How are gravitons supposed to work?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by geordief, Jul 6, 2019.

  1. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,113
    For the same reason that paddo is always saying Q is wrong; they don't like each other. IMO their emotions get in the way of the science.
     
    TabbyStar likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. TabbyStar Registered Member

    Messages:
    74
    I for one am optimistic for discovery of the illusive graviton. Should it be discovered (quantized), science then can move forward on attempts to shield or deflect it. That would be huge for our civilization!

    Just imagine how shielding against a graviton could benefit us with lower energy usage. Also, easier space launches without "escape velocity" concerns or massive fuel requirements! It would be a huge step toward colonizing our solar system and beyond!
     
    Write4U likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,896
    While I applaud and encourage your optimism, I wonder what makes you assume that 1] shielding is even possible, and 2] it would not require energy input.

    If this hypothetical shielding could, as you suggest, allow us to rise out of gravity well with little or no expenditure of energy, then it is essentially an infinite source of free energy. An even simpler example than your spaceship is to put such a device at the bottom of a hydro dam and loft the water back to the top for free.
     
    TabbyStar likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TabbyStar Registered Member

    Messages:
    74
    I consider both Graviton and shielding as possible albeit remote. I tend to believe free energy would not result though. Just cancellation of a an attractive force. My crude example would posit a hoverboard would stay at a fixed height (z axis) while gravitons are shielded. To change it's height (up or down) or move it forward, or sideways, energy expense would be required.

    I tend to have non mainstream thought experiments. This one is basically worthless without a graviton discovery. Like you mentioned, shielding or deflecting it may be a dead end road

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,453
    I would snigger ,but am unqualified to do so

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You know ,on the face of it that was a funny answer. (a theory with no evidence)

    Seriously ,I'd be interested to learn what well formed theory of quantum gravity stands a chance of being tested against evidence in the future...I think String Theory is running out of rope (sorry

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) and I am not anyway up to speed on the contending theories ( 2 or 3 of them aren't there?-I think Strange told me that a while ago)
     
    TabbyStar likes this.
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,896
    Unfortunately, you can't have one without the other in this case.
    My "perpetual hydro dam" example shows why.
     
    TabbyStar likes this.
  10. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,167
    You are confused about the graviton. Shielding or deflecting gravitons (even if possible) would not result is any type of anti-gravity effect. Gravitons are quanta of gravitational waves, which is not the same thing as the gravitational field. You can block photons( quanta of electromagnetic waves) with as little as a piece of cardboard, but that does not prevent magnets on either side of that cardboard from attracting or repelling each other, even though in QED photons are the mediating particle of the magnetic field.
    While pop-science articles tend to call the graviton the mediating particle for gravity, it would only in the same way that photons mediate electromagnetic forces. There is a lot of physics that those articles leave out, and they can be misleading.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,896
    OK, but the theory of QM is what we're talking about. It has a preponderance of evidence; it's just incomplete, as most theories are.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,981

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Hey Dave, careful, you are leaving yourself open for some personal emotional abuse!
    Most here at this stage of the game know the answer to that.
     
  13. TabbyStar Registered Member

    Messages:
    74
    Not trying to challenge or dispute understandings here. However, I have a very difficult time altering my thoughts. If a graviton is discovered...if it is indeed a force carrier...if it is shielded...I conclude anti gravity in every sense of the word.

    On a different path. Perhaps shielding and/deflecting is thrown aside for a moment. Another thought pattern can envision an attractive force (gravity) being countered by a repulsive force. Thus accomplishing the same result in principle. Kind of like Dark Energy being proposed as a repulsive force against gravity in the cosmos.

    I don't know anything for certain. I just try to learn as I go with this 56 year old body and brain. Eager to learn and advance my understandings...I just always seem to pause sometimes and engage in silly thought experiments (experiments on my limited level of advance knowledge and Mathematics)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Write4U and river like this.
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,981
    Except of course that you are wrong. The emotional denials are one directional.
    I simply refute the nonsensical claims that certain scientific theories are wrong and have been surpassed. eg: GR, Abiogenesis, and of course the even more nonsensical conspiracy nonsense re 9/11.
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,896
    Hardly. Q is on ignore until he learns to play well with others.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,981
    I would think, hypothetically of course, that it maybe easier to shield matter from the Higg's boson and field...the stuff that imparts mass to matter, in line with the fact that the universal speed limit is only applicable to anything with mass.
     
    TabbyStar likes this.
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,896
    The difference between g-waves and a g-field is that the field is always there, everywhere - essentially always has been there - the waves are a change in that field.

    So, if you were on Earth and you shielded your spaceship from gravitons, all that would happen is no change in gravity would be detected inside your ship. But gravity would still already be there. You're not turning gravity off.
    the BH - is still there.)

    Maybe think of it like a seawall. A seawall is a shield against waves; it keeps the harbour calm.
    Raising a seawall does not make the water in the harbour disappear.
     
    TabbyStar likes this.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,981
    Nothing wrong with that per se, but one must be sure that he knows thoroughly what is inside the box and the reasons before attempting to somehow over rule the experts and professionals in that area of expertise. Worth considering also, if you would go to your local butcher for advice on a brain or heart problem that may need operating on.
     
    TabbyStar likes this.
  19. TabbyStar Registered Member

    Messages:
    74
    Yes true and wise words for a new forum member. I will take them seriously. I am not into crackpot science. I do want the latest and greatest, sound theories implanted in my mind. Hopefully that facilitates a deeper and more accurate view of our surroundings. In practice, it does appear more enticing than ignorance of mainstream beliefs. Yes, I prefer that.
    Thanks to you and Dave. We will get along fine. I am non confrontational in nature.. just please allow some non mainstream thought exercises from me occasionally. That does not mean that the experts are not allowed to shred them when wrong. It is the way it should be. So eventually I purge the bad information... especially from outdated text books or fringe sci fi documentaries.
    Ty both again!
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,981
    No probs! In actual fact, unlike you and Dave for that matter, I can sometimes be what maybe termed confrontational, but only [I hope] in line with the crusades against what some ignorant people with obvious agendas, sometimes chose to conduct against science in general.
    My other fault is that I hate bullies!! and sometimes will give them both barrels.
     
    TabbyStar likes this.
  21. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,808
    No. You simply keep cuffing yourself in back of head. EM used by itself always stands for electromagnetism. Not electromagnetic field as you confusedly used it. Among other worse errors you made in #6. Go read it again - then my #7 - and learn to learn!
    Better to have kept quiet like you often do in such cases, than expose your incompetence afresh.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
  22. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,808
    Are you color blind sweetpea? Because if not, my red highlighting in #11 then #14 should have made it obvious what the two problems were. Basic error in #9, and an ego driven refusal to admit it in #13.
    paddoboy's loyal mates come out of the woodwork to defend, and only make it clear they are all birds of a feather.
     
  23. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,808
    Well at least you admitted paddoboy is (overwhelmingly) the one doing the attacking. As for getting in the way of science, whenever I clashed with you on actual physics topics, guess who came off second best every time.
     

Share This Page