The Noise of Gravitons

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

Steve Agbew:

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.

This is electrogravity`?

And note that it is not anticommutative as you said it must be. This is why I asked about the U(1) as not electromagnetic, hence outside the construct. It must clearly contain both noise and waves, I think.

In fact the gravitation is mostly NOT a wave, coming from an SR reaction, seen as a masschange, to note.

Are your try to do a split like that an octonionic try? You should note that gravitation is so much more weak than most other forces. To hunt a possible graviton in the noise alone looks hopeless. G is seen as a continuum. Ulla.

Ulla,

I won't speak for Doc Agnew, he has a career of QM at his disposal. But in wading through this on my own, I would have to argue that splitting the 4pi rotation between two 2pi events at a distance would be both anti-commutative and non-commutative in topological treatment. I'm keeping in mind that if (Maxwell) we accept a light velocity magnitude of intensity difference between the electrostatic and magnetostatic field strength in a point charge; then we can also assume a similar proportional difference between the magnetic and gravitational intensities. So algebraically there would be that non-commutative matrix result in the absolute values at any distance and it could well be treated as anti-commutative in that there would be a reversal of sign from one field location to the other.jrc

note: at the top of page 2 of the paper...."(with some additional simplifying assumptions, such as restricting to one polarization)" and focusing on one of two modes of freely falling masses.

This is really fun...and I thought that no one cared about graviton noise. There are really good arguments for octanions because of symmetry, but matter action as SO(3) also agrees with the spin = 2 graviton. Since there are far fewer parameters in 3 dimensions as opposed to 8 dimensions, Occam's razor argues for matter action, not octanions.

Noise is the next frontier of physics, not high energy collisions...Science just does not realize it yet. Note that gravity is a dispersive force (i.e. always attractive) and dipole-dipole em dispersive force is also always attractive, but with a 1/r^6 dependence. This means that at about 20 nm or so, the gravity force between two photons equals the em dispersive attraction, but gravity is 1/r^2 and so takes over after 20 nm or so.

This has important consequences for continuous spontaneous localization and the collapse of wavefunctions by graviton noise. Gravitons as biphotons must anticommutate and it is true that a photon emissions from our creation are very, very weak. Nevertheless, creation photons have phase correlation with our atoms and it is by quantum phase correlation that measurements detect gravitons.

So for instance, the CMB is a power spectrum, but could be a phase spectrum with a more sophisticated measurement in space. Science knows this and wants to get more phase data to complement the intensity data. Such CMB phase data will be mind boggling at large angles and show the dispersion or gravitons at the CMB creation.

This all start to look like numerology. I just discuss with Bruno Marshal about consciousness, and he says numbers code for consciousness, so... there is some primitive information about the ontology of what a number is.

Gravitation is about the inverse of Dirac Large numbers compared to em-force. What could possibly be a common point in that case? It is not only about a sqrt. oscillation. This is also why I asked about an U outside the normal em-related U(1). What is the action of this U(?)?

If I understood your figure right you relate U_em to colors alone? This I cannot understand. There has been some efforts to relate gravitation and strong force however. They are both an eightfold symmetry as instance... only that gravitation is so much bigger.

This place this statement of yours in a big ???

"Gravitons as biphotons must anticommutate and it is true that a photon emissions from our creation are very, very weak. Nevertheless, creation photons have phase correlation with our atoms and it is by quantum phase correlation that measurements detect gravitons."

Gravitons are not biphotons, what I can understand. This was the thought when the Higgs boson was found with digammas, that it could be a graviton, but it was found not to be, not even that important actually, even if it is the only scalar we have seen. We still does not have the massivation clues. Not even the Higgs field is understood. Now you want to add a new 'gravitational field as a digamma? How is it quantized? It cannot be a normal differential equation?

In the simulations with Joseph Kover we got a one ray transformation as the first transformation. I want to see it as a Weyl thing, or a Majorana fermion, where we have one ray only. Joseph talked of a BH at the very center... like Hawking in his positron capture maybe? So how is the creation depending on phase, exactly? This can be interesting also for Steve D. and his spherisation. He claims there must be something at the center ruling it all.

Ulla.

Can the Fibonnaci sequences be something that can relate? It looks a bit like chaos. Or ether? A continuum.

Also the small variability in G must be taken into account. It is not all about waves or not waves? Also the noise is much other things than different kinds of gravitation.

You see Zeeya how much fun there is in graviton noise...here is the CMB spectrum that shows a great deal of uncertainty at low angular momentum or low L, which is high angle correlation. In fact, a phase sensitive CMB measurement would reveal the large angle correlations that represent gravitons.

The matter-action CMB has a very different and fun interpretation for the same measurement. At the CMB creation, hydrogen condenses from a fraction of the aether. The balance of aether remains as most of the matter in the universe and the hydrogen collapses from the size of the universe to the size of an atom.

Today, matter-action hydrogen continues to collapse at the universal rate, but is difficult to measure since force grows at the same rate as matter collapses.Attachment #1: 2020cmb.JPG

It is indeed Funny but the sciences are not really a fun game even if the persons want to have fun, it is important to be rational and doubt , the CMB is a reality for the Big Bang theory taking the electromagntic radiation like a relic if I can say , but how can we affirm that all this is the real primordial origin, we cannot confound the things. In fact even if the Big Bang can be a kind of reality we cannot affirm that it is the main primordial origin, I don t understand how it is possible that the thinkers cannot consider a deeper logic before having permited a kind of BB wich is in fact a diffusion of electromagntic waves and photons, it is not really an explosion it is more than this and before we need a cause creating this. That implies that the primordial gravitational waves are just waves photonic and don t prove nor the gravitons nor the fact that this GR is the only one piece of puzzle, you see well all that we cannot explain in this reasoning the DM and the DE , and I don t find the necessity to modify this newtonian mechanics to explain this DM, we need a balance for our baryonic matters, the matter action hydrogen is not the problem , but what we have before this BB and how and why explaing the unknowns.

The CMB light is our only measurable creation event and the CMB light could be from a big bang and therefore 3000 K red-shifted to 2.7 K in an expanding universe of constant force...or the CMB light could be 0.7 K light, blue-shifted to 2.7 K from a collapsing matter growing force matter action universe.

We can only really know what we measure...it is the model that tells us the precursors...

Okay...so now spin = 2 is no longer an issue for a graviton, right? There now seems to be a bunch of things...

The Fibonacci sequence does create a spiral of square tiles with the same pitch as that of our galaxy spirals, so that is fun.

Of course, an anticorrelated spin = 2 biphoton does exist for each hydrogen atom as the superposition of its bonding exchange photon with its CMB light emitted from when that hydrogen bond formed. So that should not be contentious but certainly associating that biphoton dispersion with gravity is sweet because the matter-action math works. That is, gravity scales from charge with the size of the universe just as Dirac large numbers hypothesis.

The figure that I posted for U(1) came from that Singh paper for the octanion SO(4). It was not my figure, but it is a nice picture explanation of the complex octanion math.

Okay, the challenge below is a good one for matter action. Photons are the exchange glue that binds all matter together and so an emitted photon is never really free of either its precursor or its outcome. In fact they are in a quantum superposition with correlated phases.

From photon bonding events with an observer, we deduce that there are many other possible bonding events with this same photon precursor. From the relative phase and energy of an observer bond with a precursor emerges both space and time. Photon bonding gives meaning to the notion of both space and time and so the meaning of "spherical spread" emerges from those photon bonds, not the other way around.

The linear photoelectric effect is just a trivial matter of energy balance from a broad spectrum of possible oscillators. A single atom, of course, has a well-defined photon energy and can actually be transform limited...

"...because there has yet to be a rationalization for the spherical spread of luminosity and the measurable linear photo-electric effect."

Okay Doc,

you state: "Photons are the exchange glue that binds all matter together and so an emitted photon is never really free of either its precursor or its outcome."

That is a circular argument that neglects to say how that physically can happen without Newton's mysterious attractive force being actively existential to balance the exchange of momentum. Otherwise a loss of momentum by the electron transferred to the proton of a simple hydrogen atom would only change the (presumed) velocity of the electron. Superposition is an ad hoc artifice that skates over the void in understanding of how the physical spatial direction of an emitted photon is determined by the peculiar measured decay rates of intensities in the Transition Zone of the Near Field, and how the shape of that Near Field is dependent on the response to exchange of energy, of the real full field that constitutes a typical (not necessarily uniform) particle.

The quest for a Quantum theory of gravity persists in trying to force gravity to accept that reality is made of pieces parts that go bump in the night. That may well account for noise but does nothing to unify gravity and electromagnetism. Gravitons are not only hypothetical, they are ad hoc propter hoc. jrc

Ulla and Steve D.,

Would you concur that to stipulate matter, action and quantum phase as being the primary constituents of all physical phenomenon, requires a concise definition of what constitutes matter? What determines its boundaries? What are those bounds? What physical properties must it entail to be called "matter" and what observable characteristics do those properties display? How can they ontologically be differentiated while still being dynamically interactive in maintaining the integrity of the discrete matter phase?

Then we might be able to qualify action as quantum phase changes. What's the matter? jrc

John,

You speak of EM emission as being 'one ray' which I can imagine as a soliton.

I said it is the first transformation that is 'kicked' so I thought of the Majorana lepton, but it can also be other things. A BH should have two rays, or the biphoton.

In theory there can be many Higgses too, remember. Is the so called Higgs field also a gravitational field? It should be. There you get the biphotons.

A monopole can be a one ray, if it is much skewed, just as the sandwitch-effect in chaos theory. We also simulated this, and also the Aalto people found it. Then you need an outer field-effect. It is solitonic maybe?

Ulla.

Sarfatti also talked of near-field effects, but it is something I must learn better. It can tell about interference maybe? Is this near-field not quantized? But even so the difference between gravitation and em-force is much bigger.

If you can show me how the near-field would be a solution I would be glad.

Ulla,