Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Photons & Gravity waves

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    100

    Question Photons & Gravity waves

    Light is propagated with a photon which can behave like a particle or a wave or a combination of the two, so it is classified as an electromagnetic wave. Now a gravity is only know as a wave, the graviton hasn't been discovered yet and let us assume that it it isn't then what is gravity? Everything is an electromagnetic wave in 1 form or another so what is gravity?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,989
    Not everything is an electromagnetic wave. Sound isn't and neither is a gravitational wave.

    A gravitational wave is a wave in space-time.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Not everything is an electromagnetic wave. Sound isn't and neither is a gravitational wave.

    A gravitational wave is a wave in space-time.
    Strange. At greater than 5.0 sigma, a gravitational wave is associated with a change in the ambient neutrino flux, and the neutrino flux interacts universally with all the members of the Standard Model of particle physics, via the charged and/or the neutral current. As a neutral current, the carrier is the Z boson. Z bosons may be any particle/antiparticle pair, and the neutrino /antineutrino pair was identified as a graviton by George Gamow in the 1960's. perhaps you missed this...see:https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...mma-Ray-Bursts

    pete >5.0 sigma, peer reviewed. A first for quantum gravitation.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,989
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    It doesn't sound particularly convincing. And LIGO has not detected any coincident neutrinos from the 4(?) BH-BH mergers seen so far.

    And, apart from that, even if there were a correlation between neutrinos and gravitational waves or even if neutrinos are gravitons, that doesn't;t make gravitational waves electromagnetic waves.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It doesn't sound particularly convincing. And LIGO has not detected any coincident neutrinos from the 4(?) BH-BH mergers seen so far.

    And, apart from that, even if there were a correlation between neutrinos and gravitational waves or even if neutrinos are gravitons, that doesn't;t make gravitational waves electromagnetic waves.
    Strange Umm...176 peer-reviwed sources back looking into electromagnetic properties of neutrinos.....SEE:https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3646

    of particular interest pp.59-60 They show that there are limits on what we know or don't know as always, and I am reminded that the Particle Data Group, keeper of the records generally, has yet to claim a neutrino mass, only limits below which it may lie, if any. Experiments searching for that mass always involve matter paths, and a massive neutrino should be subluminal and capable of oscillating between flavors in an "empty"vacuum. That has not been seen. pete
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2017-Dec-06 at 08:28 PM. Reason: link

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,989
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Strange Umm...176 peer-reviwed sources back looking into electromagnetic properties of neutrinos.....SEE:https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3646
    That doesn't make them photons, does it?

    of particular interest pp.59-60 pete
    There are only 59 pages.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    That doesn't make them photons, does it?



    There are only 59 pages.

    my error...28,29 and no they are not photons, as their spins are units of 1/2....but the paper is on electromagnetic properties of them.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,989
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    but the paper is on electromagnetic properties of them.
    So I struggle to see why you brought it up.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,609
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Z bosons may be any particle/antiparticle pair, and the neutrino /antineutrino pair was identified as a graviton by George Gamow in the 1960's.
    You've made claims like this before. Unless you have significant new evidence (the paper with a dodgy correlation method and carefully selected data sets doesn't support these claims in the slightest) the claims are as baseless now as they were the last time. Your claim about the Z boson has no basis in any known physics. Your claim about the graviton also has no experimental or theoretical basis and seems to be based on a speculation. In 1961 Gamow said:
    As long ago as 1933 Niels Bohr inquired: "What is the difference between [neutrinos] and the quanta of gravitational waves?" In the so-called weak interactions neutrinos are emitted together with other particles. What about processes involving only neutrinos-say, the emission of a neutrino- antineutrino pair by an excited nucleus? No one has detected such events, but they may occur, perhaps on the same time scale as the gravitational interaction. A pair of neutrinos would furnish a spin of two, the value calculated for the graviton by Dirac. All this is, of course, the sheerest speculation, but a connection between neutrinos and gravity is an exciting theoretical possibility.
    Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...gamow-gravity/
    Since then nothing has supported this speculation. And the timescale argument for it is not compelling.

    Your 5 sigma claim is also very dubious. You claim you speculated on something, then claim the statistics in the questionable paper support it. You've never presented a coherent version of this 'theory' you claim is your own quantum gravitational theory. Might want to get it written up and peer reviewed so that you can back up these claims with a reference. That would be a better contribution to physics than repeatedly making these claims and then not backing them up with anything resembling actual science.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,194
    closed pending moderator discussion

    Thread reopened. No more ATM promotion please. Infraction issued to tinitree86.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •