Physics- Graviton Observation

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.

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
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.

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.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
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.

Yes, that's what I meant. Perhaps... but not only the effects, but also the interaction with visible particles, like we can see with neutrinos.

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
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.

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.

Originally posted by serigado
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.

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.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
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.

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.

Originally posted by serigado
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.

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 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?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
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?

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!

Originally posted by serigado
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!

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. 😵

Originally posted by FabianFnas
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. 😵

Maybe not a single equation, but 2-3 basic principles.
You can get different equations just by stating the principle of least action, for example. One of them is F=ma 🙂

Originally posted by FabianFnas
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.

Well, 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.
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.

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
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.

What makes you think Neutrino's complicate the search for gravitons?
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.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Do you think there will ever be found of one equation describing everything? Like a General Unified Theory, GUT?
😵

Yes, and the answer to the equation will be 1.

I'll let you guys figure out the equation. I've done the hard part.

Originally posted by uzless
Yes, and the answer to the equation will be 1.

I'll let you guys figure out the equation. I've done the hard part.

That was damn funny!

Dave

Originally posted by serigado
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.

Simple principles like "all forces have a particle associated with them"?