On Oct 24, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Regarding the concept of carrier particles, like photons and
gravitons,
it is clear to me that, in the case of the photon, we're in the
presence
of something like a pulse or wave train(a discrete number of
waves), and
that we assume that wave train to be a particle, and to act like a
particle in its interactions with other "particles". Photons are
mainly
travelling(propagating) waves, while electrons and protons are
(mainly)
rotating ones.
So, photons are the propagation of discrete transversal wave
trains, and
gravitons (if they exist) will be the propagation of forms of
pulsating(longitudinal) movement in the fabric of space, in the
form of
discrete longitudinal wave trains.
Mauro
I think it might be worth considering that the terms "photon" and
"graviton" as well as "virtual photon" already have commonly accepted
definitions. The graviton and virtual photon are the messenger
particles of the gravitational and Coulomb forces respectively. The
photon is a packet of electromagnetic energy, and thus carries
positive momentum and interacts with gravity. The graviton is the
gravitational analog of the virtual photon. They both can feasibly
exchange positive or negative momentum. They are near field force
carriers.
Now, there is an obvious hole in the definitions - the gravitational
analog to the photon. This is the graviphoton. This was defined by
Barbieri and Cecotti in:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m5724623tt5ph28j/
as an arbitrarily light vector boson which is coupled with typical
gravitational strength to matter hyper multiplets, possessing
unbroken guauge interactions as well! Now that I find difficult to
follow! However, their model does predict gravitational force
anomalies at close range, which you might find interesting and
similar to your own thoughts.
In my own theory:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf
I simply defined the graviphoton as the gravitational analog to the
photon. Since the premise of my theory is that the laws of gravity
and electromagnetics are isomorphic, and I have defined the 1-1
correspondences that create the isomorphism, such a definition has a
very precise meaning in terms of formulations.
In either definition, the graviphoton carries both energy and
positive momentum. It can exert a gravitational *push*. Because they
carry energy, and thus mass, neither the photon nor the graviphoton
can escape from a black hole. Gravitons can escape from a black hole
else a black hole could not exert gravity and thus a black hole that
can suck in mass from long rage, like those we see in galaxy centers,
could not exist. My theory, unlike all others I know of, predicts
that virtual photons, which carry no mass, can not carry
gravitational charge, and thus *can* escape black holes. Information
is not lost when matter falls into black holes. Black holes can have
magnetic and electrostatic fields. This means that black holes can
be manufactured and contained electromagnetically, and they can be
accelerated. They can be manipulated for many purposes. It also
means that black hole mergers should produce quadrupole ELF magnetic
signatures which dwarf gravimagnetic signatures by 30 orders of
magnitude, and may already exist in geomagnetic ELF data.
These distinctions result in predictions may have great importance
when it comes to astronomical observations. For example, when it
comes to very high energy x-rays, it may well be that some of the
photons observed may actually be graviphotons. Photons from mirror
matter, if it exists, are not observable by us. However,
graviphotons from mirror matter would be observable. If there a
method to distinguish the two, and I provided that, then we can have
an x-ray view into the universe of mirror matter stars, i.e. the high
energy ones any way.
It seems to me that when tiny things are examined quantum
mechanically, there always results a wave particle duality. Since
this is the case in electromagnetism we certainly should expect it to
be true for gravity, if ever there is to be a quantum theory of gravity.
The obvious question that arises then if there is to be a wave theory
of gravity, what waves? What qualities of vacuum will permit such
waves. In the case of electromagnetic waves we have the permittivity
e0 and permeablity u0 of the vacuum. The 1-1 correspondence requires
a gravipermittivity e0_g = 1/(4 Pi G) = 1.192299(31)x10^9 kg s^2/m^3,
and a gravipermeability u0 = 4 Pi G/ (c_g) = = 9.33196(96)x10^-27 m/
kg, where c_g is the speed of gravity propagation, as defined by
Jefimenko.
What is unique about my theory is the use of the imaginary number i
in the units expressing mass charge, and all gravimagnetic field
values. This convention permits the establishment of a full
isomorphism, gets the force directions right in all occasions, and
thus not only permits but specifies a rigorous formulation of quantum
gravity to the full extent electromagnetism is defined.
So, again we still have to ask, what waves? If you like the epo
model then there exists an analogous model of the vacuum. However,
instead of electron positron pairs, the epos consists of positive and
negative gravicharges. These carry the imaginary number i, and thus
exist only in the gravity carrying dimension, which is imaginary to
us. In an epo equivalent model the answer is that gravicharges wave.
The gravicharges could even exist on the epo charges, but could only
strongly wave in the imaginary dimension without strongly coupling to
the electrostatic charges, which can only wave in the ordinary
dimensions. In my theory I do suggest a weak coupling value, so that
may be of interest for experimentation of various kinds.
In any case, my gravimagnetic theory, because it forms a complete
isomorphism with electromagnetic theory, already provides a full wave
theory of gravity. The only apparent hole in the theory is the
missing value of the speed of gravity c_g, which until a better value
shows up, can be taken at c for the purposes of making quantitative
predictions.
In any case, my point above is that any wave theory of gravity may
ultimately need permittivity and permeability equivalents, so you may
find those above of use.
The main point of this post is of course that it is very important to
distinguish between virtual photons and photons vs gravitons, and
graviphotons and to be aware of their 1-1 correspondence, because, as
you can see, the definitions have huge implications as well as
historical validity.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
