I thought gravitons was a weakness in Quantum Mechanics. They haven't been detected or proven to exist. I don't think they do exist. If every gravitational body was to attract every other gravitational body no matter what the distance was, then there should be an infinite number of gravitons exchanging on the surface of a sphere, so that as they dispersed they wouldn't spread out and miss other objects that are far away from it. Gravitons would get more dim as they moved away from the object. I think that was a proof in one version of Einsteins GR, he had to do a calculation to make sure that the gravitational force was not particular.
And they do/it does. Under the square law.
It's a field, so nothing is missed.
Which is why astronauts float in space, yet they remain in orbit. Gravity is "dimmed" by 1/r[sup]2[/sup].
I have never heard of a graviton field, the force of gravity is thought of being the exchange of gravitons.
This has nothing to do with why things stay in orbit. They are just in free fall and their forward velocity is fast enough so that they do not hit the Earth.
"Product" is not a good choice of words. Better: Curved space "attends" the relative frame of reference in GR. (To say otherwise is to repudiate your GPS device.)
Since gravity propagates as a static field, the issue of particle interaction you raised is rendered moot. Think of the photon or electron and the way their attendant fields propagate omidirectionally.
Not my point. I gave you this to illustrate that gravity is present at altitude, just weaker. (You were concerned about "dimming".)
At the conference of the discovery of the Higgs Boson, they said they have no intentions on looking for a graviton and they have not found anything that could be classified as a graviton. The leading scientist at the LHC don't even believe in them, so then the idea of a graviton field would be rather "moot".
Then gravitational bodies could slip between the cracks, and not feel a gravitational force at all whatsoever. That is why the number of gravitons on any surface would have to be infinite. The goal of science now is to find dark matter, more gravitational force than what is seen, not less. Your illustration is flawed.
Wow, that could have been me if he spoke English, lol. There is something that I think is more basic to the strengths and weaknesses of Relativity than you have listed. We don't understand particles. What used to be fundamental particles with no internal composition is now questioned, and even quarks are being questioned as to their make up. Electrons are being theorized as capable of frational energies below "e". We envision electron orbitals instead of orbiting electrons, and still there are problems in explaining the model of the atom that works with the concept that acceleration causes the emission of radiation and that works mathematically with all the other associated theory in small places. In the micro space within atoms and molecules there are moving parts that have to radiate, and charges have to be conseved and transerferred through fields, inductance, conductance, a miriad of details to explain. We are going to find that every step we take at unraveling the nature of the "fundamental" particles is going to lead to questions, until finally a model that takes a close look at our most cherished beliefs begins to correspond to all of our observations, known influences, effects of fields and charges on particles, effects of particles on fields and charges, down and down into the depths of nature. We don't know the nature of particles, charges, fields, and how acceleration affects those interations in spite of the claims of those who will hate me saying that. We aren't in a position to say what gravity is and how it works at the sub atomic level of things. That is why there is no quantum gravity that has any general acceptance and that is why all the talk about SR and GR at the macro level has gone as far as it can go until the particle and gravity are understood at the quantum level. And yet we argue about things that aren't close to touching on the problems of advancing the model of the atoms and molecules. Maybe wave energy ideas aren't as far off as the community believes, and though a medium is beyond the level of things that the community cares to address with any interest, I can't help but think that we are getting nowhere until we figure out particles and gravity at the micro level.
river, can you give an observation from reality that is inconsistent with $$ R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} \sum_{\tiny \alpha,\beta \in {0,1,2,3}} g^{\alpha \beta} R_{\alpha \beta} + \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{ 8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}$$ or an observation from reality that is inconsistent with the conservation of energy and momentum which for free particle is governed by $$E \vec{v} = c^2 \vec{p}, \quad E^2 - \left(c \vec{p} \right)^2 = \left( mc^2 \right)^2 , \quad E = \hbar \omega , \quad \vec{p} = \hbar \vec{k}$$ ? These mathematical expressions from physical theories are consistent with all applicable observation and thus these symbols convey a summary of all observation. But just as a sentence in Chinese or French conveys no meaning to those that cannot read those languages, so math and physics convey no truth to the mathless and ideologically blind. In physics, the goal is to summarize all the behavior of the universe. While of course humans use symbols to communicate, there is no attempt at metaphors being used here. $$g$$ is a geometrical object known as the pseudo-Riemannian metric tensor which has 10 components at every point in space and time, $$R$$ is the Ricci curvature tensor, which is a summary about the derivatives and double derivatives of the metric tensor, $$\Lambda$$ is a nearly-neglible constant which best shows up in studies of cosmology, $$T$$ is a description of energy, momentum and matter at every point in time and space, and $$G$$ and $$c$$ are constants of proportionality which say more about our choice of units than anything about "reality." This summarizes everything we know about gravity, not as metaphor, but as a predictive system which covers observations of events billions of years in the past as well as those today in the solar system and in the laboratory. Since physical theory summarizes the behavior of every phenomenon observed in reality, knowing the physical theory and being able to extract predictions from it is putatively more powerful knowledge of reality than a great deal of observation or reading of others observation. Yet physicists continue to observe because unless they find a crack between today's theories and today's observations, they have no grounds on which to base future (and better) theories. And unless you know both theory and observation, you would never know if you found a crack in human understanding.
Links back to original sources (my post was never in this thread, for example) restored.
Assumes facts which are not yet in evidence.
People have. The theory is not a predictive model which explains our reality. This is a fatal blow in science.
Paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/651/2/627/fulltext/65189.text.htmlEthan Siegel said:
Time is seen to be a lot more than just ticks on a clock. You should watch this video, I think it proves that time exist. What is happening now is only relative.