[Bogie_smiles]

Are you redefining the graviton, a spin 2 boson, never detected before or a virtual particle undetectable, to have additional characteristics never theorized before, that I am aware of.

You are correct. The graviton is an as yet undiscovered particle in the standard model of particle physics. Not only has it not been detected, hypothetically it also would be required to work with a (an also not yet established) quantum solution to gravity, as would all of the fundamental particles of the standard particle model.

But in their descriptions, those fundamental particles and force carriers are not defined in enough detail to allow them to be particles and forces that are structured to work at the quantum level. They are relegated to “point particles”  and “force carriers” in the standard model, but at the quantum level they would theoretically contain multiple quanta in very high numbers; quantum increments of gravitational wave energy.

In QFT they are described as excitations in the quantum field. However, both of those descriptions, the standard model and the quantum mechanics model, which researchers are at work trying to combine, would suggest improvements from which quantum level actions can be derived, and those actions would then help describe the mechanics being sought at the quantum level.

The hypothesized mechanics at that quantum level include the inflowing and out flowing of gravitational wave energy which I posted about in my last post; those flows of wave energy are the two components of the particles that form, are maintained, and whose motion is governed by quantum gravity. In the quantum solution, those flows of wave energy perform the role that the gravitons are expected to fill, but they have not yet been sufficiently described to explain how they would fill that role.

Therefore you are right again when you characterize my post as a redefining of the graviton. I’m talking about how quantum gravity would work, hypothetically, to establish and maintain the presence of particles.

[Colin2B]

1. energy is, as far as we can tell, not a concrete “thing”.

+ve energy is a measurable thing,

Just because something is measurable does not make it a concrete thing.
There are many properties that are measurable, energy, mass, density, specific heat, refractive index, but they are not concrete things, they are properties of concrete things.
If you start trying to view energy as a thing you fall into the trap of thinking ‘pure energy’ exists. False doctrine.

I’m just pointing these cautions out, and playing the Devil’s advocate because not all the members and guests that read this sub-forum are equally informed about the broad range of theoretical physics, and probably some are still in the process of learning generally accepted science. In our defense, I do think it is good that there are discussions of some of the less mainstream existing theories mixed in along with the consensus ideas, but I also think there should be disclaimers like this. Hopefully this post is an acceptable way to present a cautionary statement, without causing concern that we are getting too far afield.

This is a timely warning, because this thread is starting to get to the point where it contains too many assertions which could be interpreted as fact by those less well informed.
Can I offer a reminder that personal ‘hot topics’ should be placed here with caution.
Policing a thread and separating out each post is hard work. If you make hard work for the moderators you are likely to have the thread moved wholesale, frozen, or individuals restricted to posting only in new theories.
More importantly you lose the valuable input of folks like @PmbPhy  because they ignore threads where posters consistently ignore or misunderstand their explanations.

[PmbPhy]

More importantly you lose the valuable input of folks like @PmbPhy  because they ignore threads where posters consistently ignore or misunderstand their explanations.

I agree. I explain something once and if someone has a question on what I said I'll respond. If there is valid criticisms such as Janus posted recently I'll respond. But If I'm ignored I won't heard from me again on that point.

[jeffreyH]

Colin is correct. I must admit that lately I have only had time to skim topics. This is the type of thread that can easily veer into new theories territory. As stated it is time consuming to untangle. Just be aware that there are constraints on what can be posted in the mainstream sections.

[jeffreyH]

Macro level objects not only absorb wave energy in quantum increments based on their quantized content which governs the frequency of inflowing wave energy that they can absorb, but macro level objects also emit gravitational wave energy in quantum increments.

I would disagree with you here on various levels, but keeping it simple for a particle to radiate gravitational energy it would be losing energy and eventually disappear. Particles can not radiate or absorb gravitational energy, without gaining or losing mass/energy. It goes against the laws of physics and the conservation of energy. Verlindes theories suggest the entanglement of space is absorbed around mass/energy, reducing the entropy of space, which again is a bit of a violation to reduce entropy, but no one seems to have jumped on his ideas and said he cant reduce the entropy around mass/energy and his ideas seem close to gaining acceptance, and they do support the MOND curvefit with actual theoretical physics.

How would anyone define negative and positive energies for a zero energy universe. Matter and antimatter do not cancel out, they produce radiation when they come into contact. When space meets mass it appears to curve, possibly as a result of the reduction of entanglement entropy, similar to a black hole, which might be connected to the rest of space via a wormhole ??

What about electromagnetic radiation? The particles should disappear in this case too if your idea had any merit.

Accelerating objects radiate.

[PmbPhy]

Accelerating objects radiate.

Only charged particles radiate, unless you're talking about gravitational waves?

Place a charged particle on the floor so that its at rest. Now choose a frame in free fall. In that frame the charge is accelerating so it will radiate. But no radiation will be detected in the rest frame of the charge. Its relative.

[geordief]

Only charged particles radiate, unless you're talking about gravitational waves?

Place a charged particle on the floor so that its at rest. Now choose a frame in free fall. In that frame the charge is accelerating so it will radiate. But no radiation will be detected in the rest frame of the charge. Its relative.

The radiation would have to be detected by another charge (or conducting material?) ?

[guest45734]

 

[yor_on]

Depends :)

If there was 'energy' and we accept that this is a 'thing' by itself, then you can have a 'symmetry break' of some sort where it 'splits' into different values 'doing work' on 'itself', creating a 'universe', possibly?

If there was nothing at all? Well, at least that leaves us a real  'origin' of whatever came to be to be according to us, using 'time' to define it.

The first one doesn't say if there ever could be a 'origin' actually as it implies that there always 'was energy' existing. It also seem to demand more 'dimensions', unknown to us.

The second one either demands what we would call magic, or a new way of looking at it.