The Noise of Gravitons

Theoretically, the key to quantum gravity is in using the simple dimensions of matter, action, and quantum phase. This does mean that Science must move beyond the limitations of space and time to achieve an understanding of physical reality.

Science is so used to random noise that it does not realize how much useful information is in quantum phase noise...but it is very hard to measure quantum phase noise. Earth measurements are limited because of earth spin, but measurements in space far away from earth should finally be able to measure quantum phase noise from the gravity waves of our local cluster as well as our own galaxy.

Our sun responds to the gravity of nearby stars, but there is also an extra gravity vector force due to the coupling of star matter decays. The best measurements of gravity phase noise are LIGO and there are efforts to extract information from that noise.

Gravity wave polarization measurements are complicated since the three LIGO experiments are different orientations. The complexities of laser and interferometry polarization further complicate analysis. The ESA LISA mission will have the best chance of measuring quantum graviton phase noise...

Hi Steve, I know indeed about these methods correlated with the GR , in fact they try like I told to unify this QM and GR and many have tried like this beautiful paper of Wilczek, this paper is for me like I said about the gravitational waves and the noises correlated , but we must recognise that it is an assumption , first of all we have not found these gravitons and secondly we cannot affrim that this road is the good one to unify this QM and the spacetime.My ideas also are assumptions and I don t affrim them but between us , see that it is maybe a road to explain this quantum gravitation, I insist on the fact that the majority consider only these photons like the primoridal essence and that this GR is the only one piece of pur universal puzzle, we must recognise steve that we cannot affirm, we can tell all what we want, it is a fact , and frankly I doubt that we have only this GR at our cosmological scale to explain the things and that our standard model also is only made of encoded photons if I can say oscillating differently. The interferometry here was to prove the gravitational waves and never the gravitons, and also even the LHC or the Nasa and many accept that the gravitons are maybe not the quanta of gravitational waves, I just tell this, we cannot be sure even with the noises and the partition, it is a beautiful paper for me to rank all the noises of gravitational waves but we cannot tell that it is the noise of gravitons. So the gravitational waves phase noise yes ,m gravitons phase noises, I don t agree, I like this thinker Wilczek he is relevant but I am sure that himself he don t affrim , he tries like all to find them and prove them these gravitons, his paper is an assumption .At this moment this quantum gravitation has not been proved simply, we must recognise this,Regards

Dear Steve, imagine if My assumption superimposing these spacetimes is correct to reach the scales for this quantum gravitation and find their interactions and properties, the GR is really for me just a photonic spacetime and it is not our only one truth. The planck scale is an extrapolation and imagine if my reasoning is on the good road considering these coded 3D spheres at this planck scale and that we have these finite coded series of spheres and the 3 spacetimes superimposed . Imagine the possibilities respecting the lagrangian and Hamiltonian and a deeper interpretation of fields with the non commutativity. The values of Energy can be ranked with many properties of these series. The works of Dirac and Feynman can be improved in superimposing these spacetimes and our unknowns can be extyrapolated. We can in fact renormalise the objects, these spheres and their motions in this superfluidity of 3 aethers in a simplistic analysis. It is like a general hydrodynamics to explain the gravitational fields and electromagnetic ones and this vacuum also energetical considering the main codes. The derivatives and intergrations can be generalised with these series.The symmetries, the graphs , the renormalisations , this and that can appear at my humble opinion . We have many hidden variables and an incredible complexity of combinations. The morphisms and this non commutative spherical geometry is I can say become an universal key for me , we can utilise the products correctly with these primoridal series.Even the spectral actions become more complex and detailed with these two other spacetimes and the fields can appear with a deeper gravitational logic and our unknowns can be unified. I beleive strongly that this GR and our standard model need to consider this deeper logic of encodings and these spacetimes superimposed to really unigy the whole. Even the evolution appears , it is the meaning of my theory in fact, this spherisation optimisation of the universal sphere or furture sphere. The electronagntism and these photons are just a step but not the truth. See that the zeta Riemann function coulb be utilised in this non commutative reasoning linking the whole and these 3d finite series of Spheres. The topologies, geometries, matters ,and properties and fields and energies can be ranked at my opinion but the complexity is enormous in details. But several mathematical relevant tools superimposed can permit to make the good universal partition. All is a question of good rankings of groups simply and their interactions , many truths could appear beyond our actual standard model and GR. The fractalisations and extrapolations of dimensions and convergences with branes also can help because they oscillate and are in motion rotations also these finite series of 3D spheres in this superfluidity of 32 main spacetimes. A kind of universal spherical geometrical algebra appears even but it is too much complex for us at this moment and that implies limitations unfortunally.

3 main spacetimes, not 32 sorry, I write too quickly without rereading, regards

Dr. Agnew,

The paper takes off immediately from a premise that detection of a massless helicity-two particle being evidence of the exitance of gravitons. Do you concur with that and in what regard to 'matter, action &quantum phase'. Also is a helicity-two particle meant by definition to be a 4pi rotation of quantum spin states? thanx j

there is no proof John simply, nor about the gravitons proved nor about the fact that they are the quanta of gravitational waves, it is a beautiful paper but it is an assumption, no proof in this paper about what is the quantum gravitation and about the unification of the GR and the QM, the massless helicity is not the problem, the photons are massless also and they oscillate , and thew quantum phases are not the proofs , and also what they consider like foundamental objects in this reasoning, points or strings , branes and why ?

Steve Agnew told that there is no reason to go beyond the actual standard model and beyond this GR , it is also an assumption, maybe not or maybe yes we go farer, it d be odd for me to consider only these phiotons like the primordial essence, we cannot affirm these things with our limitations in knowledges, even einstein recognised this, he said that there is probably a deeper logic to superimpose, so the problem of the majority of thinkers is to consider only this GR and these photons, that is why I insist on the fact they are a prison, but it is just my opinion, I don t affirm, I just extrapolate and have assumptions, it is not prohebited to try to go deeper like it is not prohebited to try to unify just this GR and this QM,

John, Steve, Like I am not only focused on my own works, I discussed on face with the Team of Klee Irwin of the quantum gravity research , Lisi, Ray Ascheem, Davide Chester, Fang Fang and others work in this team and they are focused mainly on this E8 and they recognise that it is not sufficient and they consider algebras beyond this E8, the E8 for them does not describe fully the 3 generations and they focused on the problem of Distler and Garibaldi , Witten also helps in this road to converge with the branes , strings. I love Connes and I study his works in details but for them Connes has forgotten the non associativity and they consider this in the E8 , they like my spheres and told me that thje membranes and spheres indeed could converge, but it is not easy to find the real universal puzzle with these 3 main spacetimes superimposed . I beleive that you could love their ideas and algebras added to this E8, regards

Here is my equation improved hypothetical considering the 3 main spacetimes and the transformations energy matters, it is intuitive , we considered just the relativity so we had E=mc^2, but if this quantum gravitation, anti matter and cold dark matter are correlated so we have a deeper logic, and we can add their linear velocity more a parameter correlated with the cold Xl^2 and if we consider the Dark energy like an anti gravitational push, spherical and that we consider it like the main codes for the vacuum energetical, so we can add Y to have still more energy, that implies so this equation intuitive, E=m(c^2+Xl^2)+Y , we have more energy that we thought simply , of course it is intuitive and we must find these parameters but it is maybe on the good road. If this equation is correct , it is revolutionary but we must prove of course and find the roads to check it.

Gravitation is shown to be an emergent classical phenomenon. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.05574

How is the gravitation described as a gauge group OUTSIDE U(1)? Does it mean the graviton contains it all? How is the noise separated?

Ulla.

Ulla,

That goes to my question of what is meant by a "massess helicity-two particle"; as referred to in the first paragraph of the article 'The noise of Gravitons' by Parikh, Wilczek & Zahariade. The attendant footnote is for a 1963 Feynman paper, 'Quantum theory of gravitation', which I have not hunted up and was hoping someone with greater familiarity with the long history of Quantum Mechanics could give a concise statement of the contention by the authors and a description of how 'helicity-two' is treated geometrically and analytically. The opening premise of the article is broadly sweeping in that it literally says, "Feynman famously showed" that 'consistency in the quantum mechanics of a massless helicity-two particle leads one to Einstein gravity'. So I am just seeking some clarification.

My personal preferences of paradigms differs from the articles approach, but that's not the issue. The article won first place in the Gravity Research Foundation's 2020 contest so if that is a preferred direction in that organization's inquiries, it would be good to understand more of the thinking that drives it. Other than that, I think it is always necessary that clear consensus on definition of terms be accepted, so while I am most accustomed to speaking of a rotation of two full circular turns as "4pi" and a "spin two" meaning the additive 1/2 pi = 90 degree methodology in the spin coordinate system adding up to a single full circular rotation, I am wondering if 'Helicity-two' means a non-zero torque of two full axial rotations giving a 4pi spinor state restoration of the initial polarity.

Ulla,

Expanding on my previous post, and taking that as how I read the article; if you follow what they present in the way of blanket statements of functions integrating over partial differentials ( perhaps mimicking the forms in the complexities of GR ) it seems that what the authors are attempting in argument to do is to 'split' the 4pi spinor state into two 2pi events at a distance so that the electromagnetic opposing polarities would equate as gravitational attraction.

I do not attempt to take "particle" literally in quantum mechanics, QM was never intended to be the least bit realistic. 'Exchange particles' only make sense to me if I treat the term to mean more like "an integral partial value" of some prescribed effect associated with a presumed material point. I watched a good PBS program on the invention of alphabets in which it was pointed out that the great innovative leap that took communication from pictographs to sound symbols was the very human amusement in making puns. So even with the Higgs I don't try to envision realistic particles quantum mechanically, I see them more like "partial calls" jrc

First of all Singh's paper shows only that the very complex Lie group of SO(4) has many of the expected properties of gravitons, but that is very far from proving that gravity is an emergent classical phenomenon. The trivial U(1) group is just one dimension of Singh's 8D octanion graviton (see attachment).

The important question to ask is how can any measurement ever show a reality of 8 dimensions when we only really have 4D space and time? My opinion is that the math is interesting, but really not that useful for describing the rather simple reality of matter, action, and quantum phase. This is after all just a simple SO(3) Lie group that is noncommutative, but also includes gravity as anticommutative. Science assumes gravity is commutative since spin = 2 gravitons are not part of gravity relativity. Of course, spin = 2 gravitons are actually anticommutative, but that is a different story.

Anticommutative is also noncommutative, but in action and matter, not space and time. This means that quantum gravity uncertainties manifest themselves as uncertainties in matter and action, not location and momentum as in quantum charge.

Graviton noise is the key to understanding physical reality and is something that Science can and does measure. However, in the ocean of electromagnetic noise on earth, gravity noise is very difficult to measure as shown by LIGO. Even at Lagrange 2, LISA had a very hard time measuring gravity noise, but of course it was not meant to measure gravity noise. The next LISA will actually measure gravity noise, and so that will be exciting.

The cosmic microwave background is also an example of gravity noise along with electromagnetic noise, but the gravity noise is ambiguous at large angles of correlation due to the limits of electromagnetic noise in the measurement. Future missions far away from earth will push the noise limits of that CMB and that will be exciting as well...Attachment #1: 2020singhLieGroup.JPG

The gravitons first of all must be proved and found in our standard model and at this moment it is not the case, and like I told, the BB is an assumption interesting with thw CMB but we cannot affirm that we have not a deeper logic , the antiverse like you told also is a pure assumption not proved with an anti BB and finally the noises of gravitational waves cannot affirm that it is the nnoise of gravitons because if all what I told is correct, so the gravitons are not the quanta of gravitational waves, we are indeed at an exciting moment but nobody can affirm nor prove , we just have assumptions and ideas even if the vanity is there and that all we are persuaded. Sorry it is a fact even if that irritates .The future missions and experiments are to find these gravitons and prove them in pour standard model, after we shall have their properties and there we coyuld conclude, now we have just assumptions with or without the approvements of persons persuaded. It is like this that the sciences act ,regards

The hypothetical graviton should be fundamental and a scalar. No diffuse graviton does not do it.

Ulla.

The spin = 2 graviton questions are interesting, but note that all quantum spin has the property of taking 4 pi rotation and so this is not just a property of spin = 2 particles like gravitons. There are in fact many spin = 2 atoms and molecules and of course, two photons also form a spin = 2 particle whenever they are coincident.

Feynman simply showed that a hypothetical graviton would necessarily show spin = 2 angular momentum or helicity. The massless notion is akin to a massless photon, but that means rest mass since the graviton would still carry momentum just like a photon. Note that in quantum matter action just like all quantum action, a rotation of 4 pi is equivalent to a quantum phase shift of 4 pi. In space and time, Science uses spinors or dirac matrices to represent spin since that spin is a separable coordinate from location and momentum. In matter action, of course quantum phase is also separable as a third orthogonal coordinate of SO(3).

Here are selected comments that have to do with graviton spin:

Dr. Agnew,

The paper takes off immediately from a premise that detection of a massless helicity-two particle being evidence of the existence of gravitons. Do you concur with that and in what regard to 'matter, action & quantum phase'. Also is a helicity-two particle meant by definition to be a 4 pi rotation of quantum spin states?

thanx j

John,

can the helicity in a spin2 particle(a solitonic character) be seen as a quantization in itself? In a way the em-force is also such because it requires two rotations to come back to the same orientation.

Ulla.

Ulla,

That goes to my question of what is meant by a "massless helicity spin two particle"; as referred to in the first paragraph of the article 'The noise of Gravitons' by Parikh, Wilczek & Zahariade. The attendant footnote is for a 1963 Feynman paper, 'Quantum theory of gravitation', which I have not hunted up and was hoping someone with greater familiarity with the long history of Quantum Mechanics could give a concise statement of the contention by the authors and a description of how 'helicity-two' is treated geometrically and analytically. The opening premise of the article is broadly sweeping in that it literally says, "Feynman famously showed" that 'consistency in the quantum mechanics of a massless helicity-two particle leads one to Einstein gravity'. So I am just seeking some clarification.

My personal preferences of paradigms differs from the article's approach, but that's not the issue. The article won first place in the Gravity Research Foundation's 2020 contest so if that is a preferred direction in that organization's inquiries, it would be good to understand more of the thinking that drives it. Other than that, I think it is always necessary that clear consensus on definition of terms be accepted, so while I am most accustomed to speaking of a rotation of two full circular turns as "4 pi" and a "spin two" meaning the additive 1/2 pi = 90 degree methodology in the spin coordinate system adding up to a single full circular rotation, I am wondering if 'Helicity-two' means a non-zero torque of two full axial rotations giving a 4 pi spinor state restoration of the initial polarity.

Ulla,

Expanding on my previous post, and taking that as how I read the article; if you follow what they present in the way of blanket statements of functions integrating over partial differentials ( perhaps mimicking the forms in the complexities of GR ) it seems that what the authors are attempting in argument to do is to 'split' the 4pi spinor state into two 2pi events at a distance so that the electromagnetic opposing polarities would equate as gravitational attraction.

I do not attempt to take "particle" literally in quantum mechanics, QM was never intended to be the least bit realistic. 'Exchange particles' only make sense to me if I treat the term to mean more like "an integral partial value" of some prescribed effect associated with a presumed material point. I watched a good PBS program on the invention of alphabets in which it was pointed out that the great innovative leap that took communication from pictographs to sound symbols was the very human amusement in making puns. So even with the Higgs I don't try to envision realistic particles quantum mechanically, I see them more like "partial calls" jrc

we know all this Steve , we search a particle , and what I tell is simple, we have not found it and we cannot affirm that they are the quanta of gravitational waves and that the real secret is to unify the QM and the GR but apparently I speak in the wind , you seem persuaded that they are photons oscillating differently and the helicity is not the problem, the aim is not to repeat things known to explain them, the real interest is to first of all prove them with mathematical proofs and after we know the properties and there we can see if they are correlated with this GR, at this moment we don t know. I repeat even Einstein said that he was not sure that the GR was the only one piece of puzzle. So in conclusion I love Wilczek and I find him very relevant , he is smart but himself I am sure he recognises that his paper is an assumption, in fact he has won because his paper the noise of gravitons was the best in all the papers because it is a good idea but it is not proved, in fact he has won due to a beautiful idea simply, not for a proof, we don t know what are these gravitons and what are their properties. All the papers that this institute have received were all assumptions and they have chosen the best assumption with the best general idea and the best partition, but it is not a reason to be sure, the difference is there. We don t need lessons about what they are probably respecting the stadard model, we need to prove them first of all and nobody has renormalised and quantified them at this moment, is it difficult to understand ? Regards

lol and for the spin, this angular momentum different than the orbital one , see that the 3D spheres become relevant, odd that the standard model utilises these rotations but have not thought about 3D spheres like foundamental objects and that they have considered the fields like origin of our geometries, I insist on the fact that this 3D coded spheres are foundamental , it seems logic and if we utilise the spin it could be well to correlate with these 3D psheres and the series that I explained,well so the spin are vectors but let be simple, the rotations of 3D psheres become important and even this thermo, the spin 2 tells us an important thing, it is different than the others , that is why not only the senses of rotations become important but the angles probably more the cold at my opinion. I beleive strongly that these spin 2 gravitational momemtum permit to balance a thing that we don t know still, that is why this cold dark matter becomes inmportant being encoded in nuclei.In fact this gravitation permits like the anti matter, the cold dark matter to balance the actual spin 1 and 1/2 that is why these distance must be changed to respect the newtoniam mechanics and reach , quantify it ,and renormalise it, in fact it is not the gravitation wich is emergent but our actual standard model in logic, all this is an assumption, but be sure that converges I have calculated. The angles of 3D rotating oscillating spheres ......we can rank simply.

In fact Ulla if my reasoning is on the good road with these 3 main finite series having this dirac large number and the same than our cosmological finite series of 3D spheres, that becomes relevant for the rankings, there are so many things to add , not only the spin and other of our standard models, but many others properties if we have the vacuum for the main codes and these two fuels, you imagine the complexity of combinations , already the volumes, the angles, the densities, the exchanges this and that wowww it is infinite in combinations in fact