28 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by UzumakiAiWhat do we mean by 'observation'? All things we observe is just secondary measurements.
Do you think it will ever be possible to prove the existence of gravitons through observation? Will we ever be able to shield neutrinos to reduce background disturbance enough to see gravitons?
Your thoughts.
Have we seen an electron? No, but we've seen its effects.
Will we ever see an graviton? No, but perhaps we will se its effects.
Just some thoughts.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
28 Feb 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes, that's what I meant. Perhaps... but not only the effects, but also the interaction with visible particles, like we can see with neutrinos.
What do we mean by 'observation'? All things we observe is just secondary measurements.
Have we seen an electron? No, but we've seen its effects.
Will we ever see an graviton? No, but perhaps we will se its effects.
Just some thoughts.
01 Mar 08
Originally posted by UzumakiAiIf the model is right, there must be a particle to mediate gravitation, and sooner or later it'll be detected.
Do you think it will ever be possible to prove the existence of gravitons through observation? Will we ever be able to shield neutrinos to reduce background disturbance enough to see gravitons?
Your thoughts.
Personally, I'm skeptic.
01 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoI would rather say that - Sooner or later it will be detected if anyone has money and skill enough to do it, which is not 100% probable.
If the model is right, there must be a particle to mediate gravitation, and sooner or later it'll be detected.
Personally, I'm skeptic.
01 Mar 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasMy problem is with the model itself.
I would rather say that - Sooner or later it will be detected if anyone has money and skill enough to do it, which is not 100% probable.
Gravitons are no more then a generalization. The truth is when we do it, the model no longer works... So what physicists did was to change the model to make gravitons fit.
Nature is by nature lazy, and I believe it is ruled by the simplest principles. These complex theories only come from our lack of understanding of something we didn't grasp yet.
01 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoYes, agree.
Nature is by nature lazy, and I believe it is ruled by the simplest principles. These complex theories only come from our lack of understanding of something we didn't grasp yet.
Another way to put it is "Nature is by nature beautiful".
Newtons universe was a real beauty in its simplicity, somewhat destroyed by Einstein.
Einsteins niverse was also butifyl in a simplicity but in a higher level. His equations could describe more so they were beatutiful too.
Heisenberg began to destroy the simplicity by introduce totally contra intuitive things in the equations.
Quarks are beatutiful, strings in string theory are not, they demand too weird topography of the universe to be appreciated by its beauty.
(thoughts only)
So what signify a beatiful universe?
01 Mar 08
Originally posted by FabianFnaslaziness is beautiful, then 🙂
Yes, agree.
Another way to put it is "Nature is by nature beautiful".
Newtons universe was a real beauty in its simplicity, somewhat destroyed by Einstein.
Einsteins niverse was also butifyl in a simplicity but in a higher level. His equations could describe more so they were beatutiful too.
Heisenberg began to destroy the simplicity by introduc ...[text shortened]... erse to be appreciated by its beauty.
(thoughts only)
So what signify a beatiful universe?
Einstein's universe is even more simple then Newton's, because there's no absolute inertial frame. The math is more complex, but the principles are more simple.
Quantum physics is simple too (in the principles). Again it's the math part that goes more and more complex.
Now particle physics can be sometimes great (group theory), but there seem to be many ad hoc suppositions now... I want a basic principle!
01 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoDo you think there will ever be found of one equation describing everything? Like a General Unified Theory, GUT?
laziness is beautiful, then 🙂
Einstein's universe is even more simple then Newton's, because there's no absolute inertial frame. The math is more complex, but the principles are more simple.
Quantum physics is simple too (in the principles). Again it's the math part that goes more and more complex.
Now particle physics can be sometimes great (group theory), but there seem to be many ad hoc suppositions now... I want a basic principle!
Then this will then be the most beautiful description of the laziest kind of Universe ever known to man. 😵
01 Mar 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasMaybe not a single equation, but 2-3 basic principles.
Do you think there will ever be found of one equation describing everything? Like a General Unified Theory, GUT?
Then this will then be the most beautiful description of the laziest kind of Universe ever known to man. 😵
You can get different equations just by stating the principle of least action, for example. One of them is F=ma 🙂
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell, a week or two ago didn't they take the first picture of an electron using an atto-second laser? Sure, it's not a photo in the classical sense, but they reconstructed it's image is what I heard on my podcast.
What do we mean by 'observation'? All things we observe is just secondary measurements.
Have we seen an electron? No, but we've seen its effects.
Will we ever see an graviton? No, but perhaps we will se its effects.
Just some thoughts.
As for gravitons, how do they intend to detect them? If we get the gravity wave observatories (the very long lasers, I think one is called LISA or something like that...) sensitive enough to see quantisation in gravitational waves, that would be a strong indication for a particulate origin to gravity, no? and the laser based method shouldn't be affected by neutrinos.
11 Mar 08
Originally posted by UzumakiAiWhat makes you think Neutrino's complicate the search for gravitons?
Do you think it will ever be possible to prove the existence of gravitons through observation? Will we ever be able to shield neutrinos to reduce background disturbance enough to see gravitons?
Your thoughts.
The point about LISA though, is this: It is designed to detect gravitational RADIATION not gravitons. Gravitons are the theoretical particle that mediates gravity, differant animal.
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoSimple principles like "all forces have a particle associated with them"?
My problem is with the model itself.
Gravitons are no more then a generalization. The truth is when we do it, the model no longer works... So what physicists did was to change the model to make gravitons fit.
Nature is by nature lazy, and I believe it is ruled by the simplest principles. These complex theories only come from our lack of understanding of something we didn't grasp yet.