Horace Heffner wrote: > 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. >
Thank you for that. I knew something was missing in the photon <-> electromagnetism relation, but didn't knew exactly what it was. As I see it now: the photon is a packet (or a "wave train" as I called it before), of electromagnetic energy, and the "virtual photon" is electromagnetic energy itself(waves, not necessarily in discrete packets or "trains".) So, electrons and protons propagate their electromagnetic imprint through virtual photons, which are "generic" wave perturbations of the "electromagnetic tapestry", while photons are specific forms or "groupings" of these perturbations. Produced when an electron changes orbital, by example. The quantum paradigm, with its particle wave duality, probably makes virtual photons quantifiable also! but they shouldn't be in my opinion. Not necessarily, at least. It should be enough to know that photons have "particle" nature, due to its "packet mode", while virtual photons are the waves themselves. The same with gravitons and graviphotons, then. Gravitons are the waves which propagate the gravitational imprint, while graviphotons would be (if they exist) packets or discrete wave trains of these waves, produced under specific circumstances. Which can even coincide with the production of photons, or not. This is the kind of discussion I was expecting! Couldn't these gravitons be a form of longitudinal wave instead of transversal, as I've proposed? A longitudinal axis of movement is orthogonal to the transversal, so that could be the "imaginary number" you mention in your theory. And a longitudinal wave is the result of a pulsation, so a natural similitude arises between an electromagnetic wave, which is produced by a rotation, and a gravitational wave, which is produced by a pulsation(which is no more than the projection of a fourth dimensional rotation in 3d space). Finally: The "virtual" nature of both of these waves can be explained by imagining that they are somehow "submersed" into the propagation medium, and only appear on the presence of another interacting "particle", or obstacle. In the same way as, say, waves in the ocean, which are almost invisible on the surface of the high seas are made apparent when approaching the shore. Or in the same way as the invisible light is made visible when cast on a particular material object. Mauro > 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/ > > > > > >
