PDA

View Full Version : Will the LHC not find Gravitons?



Arcane
2008-Sep-10, 10:43 PM
Well, we know that Newton and Einstein couldn't quite figure out gravity, close but no cigar.

So now we have this LHC and the search for Gravitons is on. The problem is, all scientists agree that Gravitons cannot be detected. The only way to detect them is by them not being there, much the same way we detect black holes I assume, except different, since we know that black holes do exist and if we could travel far enough we could actually go into a black hole.

However, scientists say that Gravitons do not exist in any way that can actually be seen or touched or measured, they only exist in some other dimension. Yet another "Virtual Particle" I guess.

So if scientists don't find Gravitons, that is a good thing....right? I mean we know we aren't even close to figuring out gravity, so now we are looking for something that doesn't exist?

Can someone explain this whole thing to me?

Thanks.

alainprice
2008-Sep-10, 10:48 PM
We are looking for the Higgs boson, not the graviton.

Which is it that you are asking about?

The Higgs boson gives mass to other particles. It doesn't actually help with gravity, but more with inertia.

Arcane
2008-Sep-11, 12:36 AM
They are also looking for the Graviton, or the absence there of. Let me find you something on the web about it. I saw it on a show on the Science Channel.

Or you can just use this link http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=LHC++graviton&btnG=Search

Neverfly
2008-Sep-11, 01:01 AM
They are also looking for the Graviton, or the absence there of.

Yeah the LHC is a multi-purpose tool.

I wish I had had one in the Army...

01101001
2008-Sep-11, 01:18 AM
They are also looking for the Graviton, or the absence there of.

A few may be. Sean Carroll does some handicapping, in the Cosmic Variance Blog: What Will the LHC Find? (http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/08/04/what-will-the-lhc-find/)


So here are my judgments for the likelihoods that we will discover various different things at the LHC -- to be more precise, let's say "the chance that, five years after the first physics data are taken, most particle physicists will agree that the LHC has discovered this particular thing."
[...]
Large Extra Dimensions: 1%. [...] It's a fantastic idea, with definite experimental consequences: for one thing, you could be making gravitons at the LHC, which would escape into the extra dimensions. But it's a long shot; the models are already quite constrained, and seem to require a good amount of fine-tuning to hold together.
[...]
Mysterious Missing Energy: 15%. Particles that are long-lived, neutral, and weakly interacting -- including dark matter particles and gravitons -- can only be found indirectly at a collider like the LHC. You are smashing things together, and if the total energy of the resulting particles you detect is less than that of the initial particles you smashed, you know that some invisible particles must have escaped as "missing energy."

Arcane
2008-Sep-11, 03:49 AM
Thanks for that "i" or 01101001. So the debate of whether they are trying to detect Gravitons at the LHC is over.

Now, lets discuss how they can detect Gravitons. Well, the answer is, they can't. They don't exist in this dimention. What they are looking for is the absense of some particles, which will then mean that Gravitons exist.

I ask you, should we try to base sience on something that does not exist and can never be proven to exist?

Like I said above, the current theories that try to describe gravity are "ok", but they are obviously wrong. But, do we really need to invent something that cannot be detected, that only exists in other dimentions in order to fix the problem?

This whole graviton thing smells like Dark matter to me. BTW, if gravitons are somehow found to exist (Even though they can't) does that mean the whole Dark matter theory is out the window?

Jeff Root
2008-Sep-11, 06:37 AM
Like I said above, the current theories that try to describe gravity are
"ok", but they are obviously wrong.
Who is that obvious to?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Arcane
2008-Sep-11, 03:20 PM
Who is that obvious to?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

It should be obvious to everyone.

We know that newton was wrong because we have measured variances in the moons orbit that newton did not predict. His theory F=G m,m2/r^2 is close enough to get us to the moon and predict the general orbit of the planets, but it is not exactly right.

We know that Einstien's theory is wrong becuase it breaks down in the subatomic level and in the more extreme aspects of the universe. For instance, it predicts that two closely orbiting neutron stars would churn up space time and send out waves of gravity (supposedly anything that moves does the same, including your hand). They have been trying to detect gravity waves here http://www.gravity.phy.syr.edu/ for nearly 8 years at a cost of half a billion dollars and have found nothing.

So, I think we can all agree that while Newton and Einstien are close and what they have taught us works for a lot of things, there is something missing and something is not quite right.

mugaliens
2008-Sep-11, 07:54 PM
Yeah the LHC is a multi-purpose tool.

I wish I had had one in the Army...

Alright, Sergeant - get that collider up here pronto. No, not the small one, the large one. Yes, that one, marked "hadron." On the double, men! Higgs' boson's mate is maneuvering for another attack!

Neverfly
2008-Sep-11, 08:25 PM
Alright, Sergeant - get that collider up here pronto. No, not the small one, the large one. Yes, that one, marked "hadron." On the double, men! Higgs' boson's mate is maneuvering for another attack!

Gives "artillery" a whole new meaning...:think:

Arcane
2008-Sep-11, 09:33 PM
hrmm, so no one has any comment on the subject of the thread? Or maybe I didn't explain it well enough? Or maybe you just don't know what to say and you are bored so you post anyway?

Ohh well...

01101001
2008-Sep-11, 09:59 PM
hrmm, so no one has any comment on the subject of the thread?

I thought you stopped asking real questions and started making assertions.

Obviously.

Arcane
2008-Sep-11, 10:16 PM
I thought you stopped asking real questions and started making assertions.

Obviously.


I didn't make any assertions, I just pointed out facts. My questions still stand.

I would like to know your thoughts on gravitons.

I would like to know if gravitons are found ( Or rather not found because they don't exist in our reality) does that mean dark matter was a wild goose chase?

I would like to know how you feel about beleiving in something that can't be seen or measured.

I would like to know how you feel about relying on particles that only exist in other dementions ruling or being part of our universe.

I brought up the fact that Newton and Einstein are wrong just as a secondary thought because that is why they are still searching for the "right" answer.

I would also like to know how you feel about the fact that MainStream science now beleives that Newton and Einstein are wrong.

Etc...

alainprice
2008-Sep-11, 10:25 PM
Why do you say that gravitons cannot be observed?

In theory, they can. In theory, we can also observe proton decay. However, we have not observed either of these possible scenarios.

Why do you say they only exist in other dimensions? That would make them independent of 'our' dimensions and therefore they shouldn't affect us at all.

Let's face it, you're dealing with theory.

Arcane
2008-Sep-11, 11:08 PM
Why do you say that gravitons cannot be observed?

In theory, they can. In theory, we can also observe proton decay. However, we have not observed either of these possible scenarios.

Why do you say they only exist in other dimensions? That would make them independent of 'our' dimensions and therefore they shouldn't affect us at all.

Let's face it, you're dealing with theory.

It's not me that says gravitons only exist in other dimentions, it is the scientists that are saying that.

timb
2008-Sep-11, 11:12 PM
They haven't even started colliding yet and morons have been detected in vast numbers!

cosmocrazy
2008-Sep-11, 11:44 PM
I didn't make any assertions, I just pointed out facts. My questions still stand.

I would like to know your thoughts on gravitons.

I would like to know if gravitons are found ( Or rather not found because they don't exist in our reality) does that mean dark matter was a wild goose chase?

I would like to know how you feel about believing in something that can't be seen or measured.

I would like to know how you feel about relying on particles that only exist in other dimensions ruling or being part of our universe.

I brought up the fact that Newton and Einstein are wrong just as a secondary thought because that is why they are still searching for the "right" answer.

I would also like to know how you feel about the fact that Mainstream science now believes that Newton and Einstein are wrong.

Etc...

You are getting frustrated with mainstream thinking because that thinking has yet to give an accurate definition for explaining gravity, that fits both cosmological scales and quantum scales. This feeling i can empathize with, and so does everybody else. :( i struggle to understand how gravitons can fit into the theory of GR ? What confuses me is GR works on the geometrical warping of space time caused by mass sort of stretching space-time. And gravitons work on the exchange of virtual particles between masses ? help! :(

Steve Limpus
2008-Sep-12, 12:42 AM
I've read where Kip Thorne puts it something like this - Newton wasn't wrong, nor was Einstein. Each of the theories is correct in its own domain.

You will get to the moon and back just fine with Newton. You could orbit a black hole no problem with Einstein. A quantum theory of gravity when it surely comes will describe the singularity at the centre of the black hole (although its hasta la vista baby if you fly your rocket there, quantum theory or not!).

So there's nothin' to get too frustrated about, just apply the appropriate theory in its appropriate domain. :)

Arcane
2008-Sep-12, 03:04 AM
I've read where Kip Thorne puts it something like this - Newton wasn't wrong, nor was Einstein. Each of the theories is correct in its own domain.

You will get to the moon and back just fine with Newton. You could orbit a black hole no problem with Einstein. A quantum theory of gravity when it surely comes will describe the singularity at the centre of the black hole (although its hasta la vista baby if you fly your rocket there, quantum theory or not!).

So there's nothin' to get too frustrated about, just apply the appropriate theory in its appropriate domain. :)


You seem to have missed the point entirely. Sure we can thank Newton and Einstein for letting us be able to do the Mars Pheonix mission or land on the moon, but there is some that's fundamentaly wrong about their concepts. They are not the real answer to gravity. They have gotten the job done so far, but there is something missing, there is something that is just not right. That's not my opinion, that is fact.

I just hope the real answer to gravity isn't a particle that doesn't exist in our reality, because that will surely make me :(.

Jeff Root
2008-Sep-12, 04:04 AM
Arcane,

I agree completely with Steve. There is nothing wrong with Newton's
description of gravity. It makes extremely accurate predictions within
its domain of applicability. You have never once in your life made an
observation of gravity's behavior which conflicts with Newton's laws,
so it cannot be obvious to you that there is anything wrong with them.
You have only read about other people discussing the limitations of
Newton's laws, and interpreted their statements as an assertion that
his description of gravity is in some way "obviously wrong". It can't
be obvious to you because you haven't seen it. Not even once.

Likewise Einstein's description of gravity. No-one has ever made a
reliable observation of the effects of gravity that conflict with the
predictions of general relativity. Every test of general relativity so
far has supported the theory to the limits of precision of the test.
So you have no basis for asserting that the theory is in any way
wrong, much less "obviously wrong". You are just spouting **.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Steve Limpus
2008-Sep-12, 04:21 AM
You seem to have missed the point entirely. Sure we can thank Newton and Einstein for letting us be able to do the Mars Pheonix mission or land on the moon, but there is some that's fundamentaly wrong about their concepts. They are not the real answer to gravity. They have gotten the job done so far, but there is something missing, there is something that is just not right. That's not my opinion, that is fact.

I just hope the real answer to gravity isn't a particle that doesn't exist in our reality, because that will surely make me :(.

Crikey Arcane.

I reckon if you and I got to sit down to dinner with Issac and Albert (what a great party that would be - although they do say Newton was a bit grumpy) I don't think either would claim to have had the 'real answers' to gravity.

Newton ignored many issues simply because he knew the technology to investigate them didn't exist in his day, and because he was no more immune to the prejudices of his time than you and I are of ours. (Well he probably was a bit. :lol: ) This is what he said:


“I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
And Einstein pretty much devoted the rest of his life trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism.

I reckon the point was valid. There's nothing wrong with their theories. They are what they are. Magnificent.

I'll betcha a subscription to Playboy (which apparently is what the real physicists are wont to do - so they're not without a sense of humour!) that the next theory of gravitation isn't the last.

'Course - neither of us is gonna live forever. So its a safe bet...

Arcane
2008-Sep-12, 06:38 AM
Arcane,

I agree completely with Steve. There is nothing wrong with Newton's
description of gravity. It makes extremely accurate predictions within
its domain of applicability. You have never once in your life made an
observation of gravity's behavior which conflicts with Newton's laws,
so it cannot be obvious to you that there is anything wrong with them.
You have only read about other people discussing the limitations of
Newton's laws, and interpreted their statements as an assertion that
his description of gravity is in some way "obviously wrong". It can't
be obvious to you because you haven't seen it. Not even once.

I am not making assertions, as I said above, it has been measured by scientists and Newton’s theory is wrong. Even the orbit around the moon is not correct according to Newton's theory. I am not making this up, this is science, the same science you are defending.

And you know, I've never seen a proton either, but I will take their word for it. There is no reason for me not to, yet.



Likewise Einstein's description of gravity. No-one has ever made a
reliable observation of the effects of gravity that conflict with the
predictions of general relativity. Every test of general relativity so
far has supported the theory to the limits of precision of the test.
So you have no basis for asserting that the theory is in any way
wrong, much less "obviously wrong". You are just spouting **.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

I am not spouting anything except for what today’s "Mainstream" scientists are spouting. Maybe you should take some time and look around at the new things that are being discovered? Not everything is on Wikipedia. There are some really good ( And current) documentaries being played on the Science channel these days, you should check them out.

Hel, even one of the main scientists at the LHC says exactly what I am saying. Where do you think I got this from? Why do you think they are still searching for the "answer"?

Arcane
2008-Sep-12, 06:47 AM
Crikey Arcane.

I reckon if you and I got to sit down to dinner with Issac and Albert (what a great party that would be - although they do say Newton was a bit grumpy) I don't think either would claim to have had the 'real answers' to gravity.

Newton ignored many issues simply because he knew the technology to investigate them didn't exist in his day, and because he was no more immune to the prejudices of his time than you and I are of ours. (Well he probably was a bit. :lol: ) This is what he said:


“I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
And Einstein pretty much devoted the rest of his life trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism.

I reckon the point was valid. There's nothing wrong with their theories. They are what they are. Magnificent.

I'll betcha a subscription to Playboy (which apparently is what the real physicists are wont to do - so they're not without a sense of humour!) that the next theory of gravitation isn't the last.

'Course - neither of us is gonna live forever. So its a safe bet...


That is a very poetic saying that Newton had there ,and he was right. And so are you, the next theory won't be the last, most likely.

But that just goes to show, we don't realy know yet. We are still on the shore looking for sea shells.

trinitree88
2008-Sep-12, 04:03 PM
We are looking for the Higgs boson, not the graviton.

Which is it that you are asking about?

The Higgs boson gives mass to other particles. It doesn't actually help with gravity, but more with inertia.

alainprice. The putative Higgs cannot give a particle an inertial mass without simultaneously giving it a gravitational mass, and a neutral/charged weak current mass. The three appear simultaneously in the creation of particle/anti-particle pairs when high energy photons/neutrinos attenuate their travels.
Never has it been seen in a detector that a particle with mass does not respond to gravitational fields. During the early days of operation of CERN/LEP it was found that the countercirculating beams would slowly drift off target, requiring the operators to make adjustments. Within a few weeks, they noticed that their constant adjustments were first in one direction then in the other...following ~28 day cycle. Instantly one of them recognized that they were seeing the gravitational interaction of the beam, in it's billions of loops, with the moon, and a sinusoidal program of drift was added to the operating parameters for it.. ...so as the electrons and positrons created acquired their inertial mass for SR, so they also acquired their gravitational masses,too. Their neutrino sea interactive masses are also there, as the weak force couples universally to all particles...like gravity. This yields the principle of the trinity of equivalence which supercedes inertial/gravitational mass equivalence of GR.
Said so in writing in April 1982. Been saying it for nigh on to 25 years. Predicted the coincidences (peer reviewed and published ~ 20 times by multiple groups) seen for SN1987a ~ 5 years before it happened. A first rate theory predicts. ....pete

Jeff Root
2008-Sep-12, 05:04 PM
Never has it been seen in a detector that a particle with mass does
not respond to gravitational fields. During the early days of operation
of CERN/LEP it was found that the countercirculating beams would
slowly drift off target, requiring the operators to make adjustments.
Within a few weeks, they noticed that their constant adjustments
were first in one direction then in the other...following ~28 day cycle.
Instantly one of them recognized that they were seeing the gravitational
interaction of the beam, in it's billions of loops, with the moon...
Pete,

I read an article in Scientific American about this. I don't have it,
but my recollection is that it was in 1992.

The effect was caused by the flexing of the ring, not by a direct
gravitational effect on the particles. The ring flexed up and down
by several millimeters across its diameter -- considerably greater
than the thickness of the beam. In comparison, the effect on the
particles of the ring's focusing, guiding, and accelerating magnetic
fields was many (thirty? forty? more?) orders of magnitude greater
than the Moon's gravity, masking the latter completely.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2008-Sep-15, 07:42 AM
Any comments, Pete? This means as much to me as it must mean to you.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

trinitree88
2008-Sep-15, 03:59 PM
Any comments, Pete? This means as much to me as it must mean to you.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Kudos....You're right Jeff. Much more sensible scenario, flexing of the ring...should've suspected as much, and in retrospect it was a 24 hour sinusoid,too, I think, not 28 day. pete

I'm still going to look for a little resonance around 0.003 ev, as predicted by Larry Abbott years ago. Might turn up in cryogenic work. Been a long week, friends, family, and funeral homes.

alfredschrader
2009-Oct-13, 09:28 PM
Well, we know that Newton and Einstein couldn't quite figure out gravity, close but no cigar.

So now we have this LHC and the search for Gravitons is on. The problem is, all scientists agree that Gravitons cannot be detected. The only way to detect them is by them not being there, much the same way we detect black holes I assume, except different, since we know that black holes do exist and if we could travel far enough we could actually go into a black hole.

However, scientists say that Gravitons do not exist in any way that can actually be seen or touched or measured, they only exist in some other dimension. Yet another "Virtual Particle" I guess.

So if scientists don't find Gravitons, that is a good thing....right? I mean we know we aren't even close to figuring out gravity, so now we are looking for something that doesn't exist?

Can someone explain this whole thing to me?

Thanks.
Ok, I can explain it to you. I discovered the Graviton Particle and that makes me the only real expert on it.
All atoms have graviton particles in orbit around them and these orbits can be incredibly large. Graviton particles create gravity by simply bumping into things on their return orbits. They travel at very high speeds in excess of 10,000 times the speed of light and yes I know what Einstein said, my family is from his home town of Bavaria. Gravitons travel around atoms in circular and elipsoid orbits. Not all of them strike from above, some of them whiz by almost horizontally. You can personally test for these inertia causing gravitons yourself. Place a heavy round object on a flat surface, like say your desk. Give it a shove. it will keep going even if you are no longer shoving it.
You have given the gravitons from that direction an advantage. If not for friction, your round object would go on forever same as a satellite going around the earth. Hope this helps..Alfred Herman Schrader

Jim
2009-Oct-14, 12:18 AM
Ok, I can explain it to you. I discovered the Graviton Particle and that makes me the only real expert on it. ...

Alfredschrader, first, welcome to BAUT.

Second, please read the Rules for Posting (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html).

Q&A is for mainstream discussion. If you wish to present and defend your discovery, please use the Against the Mainstream forum.

DrWho
2009-Oct-14, 12:19 AM
Ok, I can explain it to you. I discovered the Graviton Particle and that makes me the only real expert on it.
All atoms have graviton particles in orbit around them and these orbits can be incredibly large. Graviton particles create gravity by simply bumping into things on their return orbits. They travel at very high speeds in excess of 10,000 times the speed of light and yes I know what Einstein said, my family is from his home town of Bavaria. Gravitons travel around atoms in circular and elipsoid orbits. Not all of them strike from above, some of them whiz by almost horizontally. You can personally test for these inertia causing gravitons yourself. Place a heavy round object on a flat surface, like say your desk. Give it a shove. it will keep going even if you are no longer shoving it.
You have given the gravitons from that direction an advantage. If not for friction, your round object would go on forever same as a satellite going around the earth. Hope this helps..Alfred Herman Schrader
It doesn't. Make believe doesn't count.

phunk
2009-Oct-14, 04:49 PM
We know that Einstien's theory is wrong becuase it breaks down in the subatomic level and in the more extreme aspects of the universe. For instance, it predicts that two closely orbiting neutron stars would churn up space time and send out waves of gravity (supposedly anything that moves does the same, including your hand). They have been trying to detect gravity waves here http://www.gravity.phy.syr.edu/ for nearly 8 years at a cost of half a billion dollars and have found nothing.


The waves may be hard to detect, but I wouldn't say that's proof that Einstein is wrong. There is evidence that the waves are emitted, even if we can't detect them yet. The orbital decay of pairs of neutron stars has been measured, and agrees with the predicted loss of energy to gravitational waves.

NorthernBoy
2009-Oct-14, 09:35 PM
We are looking for the Higgs boson, not the graviton.

Well, that's not strictly true. The standard model Higgs is one of the things that we are looking for (and the one which my work was on there), but it is far from the only thing that we hope to see.

We may see evidence of supersymmetry, the constitents of dark matter, and we hope to create quark-gluon plasma too.

Edited to say sorry, I seem to be rather late with this answer.

NorthernBoy
2009-Oct-14, 09:41 PM
Never has it been seen in a detector that a particle with mass does not respond to gravitational fields. During the early days of operation of CERN/LEP it was found that the countercirculating beams would slowly drift off target, requiring the operators to make adjustments. Within a few weeks, they noticed that their constant adjustments were first in one direction then in the other...following ~28 day cycle.

Er, surely that was the flexing on the Jura caused, in part, by the shifting of Lake Geneva.

Similarly, we saw a dropoff is interactions when the TGV pulled out of Geneva station, as there was a leakage of current to earth too near the ring.

alfredschrader
2011-Oct-08, 01:26 AM
The LHC is a collider. It works by accelerating Hadrons (protons and neutrons) to high speeds, colliding them, then measuring the results.
It is difficult to use this to detect gravitons. Why ? Unlike electrons that orbit very close to an atom's nucleus, gravitons orbit at a distance away from the nucleus, though they do come close during part of their orbit. Smashing or obliterating the atomic nucleus will simply free them from the atom.
Gravitons orbit at incredible speeds, much faster than light (c).

The existence of gravitons is easily proven by their effect. Because they move faster than light, it is impossible to see them with the naked eye.
It is impossible to see air with the naked eye, but trust me air is there same as the gravitons.

Because no current visual means is available, one has to envision them as they are. If you hold a common object in your hand, like say a pencil, there are graviton particles orbiting it. Some very close to the painted surface, others a few feet round, and still others zipping out miles away and returning.

Because the Earth is made of atoms, there are trillions upon trillions of them whizzing around in circular orbits. The ones that go out into space and return, combine
in force and create the downward push we call gravity, but some don't travel out that far, and assume almost horizontal paths near the surface of the Earth. These bump from all directions and cause the force we call inertia. An object simply sitting on your desk is bumped by gravitons in this manner. If you try and push the object, the gravitons striking it resist, but once you over come this resistance, the bumping is again balanced and the object continues on even with no additional force.

A more dramatic example of this is if you throw a baseball. Once the baseball leaves your finger tips, no force is being applied, yet it continues on. It continues because gravitons are bumping it.

So, it is unlikely the LHC will find gravitons. However, you can detect them yourself by simply throwing a baseball...Alfred Schrader October 2,011

pzkpfw
2011-Oct-08, 07:25 PM
...

You've posted your personal graviton claims in Q&A before, and you should know this is not acceptable. (Your previous posts being moved to the ATM section...). Infraction given.