The Noise of Gravitons

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.

Ulla,

You speak of EM emission as being 'one ray' which I can imagine as a soliton. This actually goes back to the point of departure of quantum mechanics from the classical because there has yet to be a rationalization for the spherical spread of luminosity and the measurable linear photo-electric effect. The working definition of "a photon" is a planck multiple value per second in which intensity becomes ambiguous. Consequently the latest claim that I have run across several years ago by a lab at (if I remember correctly) the University of Maryland, had a best count result of 4 photons.

What is lacking is an understanding of the Transition Zone in the near field, and until such time as there is an accepted general consensus on how a photon can be emitted (or ejected) in a direction away from the source, we will continue to have an entirely probabilistic, mathematical methodology of where that photon might become observable. 'Onward! through the fog!' jrc

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,

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 John, your words are important, all is there about what is exactly this matter and the origin of our geometries, topologies, matters, fields, properties, we don t know really these foundamental objects and why they are , we just maybe analyse the emergent properties , it d be easier in knowing the truth about all this but unfortunally we have limitations of scales to affirm. What is the matter? hmmm I have my ideas but it is an assumption unfortunally these 3D coded spheres like the strings or points in the geometrodynamics. Regards

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