On Oct 25, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
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".)
Well could be, but Feynman may be haunting you!! Virtual photons
were treated very successfully as particles in Feynman diagrams in
the development of QED, one of the most precisely experimentally
proven theories ever.
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.
Yes. I suspect photons have more to their structure then EM fields
though, something that not only holds the packet togeher, and allows
it to have spin, but also to interact with gravity - and I call that
something that can interact with gravity gravitational charge.
The quantum paradigm, with its particle wave duality, probably makes
virtual photons quantifiable also! but they shouldn't be in my
opinion.
There are a lot of theory papers on that!
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.
I don't think so. I think virtual photons play critical roles in
high energy particle interactions, as particles. I'd have to research
that a bit to say why they act as particles instead of waves though.
At best they act as wavelets I think, because the interactions are so
fast.
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.
True. However, it appears to me that h_g is similar in magnitude to
h, while the gravitational constant is very small, so it appears to
me that the emitting of graviphotons requires vast accelerations.
They can thus only be seen coming from highly energetic (e. g.
cosmic) events. I could of course be very wrong about this. They
might be seen coming a particle accelerator, and they can be
discriminated from photons by the fact they react very weakly to
electrostatic and magnetic fields. Their principal value in
astronomy is that they are emitted equally well by both ordinary
matter and mirror matter, so can provide a view of the "other" universe.
This is the kind of discussion I was expecting!
This is the kind of open ended discussion I need to avoid right
now. All this vortex posting I've done of late has brought my work
to a stop.
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.
I think it requires either a separate medium in the same dimensions
or separate dimensions. But what is the difference? The only
difference between the two models might be that there are very small
amplitude interactions that can occur between mixed mediums.
However, when messenger particles are exchanged between charges what
difference does it make how the exchange takes place, i.e. in what
dimensions the voyage occurred. This may be an issue with no
practical consequences. In any case, it seems to me the modes of
oscillation are are fully isomorphic, so whatever one force does the
other does exactly the same, only with differing constants attached.
The unifying of the forces merely occurs via the binding of both
magnetic and Coulombic charge in the same particles, whereby both
forces can be observed, summed, in the resulting momentum changes of
a transaction. It happens our eyes and senses "see" in the
electromagnetic spectrum, so we can't observe gravity except through
its effects on Coulombic charge, and vice versa.
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).
I think longitudinal waves are equally feasible for electromagnetic
waves as for gravity waves, and thus vice versa. I suggested here to
Robert Stirniman how they might be generated, and if I recall that
was the last I heard from him. I hope he is OK.
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
Ross Tessian (tess...@oro.net) posted and discussed a similar theory
here for quite a while. He formed a company to do CF work. I never
heard how that worked out. I would have mentioned his name a lot
sooner but it took me all these days to remember or find it. I
finally found it by doing a search. I would be utterly lost without
keyword search capabilites! My memory is not so good! I have trouble
even figuring out what keywords might be used.
Well, I would like to withdraw from this discussion now and get back
to work. I look forward to seeing your theory formulated and quantified.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
