Graviton? Or no graviton?

[StarCruiser]

Not sure if this is just "whistling Dixie" so to speak but, here goes...

What if there is no graviton?

Gravity is considered one of the weakest of all of the fundamental forces. Science has been trying to find out why and has been trying to find the graviton - the supposed carrier of that force.

We know the HIggs Boson is believed to be the carrier of Mass in matter. It's believed to have been found some years back at the LHC.

The Gluon (another Boson) is the likely carrier for the Strong Nuclear Force.

The Z and W Bosons are believed to be the carrier for the Weak Nuclear Force.

But, what if there is no graviton. What if 'gravity' - which is often compared to acceleration was, in fact, actually just the contraction of Space-Time itself? This, in turn, imparting acceleration (hence that similarity) due to that contraction.

This may also mean that "Dark Energy" is literally just Space-Time expanding since ... maybe there's nothing 'applying the brakes'.

Basically - Space-Time and Vacuum energy are the core of everything. This is the foundation of all of creation. Big Bang (or Big Bounce) happens, and for a short moment that's all that exists so, Space-Time expands at ludicrous speed (because there are no brakes yet) and then Photons, Gluons, Electrons (etc.) start condensing and the brakes are being applied.

Where are these particles coming from? Vacuum energy itself. On that front, science has an issue with there not being enough Vacuum Energy in Space-Time (based on guesstimates) so, where is the rest? All around us and in us. Everything in creation is made of various condensed forms of Vacuum Energy.

Space-Time's response to any significant drop in local Vacuum Energy is to contract - imparting what we sense as gravity. However, if there is enough (or enough concentration) of Vacuum Energy, Space-Time expands. Not anywhere near the rate of expansion at the beginning but still...

This would, of course bury the Hubble Constant, along with Dark Energy and probably Dark Matter as well. All of the oddities and inconsistencies in our observations would probably be simple due to the variation in density of Vacuum Energy in any region we are observing.

This may also explain why gravity does seem to be weak but, able to reach across the entire Universe.

 

[publiusr]

That’s above my pay grade.

I think Neal Turok’s bunch at the Perimeter Institute might be the ones to ask. You might say I suffer from dyscalcula

The Cosmoquest Forum perhaps

Questions on the cosmos
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4413/1

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Not sure if this is just "whistling Dixie" so to speak but, here goes...

What if there is no graviton?

Gravity is considered one of the weakest of all of the fundamental forces. Science has been trying to find out why and has been trying to find the graviton - the supposed carrier of that force.

We know the HIggs Boson is believed to be the carrier of Mass in matter. It's believed to have been found some years back at the LHC.

The Gluon (another Boson) is the likely carrier for the Strong Nuclear Force.

The Z and W Bosons are believed to be the carrier for the Weak Nuclear Force.

But, what if there is no graviton. What if 'gravity' - which is often compared to acceleration was, in fact, actually just the contraction of Space-Time itself? This, in turn, imparting acceleration (hence that similarity) due to that contraction.

This may also mean that "Dark Energy" is literally just Space-Time expanding since ... maybe there's nothing 'applying the brakes'.

Basically - Space-Time and Vacuum energy are the core of everything. This is the foundation of all of creation. Big Bang (or Big Bounce) happens, and for a short moment that's all that exists so, Space-Time expands at ludicrous speed (because there are no brakes yet) and then Photons, Gluons, Electrons (etc.) start condensing and the brakes are being applied.

Where are these particles coming from? Vacuum energy itself. On that front, science has an issue with there not being enough Vacuum Energy in Space-Time (based on guesstimates) so, where is the rest? All around us and in us. Everything in creation is made of various condensed forms of Vacuum Energy.

Space-Time's response to any significant drop in local Vacuum Energy is to contract - imparting what we sense as gravity. However, if there is enough (or enough concentration) of Vacuum Energy, Space-Time expands. Not anywhere near the rate of expansion at the beginning but still...

This would, of course bury the Hubble Constant, along with Dark Energy and probably Dark Matter as well. All of the oddities and inconsistencies in our observations would probably be simple due to the variation in density of Vacuum Energy in any region we are observing.

This may also explain why gravity does seem to be weak but, able to reach across the entire Universe.

You are not the first person to suggest that Gravity is not fundamentally quantizable and so it does not have a force carrier boson. Nor are you the first to suggest that fundamental constants such as those in the Standard Model might vary across the cosmos. My suspicion is that the space-time that we experience and measure is emergent from some other realm such as the one described by Stephen Wolfram in this video:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Wolfram might not be correct but it does seem like an interesting avenue to explore. I know people are very stuffy about such notions, dismissing them because it seems like each era tries to interpret the universe in terms of contemporary technology. In the steam age we had thermodynamics and in the computer age we have information. Of course, we know that thermodynamics is fundamentally linked to information theory so I don't think the objections are valid. We are always going to apply whatever new viewpoints we have in an attempt to describe, model and understand the universe. It doesn't help, though, that Wolfram is dismissive of peer review, which makes his ideas seem more like snake oil than science.

 

[publiusr]

What if our reality exists not within one universe—but two?

One universe has one set of physical laws, with the other having a different set...and we are the interaction between them?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

What if our reality exists not within one universe—but two?

One universe has one set of physical laws, with the other having a different set...and we are the interaction between them?

Then they are not universes. The whole might be but separately they are not.

 

[rahullak]

An intriguing hypothesis.

If cosmic inflation and what we perceive as gravitational attraction are two sides of the same coin, one counterbalancing the other, and if inflation is increasing shouldn't gravitational effects increase too?

What causes the Vacuum Energy to be more in some areas and less in others? What causes it to drop and what causes it to increase elsewhere?

 

[StarCruiser]

I kinda suspect that since all of the matter and energy we can see and measure is probably made out of Vacuum Energy, that it's the uneven balance of what remains still in Space-Time vs. what is now 'doing work' could have a lot to do with the relative unevenness of the Universe.

If a given region has a relative dearth of V.E. still in Space-Time and a large amount of matter you get more extreme gravity in that region and vice versa.

It's just a thought and I did suspect that others have considered some aspect of this before.

What makes me think some aspect of this is correct is that issue with Vacuum Energy. Why is there so little in Space-Time? The estimates for what SHOULD be there are MUCH higher than what we seem to be able to account for.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Really, these aren't topics that one can discuss rationally without studying and understanding quantum field theory, the standard model, special relativity, and general relativity thoroughly enough to be able to critique them knowledgably. I have a PhD in Physics (albeit from 40 years ago and I didn't pursue an academic career) and I feel inadequate to the task without fearing than I am exhibiting Dunning-Kruger syndrome. I have ideas about potential answers to such questions but I tend to keep them to myself. Without being a tenured professional it's hard to appear as anything else than just another raving lunatic on the Internet.

 

[StarCruiser]

Oh no! Not another Dryson!

(Not that there's anything wrong with that...)

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Ok, so I will reveal a few of my thoughts on this with the caveat that most of the following is probably nonsense.

Firstly, I've always had doubts about assumptions of isotropy in cosmology - it reminds me of the old joke about physicists assuming cows are spherical.

There are experimental observations due to Barrow, Webb and others that indicate that the fine structure constant varies to a small degree across the visible universe. If true, this suggests that the properties of the vacuum are also not universally constant. Now as to whether the values change smoothly across space-time or are constant within a given domain volume I couldn't say but I suspect the latter.

These domains could be immense - perhaps gigaparsecs across - a relic of originally tiny regions of the cosmos before the inflation era. Their boundaries would be akin to the long-hypothesised cosmic strings (albeit with a higher dimensionality).

As to the major embarrassment of the vacuum fluctuations, I suspect this is down to a fundamental error in the theoretical accounting. My instinct is that wild fluctuations are only observed if you concentrate enough energy in a small space-time volume when trying to observe them - a self-fulfilling loop. Otherwise, they average around some very small, if not quite exactly zero, value. This paragraph might quite likely be nonsense. I haven't done the maths.

Dark matter - I tend to believe that axions are the main constituent. I did toy with the theory of quantised inertia being the solution but I'm not sure the experimental evidence supports this. I don't dismiss it entirely though.

As to dark energy, I don't really have a strong view on what this is. That's worrying as it appears to be the main constituent of the universe. It might be than an inhomogeneous, non-isotropic model of the cosmos might explain away the observations that imply a need to invoke dark energy. Alternatively, a recent study questions assumptions made about the use of Type Ia supernovae as standard candles, suggesting that the observed accelerated expansion is a systematic error.

Perhaps new approaches such as Wolfram's branchial paradigm will offer insight into such puzzles but it's early days.

Some references:
New findings suggest laws of nature not as constant as previously thought -- ScienceDaily
Fluctuations in the void (phys.org)
Axion - Wikipedia
Quantized inertia - Wikipedia
Physics with an edge (physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com)
Cosmic string - Wikipedia
Dark energy - Wikipedia
New evidence shows that the key assumption made in the discovery of dark energy is in error (phys.org)
Finally We May Have a Path to the Fundamental Theory of Physics… and It’s Beautiful—Stephen Wolfram Writings

 

[StarCruiser]

So, what you're saying is...it's complicated!

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Not half, mate. I doubt anyone working on their own is going to come up with answers noodling away on an Internet forum. Such problems require many years of dedicated effort by the co-operation of multiple research teams producing peer-reviewed research.

This is where Wolfram has a problem. His ideas should be taken more seriously. They should not be dismissed unless they cannot produce falsifiable, testable predictions or they do not line up with existing observations. That they do not immediately fit into the existing theoretical framework of QFT and the Standard Model is not a valid reason IMHO to cry "baloney".

 

[rahullak]

Maybe we should invite him on here.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Wolfram has made all his work on branchial theory available and there is a collaborative project in which one can participate online. Like me, he is getting on in years and I suspect he doesn't want to get side tracked into discussing the minutiae of Star Trek canon. I expect he also doesn't suffer fools gladly. An acquaintance of mine had a brush with him in ordinary life, not academia, and said Wolfram was the rudest person they'd ever met.

 

[publiusr]

He doesn’t suffer fools like me gladly no doubt.

I’ve often wondered if that big Cold Spot was a texture. Probably not.

A texture is one concept sci-fi really hasn’t tackled yet on screen.

Q-balls were on Sunshine...

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Richard Feynman commented in a letter to Stephen Wolfram in 1985 that "You don’t understand ordinary people. To you they are stupid fools."

Richard Feynman’s Advice to a Young Stephen Wolfram (1985) | by Jørgen Veisdal | Cantor’s Paradise | Medium

The problem with Wolfram's ideas at the moment is that there's no apparent way to calculate any prediction that can be verified experimentally. They're currently about as far away from being a scientific theory as it's possible to get. So pretty much like String Theory then. Qualitatively, they're interesting but that's not nearly enough. Perhaps it's our mistake to believe that the universe is intrinsically describable by a single theory of everything.

 

[StarCruiser]

Ooohhh...You HAD to bring up String Theory... Shudder...

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

This Is Why Physicists Think String Theory Might Be Our ‘Theory Of Everything’ | by Ethan Siegel | Starts With A Bang! | Medium

There is no explanation of what strings (or branes) are intrinsically and space-time dimensions appear to be axiomatic, background features rather than emergent. QFT, the Standard Model, and String Theory remind me somewhat of Ptolemaic geocentric cosmology and epicycles. You can calculate a lot of stuff that approaches the observations numerically but it's a creaky, weird system. There is no reason why the universe has to conform to any mathematical theory dreamt up by man - it's perhaps our greatest conceit. We think we're smart when we conjure up correlations but they only ever seem to go so far. However, it's wisest to keep banging the rocks together in hope than believing in supernatural enitiies.

 

[Santaman]

^^ That is what irks me about science, or better our limitations, we might simply not be intelligent/smart enough to "get" everything and indeed, keep looking, probing, searching and whatevering, might be that we'll get it later on.

 

[StarCruiser]

Technically speaking, we will NEVER know everything for certain. You simply can't.

Did the Universe start with a "Big Bang" or a "Big Bounce" or..? The only way to be sure would be to travel back in time - which I doubt will ever be possible plus, even if you could...would you be able to exist in the conditions at the moment of the event?!? Nope...