Gravity and Neutrinos

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Does anything actually, or rather, theoretically, cause wave propagation in the graviton field?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It all depends on the model of the graviton in question.
Tom presumes them being real particles with very low interaction cross-sections both to matter and to themselves. That would make the interaction between the gravitons travelling parallel courses their primary mode of action on their likes, and must lead to waves in flux density in directions transverse to the flux. Such mechanism might work at paths of about a galactic radius.
I presume them strictly virtual, kind of "phonons" of the ZPF. Hence a wave utilizing gravitons as its medium turns impossible or identical to gravitons themselves. Considering gravitons as "phonons", I would still insist that our reality's time scale and the gravitons' time scale are far apart, or even totally decoupled. So a "ZPF shock wave" and the "ZPF phonon"-graviton both appear instantaneous in our reality, differing only in their respective spatial manifestation.

And, btw, the very fraudulency of the early Podkletnov's works is itself of rather dubious nature. The report discussed here is a recent one; they had not time sufficient to confirm or deny the observations reported since the complex nature of the HTSC compound provides a nice obstacle to replication.

I perceived gravitons more as standard particles capable of higher speed due to their lower mass, and effectively reduced drag coefficient with respect to other matter in the universe. This is more an Occam's Razor approach because I have difficulty conceptualising how a ZPF particle, or wave if you prefer, could induce a gravitational effect at the scale of those we see in the macroscopic world (I'm not saying they can't!), whereas a standard particle approach is easier to manage.

I'm curious though, why would you suggest a galactic radius as a prerequisite to an observed wave effect (if I'm reading you correctly)? If in the standard particle model a planet disturbs any number of gravitons, it must induce some sort of measurable effect at this smaller scale, or is current apparatus not capable of detecting these "ripples" in the graviton pond?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I perceived gravitons more as standard particles...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Gravitons cannot be "standard particles", here's why - particle gravity model requires them to be particles, i.e. their wave characteristics must not show even in interactions with other elementary particles; so their wavelength, if any, is much smaller than that of constituents of regular matter. Yet their velocity has to be over 10^10 times the speed of light. These two considerations together put their equivalent energies far too high, their interactions with vacuum must've delivered macroscopic objects. Thus, if they exist, they are totally "non-standard", or as the Meta model dubs them - they are entities of other scale. But why should the "entities of the smaller scale" be also the primary interaction carriers at greatest distances in our universe - that's a clear logical contradiction of the model.

I prefer to have them virtual for a simple reason that this way no new entities are invented. The gravitons may stay exactly the same instantaneous virtual longitudinal photons that are responsible for static and quasi-static electric and magnetic fields. There's really no difference between, say, Coulomb field and gravity - they both transfer impulse at the inverse-square law, the naming of their "charges" as the "mass" and the "electric charge" is just a matter of convention (notice that there's no electric charge without mass). So why should we invent different carriers for those interactions - escapes my understanding. Basically, we have just one and the same spatial mediator that interfaces to "charges" of various nature in a slightly different way. (Notice where the Occam's razor cuts?)
Thus I get to virtual photons/phonons of the very same medium, which medium may be called quantum vacuum, or ZPF, or quantum aether - you choose. (And the ZPF phonons can stay at thermodynamic equilibrium with matter all the way till "absolute" zero.)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Atko]: Does anything actually, or rather, theoretically, cause wave propagation in the graviton field? ... I perceived gravitons more as standard particles capable of higher speed due to their lower mass, and effectively reduced drag coefficient with respect to other matter in the universe.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In the Meta Model, gravitons are indeed pure particles because they exhibit no wave properties whatever (wavelength, frequency, amplitude, intensity, refraction, diffraction, coherence, interference, polarization, absence of mutual collisions). However, such wave properties <i>are</i> exhibited by the light-carrying medium ("elysium").

The high speed of gravitons is due to their small scale rather than their "low mass". The smaller the scale, the faster the phenomena, according to our perceptions. They have no "drag" coefficient with respect to matter that has yet been detected.

Unfortunately, AB does not have access to the relevant books either, and must continually guess the basis of ideas therein. Those guesses are often incorrect, as when he says:
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[AB]: the [graviton's] wavelength, if any, is much smaller than that of constituents of regular matter. Yet their velocity has to be over 10^10 times the speed of light. These two considerations together put their equivalent energies far too high, their interactions with vacuum must've delivered macroscopic objects. Thus, if they exist, they are totally "non-standard", or as the Meta model dubs them - they are entities of other scale. But why should the "entities of the smaller scale" be also the primary interaction carriers at greatest distances in our universe - that's a clear logical contradiction of the model.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Gravitons have no wavelength because they are pure particles, their "equivalent energies" are just right to produce gravitational force without excessively heating large masses, in no sense are they "non-standard" because scale is infinite, and gravitons are not special other than that they are the main momentum carriers we can detect at our scale, making them special to us. In the infinity of scale, it is generally true that, the smaller the scale, the faster and longer-range the interactions will appear <i>to us</i>. But that same appearance would exist at any scale. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Unfortunately, AB does not have access to the relevant books either, and must continually guess the basis of ideas therein. Those guesses are often incorrect...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Quite fortunately, AB gets access to whatever books he chooses whenever AB feels appropriate. The relevant books have to stand their relevant queue in AB's priorities. That's the AB's way to preserve his personal thinking authenticity.<img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>

Furthermore, as "standard" particles I consider the leptons and whatever is made of quarks, just like almost everybody around. Though, I don't consider force-field quanta as real particles, contrary to standard beliefs; and I have good reasons to so believe. Real gravitons fall under neither of the above two categories, exactly as pointed out in my comment. Virtual gravitons fit just nicely. I had had more than enough training and experience in relevant disciplines to opine on such basics.

I'd like to add that, I genuinely abhor the infinite scale idea for quite a number of reasons, including the aesthetical one; it reminds me of the "bad infinity" concept in phylosophy. Everything, I believe, I know of physics and reality in general witnesses against this concept from the early 1900's.

don't we believe that a graviton is a basic atom or molecule if that a particle: if we find the base we can go up from there or track it to the ground and where would a graviton propigate? please answer

The intuitive mind