Combine my response to 2 responses <grin>...

On 17 Feb 2004 at 21:39, Fred Chen wrote:
> Nice link, great topic.
> This does beg the question, is there an event horizon for gravitons,
> and presumably the answer for that would be the singularity.
> Here is something to ponder: do virtual gravitons generate more
> virtual gravitons? Consider a planet in circular orbit around its
> star.  Consider the gravitational force of this system on an external
> body far away, e.g., a comet. The force on the comet would be due to
> the mass of the planet, plus the mass of the star, plus the
> gravitational energy of the star-planet system. So the gravitational
> field, an exchange of virtual gravitons, would be the source of new
> virtual gravitons to be exchanged with the comet, or in fact anything
> outside this system. This could extrapolate ad infinitum, as we take
> into account each virtual exchange of gravitons generating another
> virtual exchange of gravitons.
> Fred

Interesting conjecture! I alludeto it, below...

And also heard...
From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier

> Ron McFarland writes:
>>If a gravity carrier has any mass whatsoever then by what mechanism
>>could it possibly and in such abundance escape from a black hole
>>event horizon and make itself known in our observable universe?
> This is not really a multiverse question, but rather a common query
> relating to relativity and QM.  See question 6 in part 2 of the
> sci.physics FAQ, "How does the gravity get out of the black hole?",
> at:
> The short answer is that when you model forces as the exchange of
> particles, it is actually done as the exchange of virtual particles;
> and virtual particles can go faster than light, hence can escape
> from black holes.
> Hal Finney

Yes, but particles are not virtual if they do not recombine
and annihilate. If they do not recombine then matter is
being continually created out of nothing and the universe is
increasing in density over time. If they do recombine then
they do not exist long enough as a mechanism to convey the
transference of gravitational energy at a cosmological
distance. The evidence seems to be against a universe that
is increasing in density.

Thank you for the comment. My silence was in hope that
others might also pick up on this thread (I see that Fred
Chen seems the only other one to have done so, so far).
Unlike my previous (and other than this one, my only) topic
in this forum, I'm not in this topic presenting and
defending a postulate. In this topic, I'm just looking for
points of view.  :)

I do have a problem with virtual particles being able to
perform just about any way that they like, including moving
faster than light. In one case (in one of the 4 sections of
the above link) the argument is made that *all* particles
are virtual particles. I have no problem with that per se,
and I believe the statement to be true against reality, but
I can not agree that it follows that all (or any) particles
are able to move faster than light! Forwards and backwards
in time, perhaps, but not faster than light within a
measurable frame. We've never observed anything moving
faster than light (to do so would convey information faster
than light, and that seems to be forbidden). Indeed, one
could argue that if anything did move faster than light then
we could never in principle measure it. If we can not
measure it, at least in principle even if the technology to
do so does not exist, then it is not part of measurable
reality. If all of reality is not measurable then all of
reality can not, even in principle, be proven to exist.

I also take issue with normalization; to me that seems a
statistical mathematical trick akin to a description of an
immovable object meeting up with an irresistible force. The
process does not describe an instantaneous point in time (a
measurement is not possible). I mean that we never observe
an average response to a system measurement, we always
observe a focused and localized measurement response. And if
we are measuring something then it is not normalized
(because the measurement is always localized).

 Just because so much agrees with current theories and
measurement does not mean that there is total agreement in
all the disciplines. Perhaps, in light of continuing new
development in theory and observation, the fundamental
questions of physics are rightfully worthy of a FAQ followed
by deep re-examination and discussion of *all* its premise.
Until we really do have a Theory of Everything!

So, based on all that, I'm left to consider that no
measurement has ever confirmed any action with re-action
that occurs faster than light. Instead, we have indications
that particles can exchange "localized" (even at
cosmological distances) information "with themselves",
apparently instantaneously, but that the localization never
includes the rest of the universe (and so information can
not be imposed upon and recovered from such a system). Those
indications are not measurable even in principle, they can
only be offered up as a mathematical explanation rather than
as a measurable reality. Logic seems to dictate that,
therefore, such a mechanism is not based in reality -
because it can be inferred but even in principle it can not
be measured.

And I've yet to see even a report, much less evidence, that
even one sub microscopic black hole has evaporated. No doubt
that in itself is comforting to our existence! Yet they are
supposed to be much more numerous than are the macro type.
There's something wrong with theory.

And so, I have a problem with virtual particles being the
way that black holes express gravity. That mechanism does not
seem measurable. But gravity itself is measurable.

Ron McFarland

Reply via email to