BTW, Quantum Entanglement is a form of “action at a distance” the way Newton (rightly!) condemned it (in the strongest terms, for philosophical reasons). However, it is individual and internal.

**Quantum Entanglement may need to be called “being at a distance”.**

However, a particle in a field will continually relocalize inside said field, from interaction with said field (Penrose used a variation of the idea, which was invented by others). But indeed, from the energy-as-geodesic-density definition of mass-energy in gravitation theory, one can only suspect gravitons are intrinsically non-local (that’s why they will escape from *mild* Black Holes)

I have made plenty clear I don’t believe in the localization of photons (differently from Einstein and even De Broglie).

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/einsteins-error-the-multiverse/

**What we call logic is the greatest abstraction from the world we know. So no wonder the world we don’t know escapes it.**

LikeLike

]]>Planck length is more than 10^24 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times smaller than that. That’s basically when a single particle would behave like my

However, **the very existence of a graviton would prove one of the tenets (axioms) of modern Quantum Field Theory** (namely that there is an exchange particle which acts as carrier to the gravitational field). And that is tested in macroscopic, and even gigantic objects (VLI), or enormous bars weighting tons.

LikeLike

]]>

As I indicated earlier, nature, especially nature at the limits of our physical experience (quanta and black holes), does NOT submit to our concept of logic. Teasing answers from assumptions, like Aristotle, has limited value in these areas.

I suggest you try a run at the google search: “gravitons escape black holes” and see what you make of the references.

LikeLike

]]>Brownian motion is observed with Lycopodium powder which is on the order of 30E-6 meters. Quantum effects of gravity would be ascertainable at dimensions at or near the Planck Length, <2E-30 meters.

LikeLike

]]>Propped by what you just wrote, I am going to write a little essay on the [exchange particle = force] concept… According to its HISTORICAL logic (which is generally much better than the textbook, or computational logic).

BTW, I think the proper concept is QUANTUM WAVE MECHANICS (the “wave” being linear now, but will end up anything but…)

PA

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>My view is we, as yet, do not understand gravity. Gravitons have been placed into the theory so that gravity will be part of quantum field theory, which has taken on the role “engraved divinely in tablets of stone”. So, what do we actually know, as opposed to postulate? I think we can say that the statement:

Action arising from direct electromagnetic interactions is quantised.

is true.

QFT seems to assume all sorts of other things are quantised, and while QED gives remarkably accurate predictions, it still, in my opinion, relies on wave-like character. Thus in Feynman’s QED, Feynman goes to all sorts of extremes to make everything particle-like, but he still has to include a phase function, which is, after all, a wave property. The constructed “virtual particles” seem then to have taken over, but by definition, they are neither observable or are able to be manipulated, so they seem to have taken a leap away from the classical structure of science.

Now, with gravity, we have no idea whether anything associated with it is quantised. If action is quantised, then because of the weakness of the gravitational field, there should be properties that are detectable with lycopodium-sized particles, but no such effects seems to have been observed. If something else is quantised, then it will not use Planck’s constant, which is a unit of action.

Your observation “how could a graviton get out of a black hole?” could well be a critical observation that gravitons do not exist. I still think we do not understand gravity, and I am also of the opinion that despite QFT, we are missing something regarding the electromagnetic field.

LikeLike

]]>And because gravitons cannot be local, gravity can escape the Black Hole?

LikeLike

]]>Fast forward to the Twentieth-First century: we know photons (whatever they are) have energy hf (f being their frequency; h Planck Constant gives the scale). They lose some of this f climbing out of a potential well. These are experimental facts; call them the set E.

Einstein said: photons ARE localized (see my Einstein Error, the Multiverse). This Einstein Hypothesis is somewhat related to E (the photon has to be in the gravitational well, thus, to be somewhat localized there, at least some of the time). But not that much.

To come back to the 18 C logic, how does it fit 21 C knowledge? Well, remarkably well. For my little theory, I just made similar assumptions:

1) gravitons are (more or less) localized particles (meaning they have localized energy, and they feel the gravitational field).

2) energy conservation holds: a graviton climbing out of a well loses energy.

If nothing else, my little theory shows that there is something wrong at the most basic level.

But is it, as you suggest “field theory”? Field theory solved the mystery of instantaneous action at a distance in the case of gravity, in analogy with what happened with light.

“Quantized universe” means nothing, nor does “quantum gravity”. In case of “photons” “quantum” means energy is emitted (Planck) and received (Einstein) by discrete (math sense) packets. Graviton search has consisted in looking for gravitational energy being received by packets. It’s non obvious: after all, energy in gravitation is not obvious (I also talked about that with my frienemies). It’s stored in geodesic density (so to speak). Now that is a NON-Local concept. Graviton (presumed to be) local, energy non-local: hmmm…

PA

LikeLike

]]>Field theory works quite well in many areas of physics, but Gravity is not one of these. There is much ado about a quantized universe which would invoke quantum gravity – an intriguing concept with some physical manifestations, but still, as yet, not a complete or integrated theory.

LikeLike

]]>