On Jan 2, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Horace,
Thanks for a good analysis of this new theory vis-a-vis your theory
and the mainstream thinking which precedes it.
It can be noted that your objection: "It seems to me this thinking
is not right in that it leaves the question: what entity then
remains to communicate via gravitons?" is also a semantics issue
that goes away - with a more complex definition of "what is
virtual" in the sense that can be implied from their paper.
Many of us may not like whatever new definition of 'graviton' or
'photon' emerges from this, since it could (possibly) imply
something akin to "flavor oscillations" which are seen in the
neutrino to rationalize how a graviton, for instance, can go from
massless to at least expressing a mass-like effect. That is a form
of 'communication'.
I don't think the photon and graviton are analogous. The graviton is
analogous to the virtual photon, which is the electromagnetic force
carrier. If the physical law isomorphism I propose exists, then there
necessarily exists an analog to the photon. I called it a
"graviphoton" in order to be consistent with the naming conventions
demanded by the isomorphism. The virtual particles, the virtual
photon and graviton, are the force messengers, the "real" particles
are quantized energy packets. The difference between them lies in the
dimensions in which they reside.
It is too bad this relationship was not understood when the graviton
was named. Otherwise the graviton would have been named the "virtual
graviton", and the graviphoton would have been named the graviton.
The existence of the graviphoton could have profound implications for
astronomy.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
