The Noise of Gravitons

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,

Ulla,

you can of course 'wiki' Near Field and Far Field as an introduction which is very abbreviated, it is a complex area of investigation but generally technological rather than theoretical.

Briefly, for all that is stated as 'knowns' in the interminable debate of whether EMR is a wave or a particle, the ONLY direct observation of electro-magnetic radiation is at the receiving end of a signal. That is done by measuring the change of intensity of the electric field and magnetic field in the first two wavelengths of any frequency in the immediate proximity of the receiving antennae. That is the Transition Zone in which the electric and magnetic fields settle down to a more or less homogeneously uniform configuration, called the Far Field, wherein the intensity of both fall off at the rate of inverse square of distance which is assumed to carry through the entire distance of transmission. And theoretically, that is assumed to extend the signal to infinity. Here again, that is hypothetical because we only actually observe the changing intensities in near proximity to some sort of antennae. So you see the problem that exists theoretically due to the physical limits of observing systems.

Where it gets interesting is in the distance from the antennae that is approximately equal to one wavelength, and termed the Near Field, which physically displays two distinct regions, one called the 'radiative' and extends across most of the wavelength, and the 'reactive' which is the nearest to the antennae and is roughly 1/2pi lambda; or about 0.159 the distance of the wavelength. More about that region in a moment.

Here is what is intriguing about the Near Field. While the electric field strength falls off at an inverse square rate as would be expected, the magnetic field strength falls of at an inverse CUBE rate! And in the reactive region there is a confusion of fields where the intensity falls off at an inverse exponential rate!

Now... when you consider it from the perspective of Maxwell's determination that the associated electric and magnetic field strengths in a point charge (such as a stationary needle point that is electrified) have intensities that differ by a light velocity proportion, it should immediately become obvious that if an EM signal was stopped instantly by the antennae, that proportional difference would vaporize the antennae! So the Near Field gives us clues to what happens. And that must be that the signal slows exponentially from light velocity when encountering the electromagnetic field of the atomic matter comprising the antennae, and as the energy of (for want of a more definitive word) photon 'stacks up' on its self as the leading edge slows, the magnetic field intensifies by virtue of increasing density to become undifferentiated from the electric field in both intensity (density) and differentiation of characteristic effect. This also suggests that energy density varies in direct inverse proportion to velocity, and may provide a theoretical means of mathematically obtaining an absolute velocity without violating the neutral centrality of SR.

What applies to the modeling of exchange particles, is that given the energies that would need be transferred at inner atomic distances, the wavelengths would have to be at the gamma end of the frequency spectrum, because if 'photons' are to be the exchange particles, their Near Field of that transfer exchange would be equivalent to the distance of ~one wavelength for that frequency.

Sorry to be so long in the tooth with this but it does get rather complicated. jrc

Ulla and Doc Agnew,

The near field offers some interesting opportunities for phasing between discrete matter phase constituents of atomic structure, without requiring a foregone conclusion that a matter phase is continuously in existence at any one place or in motion. Conceivable, an electron mass might percolate out of an energy phase given favorable conditions.

So the reactive region which would be ~0.159 the distance of the equivalent wavelength for a frequency value photon could conceivably be modeled as a bulge on a discrete matter phase particle, and be constituted of the energy quantity that would be commensurate with the value of a photon for the respective 'quantum leap' of an electron between energy orbital shell levels. This suggestion would allow a much more forgiving range of possible wavelengths. It is also interesting that the orthogonal 1/2 pi angle finds a complimentarity in the 1/2 pi reactive region proportion of the wavelength, and modeling 'a bulge' as the genesis of a photon would perhaps shape the whole near field to 'wrap around' the locale of the 'outcome'. That suggests a physical realization of Euler's Formula where x=pi evaluates to Euler's Identity. The near field collapsing volume might account for the electro-magnetic domain and the second wavelength of the transition zone would 'wrap' as the local gravitational domain. That might model well as the physical vehicle that precurses the outcome of a time dependent quantum leap.

If you'll pardon the brain-storm. jrc

Hi Steve, I agree about these informations, we measure this indeed but maybe we have a deeper logic that we cannit still measure , it is just this that I tell, we must recognise that our knowledges, technologies are limited , we have only 100 years on relativity and revolutions in physics, we could be surprised to know all the truths added to this. The precursors have well worked and they have permited to improve their works but probably that we must add an ocean of things . Regards

Steve(s)

The Dark Debate, matter and energy, has revived questions on the reverse engineering of GR as it now stands. It is worthy of note that GR is recognized to be an incomplete theory, even Einstein acknowledged so. While the current census argues for red-shifting in an expanding universe, there is also Hoyle who had gracefully bowed out of the socio-politically inspired embrace of 'The Big Bang'. But I think it is only proper to hold the door open for Hoyle's hypothesis that existence is continuously coming into being and that includes the creation of more space, time and energy driving the expansion. The Bondi, Gold, Hoyle continuous creation universe has been calculated to estimate that to match observation, only one hydrogen atom per year would need to condensed in a billion liters of space. That would be highly probabilistic to detect. But it could model as that condensation being a contraction of space but less than the expansion driven by the tension of spacetime being the origin of energy. jrc

A pure classicist...this is fun. Usually people invoke some semiclassical axioms about particles and waves, but a purely classical description of a particle is vary rare.

Quantum matter definitions are very straightforward as wavefunctions, but the classical edge of a particle is an infinitesimal singularity that makes no sense at all. Even billiard balls are not perfectly smooth and atoms are not smooth and electrons do not even have a classical radius at all, just a charge radius.

Matter action observable matter begins at the CMB when a small fraction of the aether condenses into electrons and protons and then atoms. This freeze out is kinetic and occurs when charge force reaches a limit, which differentiates gravity from charge in the CMB. More sensitive CMB polarization phase measurements in the future at wider angles should better show the collapse of aether into atoms.

Each matter-action matter particle is not really static and undergoes continous exchange with the aether that is the mass of about 97% of the universe. Note that aether does not really fill space, but rather space emerges from the action of observable matter.

It is not clear how you explain neutrinos classically at all, but maybe you do have a way. Neutrinos are really perturbations of aether that comprise a background along with gravity waves, which are just another perturbation of aether. We are also bathed in the CMB background of 2.7 K photons, which of course are also just a perturbation of aether.

Thanks Doc,

This is kind of fun. Permit me to use a familiar moniker to distinguish between Steve Dufourny and yourself. We have drifted out of sight of the article's arguments which I personally find more mathematical for the sake of math, than physical.

As for "the classical edge of a particle is an infinitesimal singularity"; that is true enough for the usual models which actually invariably result in a wave model of matter, rather than a static (unperturbed) Zero to 2.76K rest state. But from what I've seen, that is the result of attempting to account for the distribution of (aether) energy in accord with inverse square law using differential calculus which results in a feedback loop at the edge boundary. Its also a messy, cumbersome and ultimately arbitrary way of limiting iterations. My own classical particle edge finds a finite limit on a single pole of exponential rate of density variation within upper and lower bounds, and reaches an inertially bound minimum that is equal to the aetherial density, So we actually find independent agreement in paradigms where the quantized particle is continuously interactive with the greater aetherial space. jrc

Interesting that you use aether exchange to fuzz particles, which is very similar to matter action.

An atom in an excited state has an oscillating EM field that is as you say dipolar, not spherical of course. There are states that are quadrupolar and even higher polar, but just keep it dipolar. The only meaning to a free photon is one that binds that atom to another atom in a coherent superposition. You are right when you say this is circular in the sense that that excited state can collapse back to the precursor or to the outcome atom. However, that excited atom is not going to stay excited and eventually will collapse.

You are also right to wonder about when momentum transfer occurs, but that is equivalent to worrying about when wavefunction collapse occurs.

Ground state atoms still oscillate and that is the source of dispersive force, which is dipole-induced dipole. Dispersive em force has good classical meaning, but falls off as 1/R^6. Beyond a certain radius, the 1/r^2 dispersive force of gravity then takes over, which is the source of graviton noise.

Now we are back to the theme of this article. The oscillation of a ground-state atom is normally incoherent except for the very important creation photon. The phase of the creation photon is still anticorrelated with the ground-state atom oscillation, but the creation photon is now at the universe radius and so gravity dispersion is only 1e-39th of that of charge.

Doc

1^-39th is in my ballpark also. What are your thoughts on my posts to Ulla's query about Near Field effects, down a couple threads.

The near field versus far field for a photon is very interesting and quite complex as you so aptly show and the Wiki pic also shows. At long radio wavelengths, single photons are quite large but radio waves usually come from a coherent motion of electrons in a macroscopic antenna. So the near field is a superposition of a very large number of electron fields and therefore photons and the antenna radiation is not yet "free". In the far field, the antenna becomes a point source and the waves then coherent and dipolar.

The near field is simply affected by multipoles and not yet a dipole field.

It is better to focus on a nice radiowave like the hydrogen atom 21 cm line at 1.4 GHz. This is a spin-flip transition that is highly forbidden and has a 10 million year half-life. How can such a large 21 cm single photon come from such a tini-tiny hydrogen atom 0.1 nm and yet the radiowave comes from 4.8e-9 size electron cloud.

The near field for a hydrogen is now defined relative to the size of the hydrogen atom and there are also multipolar effects for this near field. This transition can be observed as part of a maser and so the near field can actually be measured in a hydrogen maser.

Gravity is due to the far field effects of single photons, so once again, the far field gets us back to graviton noise. Graviton noise is the noise of ground-state atom oscillations ever since CMB creation...Attachment #1: nearFieldFarField.JPG

All good points,

Perhaps we have to look in gravitational aggregate for the genesis of the 21 cm photon, which generally is classed in the microwave range. And perhaps this would go to Brownian Motion in the granular size of magnetic domains that tend to isolate to a degree that in ferrous substrates they can be macroscopically measured.

I'm continuing to get a better handle on your 'contracting model' and see how you would correlate space as the emergent condition from aether (which I treat as the lowest density range of energy). Once you study the geometric properties of an idealized sphere incorporating a continuous variation of density distribution, rather than some variation of sphere packing, you quickly find that without postulating an upper density bound proportional to the total quantity of aether inertially frozen out of coherence, the density would go to infinity at zero point center and at some mathematical singularity require the whole isolate total quantity to constitute that singular material point. There-in lies the incompleteness of GR which treats mass density as a simple average of the whole. ergo; Big Bang, Black Holes etc.

However, an empirical upper density bound limits that condition and we find that if the greatest density goes to zero point center, it will require a small but significantly greater amount of the total quantity in distribution, than would be required if the greatest density was constant across a theoretically derived tiny core volume. Hence, the lower limit boundary would be slightly larger for a condensate with a finite constant density core, than for one modeled on a zero point center density. That seems backwards, but the quantitative analysis is really cool. jrc

I just checked. The reactive region of a 21cm near field wavelength would be in the ballpark of the gravitational diameter on an excited free electron modeled on the exponential density distribution rationale I use, So the conventional rationale of the ground state electron in superposition on the proton in a hydrogen atom producing a 21cm photon may not be that physically inexplicable. jrc