The background is that there is this little kid in the star wars vs. star trek thread. He seems to believe that the graviton is not only a real particle, but it is one of the most known, proven, and understood topics in physics. Since he is so deluded that he will not believe anyone else that he is in error. So basically, I am here hoping that some of you will explain in this thread to George1 that he is wrong.
Futility defined: <Insert name here> is so deluded that they will not believe anyone else that they are in error. Explain to <Insert name here> that they are wrong.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why bother? No one can say *anything* to get through a stupid, ignorant little kid's delusions. All we can do is wait for him to grow up - that is, if he ever does. Ignorance can be fixed through education; stupid is forever. :shrug:
There's a lot of this kind of thing in physics, fedr808. Not just the graviton, but things like time travel, parallel worlds, and much more besides. But do note that physics is not unique. People just love believing in things for which there is no evidence, so much so that they dismiss any evidence or rationale that challenges that belief. And if you really throw down the gauntlet, a typical response is hostility and abuse. It's not easy to get through this. It can be very much like trying to talk sense into young earth creationists.
I've offered numerous times to engage you in an alpha rules discussion on your work provided you agree to answer direct questions when asked. I've even thrown in the 'sweetener' that I'd be banned for a lengthy period of time if I were to break the alpha rules in said thread, provided you agreed to the same. You refused. I've offered numerous times to help you format your 'work' so as to make it comply with the various document layout rules reputable journals often have so that your work could be evaluated by the most relevant people on the grounds of its scientific merit, not its presentation. A sweetener of a £1000 wager was offered too, which would have been free money if you believed your claims about your work. You refused. I've asked you numerous direct questions over the years and you've ignored them. The list of questions is pretty short, as I tend to ask the same ones because you never answered them when I asked previously. In the recent threads on curvature I responded to many of your claims, explaining why you were mistaken. I've addressed your "String theory doesn't predict anything!" comment on many occasions, in multiple threads. The fact I've corrected you multiple times and yet you repeat the same stuff time and again demonstrates that the one who has issue with open and honest discussion is you. Now you've just stopped replying to my posts. Perhaps you have me on ignore? Perhaps you just don't want to talk to me. Doesn't bother me, as either one demonstrates you aren't interested in honest dialogue, particularly when you know you're outclassed Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Continuing to ignore my posts isn't a problem, it'll mean I get to list your errors, misconceptions and lies (no doubt if you reply to this post you'll complain I'm being rude by saying you're a liar and use it as a reason to avoid responding to any point I've made) at my leisure. My offer of an alpha rules thread on curvature stands, just you and me (like they have in the formal debate forum). The conditions are that we reply to direct on topic questions, provide sources for claims/'facts' when asked and both act in intellectually honest ways (where a moderator can determine if we're not). If one of us breaks said conditions or alpha rules then said person gets a 30 day ban. We can hammer out more specific rules before hand if you want, like the specific topic, opening requirements, whose the moderator. Come on Farsight, you keep saying you're being censored or people run from you but your actions show the complete opposite. You're given plenty of opportunities but you never step up. You view the time I spent doing string theory as a complete waste and that I did mathematics as not preparing me properly to do physics related stuff, I should be a walkover, right?
I would have to agree with alpha on this, its bad science to refuse to consider someone else's theories especially if they have some hefty evidence to show.
Nope, there's a difference between the attitude physicists (and scientists in general) have and the religious attitude: scientists make a huge distinction between belief and speculation and allow for a whole grey area between the two. Physicists are an imaginative bunch and I'm sure you'll find many who enjoy speculating about things like time travel. You won't find so many who would go so far as to say they believe in it. I wonder if many physicists would feel comfortable saying they "believe" in relativity or any other established theory for that matter. The word just seems out of place in science. I hate to break it to you, but when you start practically screeching about how dare physicists entertain heretical notions such as time travel and parallel worlds, it's you who comes across as the tyrant who wants to lock down what thoughts other people are and aren't allowed to express. Consider showing a little tolerance. Nobody is actually claiming they have evidence for any of these things.
While we don't have observations of a graviton, we do have observations which are completely consistent with momentum being radiated away from tight binary star systems in accordance with the theory of General Relativity, and therefore have evidence of gravitational radiation. To date, most other propagating momentum has been traced to quantized particle-like phenomena, including phonons in lattices and the gauge bosons of the Standard Model. Finally, there is a particle physics description of a spin-2 massless particle which is universally attractive with infinite range and which reproduces the predictions of General Relativity, but as with Quantum Electrodynamics in the 1930's, there are problems with our ability to get detailed answers from this model that may be resolved if we just learn a better way to calculate. This particle model of gravity (and its string theory analogue) remain our closest touch with the presumed reality of gravitons, as even direct observation of gravity waves is difficult due to the weakness of gravity in everyday scales. Observational evidence specifically for gravitons would consist of an observation which is inconsistent with General Relativity, but is consistent with a quantum gravity theory. To date we have no evidence that gravity is not a quantum phenomena and so gravitons (be they point-like or be they stringy) are presumed to exist. In a similar way, if a headless adult dead human body is found in a hotel bathroom, we presume it was murder and the head was removed. It's conceivable that close examination will show the body was grown in a vat from cloned tissues and never had a head, but it would be silly to assume that was the case before making the close inspection. Our experience teaches us to expect every human has at least one head, even when we don't have access to surveys of all 6.9 billion of them. Likewise, few accidents or self-inflicted injuries result in the removal of the head, and very few of them happen in non-industrial indoor settings like bathrooms, and some sort of actor is positively called for if the head can't quickly be located in such tight surroundings. Murder is an entirely reasonable presumption, subject to revision as more evidence is found, just like with the graviton.
There's a bit of history there, fedr808. And irony, but don't let it hijack the thread. Re your OP, a guy was asking about gravity on this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=106213 In responding, it occurred to me that one way to get through to your kid might be to ask him to explain how gravitons get out of a black hole.
Presumably the same way the gravitational field "escapes" the black hole in classical GR. In classical GR, differences in the gravitational field are only supposed to propagate at the speed of light. You could also ask how charged black holes (that an electromagnetic field escapes from) are theoretically possible. There's nothing particularly special about gravitons in this respect.
Charged black holes are described by the Reissner Nordstrom solution. It is possible in classical GR that if there is enough charge it can "overcome" gravity and the black hole becomes a naked singularity. This would be odd if it happened in nature and there are some arguments from quantum gravity as to why it shouldn't, but it's still to be completely settled AFAIK.
Wrong. The field is there because the energy is there, and conservation of energy means that field is always there. No problem with that. But an infalling object has its mass-energy. It brings additional energy and thus gravitational field with it. I don't think they are as it happens, but that's one for another day. Yes, there is. The black hole case demonstrates why gravity is not the result of messenger particles.
Er, no, in the Schwarzschild solution the Riemann curvature is non-zero everywhere (i.e. there's a non-trivial gravitational field everywhere), while all the energy is concentrated at the singularity. If you think there's some sort of paradox, maybe you didn't see the explanation I posted [POST=2683398]here[/POST].
That curvature represents a gravitational field, and is describing the state of space. Let's not digress into where the energy is located, or your explanation, instead let's agree that the presence of concentration of energy "conditions the surrounding space", as per Einstein's description. I see no paradox there, and no gravitons either.
Well if you're looking at general relativity, you wouldn't see any gravitons. Einstein didn't put any in his theory.
