldest photons descrobed in the first section of this note.

This means that the gravitons are incredibly low frequency and low energy things and that there are a very great number of them involved in producing the attraction.

Gravitationl interactions producing gravitons with energies in the region of even the lowest energy microwave photons were only happening way back in the first tiny fraction of a microsecond after the big bang  long before there were any atoms.  Is it surprising that we haven't detected them!

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #34 on: 30/08/2006 15:16:33 »
A recent article in 'Nature' discussed possible techniques for detecting gravitons and compared them to the means for detecting neutrinos which is difficult enough.
It suggested that the interactions with matter was weaker by a factor of 10^11 than that of neutrinos and although four separate means of detection were discussed none were remotely possible.This is seperate question from detecting gravitational waves for which technology is under development but the detection of actual graviton particles seems quite impossible.

syhprum
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #35 on: 30/08/2006 19:28:14 »
There is no such thing as gravitons. Just throwin out there.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #36 on: 30/08/2006 20:55:23 »
Theres no such thing a quarks, quote an experiment where an isolated one has been detected or describe a hypothetical experiment how it could be done.

syhprum
 

Offline bostjan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #37 on: 31/08/2006 04:17:15 »
finding a distinct particle of gravitation is not the same as finding a gravitational wave.  i agree that there should have been an observation by now, but i wouldn't call the graviton hypothesis in the standard model absurd.

as for quarks, i didn't think there was any argument as to their existance at this point.  the reason they don't last very long outside of the nucleus is due to very high binding energies, as well as confinement.  the energy it takes to snap a quark out of the nucleus is enough to form two new quarks- one to pair with the old one, and one to take it's place.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #38 on: 01/09/2006 10:34:35 »
Gravitions like photons are energy and there are some strong suggestions that "dark energy" could well be the dominant enrgy in the universe with dark matter the second most common thing.

As I mentioned before quantum gravitiational events of significant magnitue could only have occurred way back int the first zillionth of a second of the big bang   and would have been expanded just like the cosmic migrowave background radiation  which was originally light.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline Nieuwenhove

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
    • http://http://home.online.no/~avannieu/darkmatter/
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #39 on: 16/09/2006 17:53:09 »
In the latest issue of New Scientist, I found another example of our "dark age of physics". In the article "Dark matter gets a chance to shine", it is suggested that the hypothetical dark matter (never observed) is able to shine thanks to neutralinos (hypothetical weakly interacting particle (WIMP) ; of course also never observed) which concentrate in the core of stars and, despite the fact that the particle is completely hypothetical, the authors seem to know that these particles will annihilate in a flash of gamma rays. This is really not science, these are fairy tales.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #40 on: 18/09/2006 10:42:18 »
You seem to have a totally negative attitude Nieuwenove all the theories you mention have been proposed to deal with anomalies in observations and our models of the universe.  To return to your original premise that scientists are following them like sheep.  If you read the litereaure you will understand that they most definitely do not do this because there are almost as many theories as there are people working on them so unless you can offer something more positive I suggest that you go away and occupy your mind with a subject more to your tase towards which you may be able to propose positive contributions.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #41 on: 18/09/2006 18:45:25 »
Most Scientists probably are trying to find the answers, the problem is they just dont have the ability, not their fault, few do.

I really believe, most physics is completely on the wrong track. I believe if you took the two greatest scientists of all time, Einstein and Isaac Newton, they would agree. And you know how I know?

Because the greats look for balance and simplicity. While the averages, look for chaos and complications.
 

Offline Nieuwenhove

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
    • http://http://home.online.no/~avannieu/darkmatter/
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #42 on: 16/09/2006 17:53:09 »
In the latest issue of New Scientist, I found another example of our "dark age of physics". In the article "Dark matter gets a chance to shine", it is suggested that the hypothetical dark matter (never observed) is able to shine thanks to neutralinos (hypothetical weakly interacting particle (WIMP) ; of course also never observed) which concentrate in the core of stars and, despite the fact that the particle is completely hypothetical, the authors seem to know that these particles will annihilate in a flash of gamma rays. This is really not science, these are fairy tales.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #43 on: 18/09/2006 10:42:18 »
You seem to have a totally negative attitude Nieuwenove all the theories you mention have been proposed to deal with anomalies in observations and our models of the universe.  To return to your original premise that scientists are following them like sheep.  If you read the litereaure you will understand that they most definitely do not do this because there are almost as many theories as there are people working on them so unless you can offer something more positive I suggest that you go away and occupy your mind with a subject more to your tase towards which you may be able to propose positive contributions.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #44 on: 18/09/2006 18:45:25 »
Most Scientists probably are trying to find the answers, the problem is they just dont have the ability, not their fault, few do.

I really believe, most physics is completely on the wrong track. I believe if you took the two greatest scientists of all time, Einstein and Isaac Newton, they would agree. And you know how I know?

Because the greats look for balance and simplicity. While the averages, look for chaos and complications.
 

Offline Nieuwenhove

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
    • http://http://home.online.no/~avannieu/darkmatter/
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #45 on: 18/09/2006 20:22:10 »
quote:
Originally posted by Soul Surfer

You seem to have a totally negative attitude Nieuwenove all the theories you mention have been proposed to deal with anomalies in observations and our models of the universe.  To return to your original premise that scientists are following them like sheep.  If you read the litereaure you will understand that they most definitely do not do this because there are almost as many theories as there are people working on them so unless you can offer something more positive I suggest that you go away and occupy your mind with a subject more to your tase towards which you may be able to propose positive contributions.



You should understand that I really care about physics and that I devoted a great deal of effort to it. I wish nothing more than that physics advances as fast as possible. My positive contribution I hoped to achieve(through my negative remarks) is that maybe some physicists don't lose their energy on the wrong tracks. I'll hereby end this topic.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #46 on: 18/09/2006 23:19:43 »
OK then I will pose a final question, if you think that they are totally on the wrong track would you be prepared to suggest what might be the right track.

I myself consider that some of the suggestions are inelegant and probably wrong but I do believe that there is an honest effort to design experiments to validate all the significant theories. For example, the August issue of Astronomy and Geophysics has a long and thorough review of experimental techniques to provide independant verification and measurement of the effects of dark energy by several independant methods.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
« Last Edit: 18/09/2006 23:20:29 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline bostjan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #47 on: 19/09/2006 08:52:37 »
Ok, here is my question:

A graviton is low energy, so you say there must be tons of them if they exist, yet you base this on Plank's constant for a photon, or am I misunderstanding you?  I do not follow this argument to well.

As far as I know, gravity is a weak force compared to umm, any other fundamental force.  So that suggests a small energy compared to a photon, or say a W-boson.

So how would you go about observing a graviton, if you were to believe they existed?  They should be plentiful, because of the abundance of gravitational fields, as far as I understand.  They should eventually interact with anything that has mass, right?

I don't say that they must exist, but I don't see how it is that they are forbidden to exist, either.

 

Offline Nieuwenhove

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
    • http://http://home.online.no/~avannieu/darkmatter/
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #48 on: 19/09/2006 17:22:15 »
quote:
Originally posted by Soul Surfer

OK then I will pose a final question, if you think that they are totally on the wrong track would you be prepared to suggest what might be the right track.

I myself consider that some of the suggestions are inelegant and probably wrong but I do believe that there is an honest effort to design experiments to validate all the significant theories. For example, the August issue of Astronomy and Geophysics has a long and thorough review of experimental techniques to provide independant verification and measurement of the effects of dark energy by several independant methods.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!



I have no doubt about the honest effort of scientists to validate their various theories and I'm confident that the "truth" will emerge eventually. My concern is only about the time scale.

So, one your question on what the right track is. I do not claim to be more intelligent than other scientist. On the contrary, I know there are many scientists which are 100 x cleverer than me and who have much better mathematical skills. What I consider the right track is summarised very briefly on my website : http://home.online.no/~avannieu/darkmatter/ [nofollow]
Very recently, I submitted two new articles to complement and extend this (in a more rigurous way) and I'm awaiting the reactions of the referees.
Some basic ideas :
1) Physics should be based on the structure and on the properties of the vacuum and not on so-called elementary particles (they are actually some special modifications of the vacuum)
2) One should not think of spacetime in general relativity  as something abstract. In mathematics, this is acceptible, but not in physics. Instead, I believe that spacetime has actually a complicated underlying structure (like a network ; see my website) and that the Einstein Field equations should be seen like some kind of macroscopic description of this underlying microscopic structure.
While the concept of the ether has been abandoned by most physicists, I believe it is nevertheless there in some special form.
3) Dark matter does not exist (see website) ; it is an illusion
4) The so-called cosmological term should not be included in the Einstein field equations. It was indeed a very big mistake (the reason why is explained in my recently submitted paper).Cosmological models which are based on this are wrong. If present observations seem to contradict this, then my attitude is that there must be something wrong with the observations or the models. Models with a mix of so many barionic matter, so many (%) dark matter and so many dark energy energy are absolutely wrong. This looks more like medieval alchemy (of course I know that there are some logical reasons to do so).

I have of course no proof for most of these statements. They are based on intuition (or something else) which falls outside of scientific reason. In this sence you can call me unscientific. Nevertheless, I believe that many beautyfull theories were initially guided by some intuition or feeling and that the mathematical formulations came only in second place. What eventually remains in the articles and textbooks looks entirely logical reasoning while the "unscientific" guiding drive remains completely hidden.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #49 on: 19/09/2006 19:25:12 »
When I was an electronic technician working in the printing trade I sometimes got to argue with genuine scientist who could dash off general relativity equations on the back of a cigarette package.
They held me in contempt for believing in things like Mr Hoyles continuous creation theory and the Šther but I am glad to see that in some form an Šther is almost respectable again.  



syhprum
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: The dark ages of physics
« Reply #49 on: 19/09/2006 19:25:12 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums