Monster Rain wrote:I was under the impression that they aren't quite sure if gravitons even exist.

youbedead wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I was under the impression that they aren't quite sure if gravitons even exist.

Its a model we use to demonstrate a principle. Fun fact about gravitons, they would have to move faster then light as gravity works instantaneously across large distances, which means that it transmits information faster then the speed of light which is theoretically impossible.

ChrisWWII wrote:Yay quantum physics! The subject where you're supposed to go: 'wait, WTF IS THIS!??!' when you're first exposed to it.

Son_Of _Deddog wrote:Yes, I could have googled it, but in my experience, there's nothing better than actually asking someone..So, gravitons are part of the standard model??? Ahhh..So we have a quandry; reletivistic and quantum mechanic views of gravity can't be made to agree. I mean, the warping of Spacetime just needs mass, right? How can particles be involved in that?
Maybe thereis an interaction between Gravitons and Higg bosons? That way, we can resolve the idea that mass(ie Higgs field et al) produces gravity (gravitons) by warping spacetime...

I read somewhere, ages ago, that the "speed" of gravity was the speed of light...Is that no longer true then??

youbedead wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I was under the impression that they aren't quite sure if gravitons even exist.

Its a model we use to demonstrate a principle. Fun fact about gravitons, they would have to move faster then light as gravity works instantaneously across large distances, which means that it transmits information faster then the speed of light which is theoretically impossible.

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Yay quantum physics! The subject where you're supposed to go: 'wait, WTF IS THIS!??!' when you're first exposed to it.

And then comes string theory.

dogma wrote:And then comes string theory.

ChrisWWII wrote:
String theory I just look at and wonder what the hell they're saying.

There's also the fact that its probably all crap, but pay that no heed.

Grakmar wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I was under the impression that they aren't quite sure if gravitons even exist.

Its a model we use to demonstrate a principle. Fun fact about gravitons, they would have to move faster then light as gravity works instantaneously across large distances, which means that it transmits information faster then the speed of light which is theoretically impossible.

Gravity does NOT travel faster than light. Physicists are fairly certain of this, and there are experiments underway trying to detect gravity waves to prove this.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

The graviton itself would travel at the speed of light, not faster than light.

The only thing that can travel faster than light is a tachyon. But, they've never been observed, and many physicists dismiss them as evidence in a flaw in a theory. Although, there are some that do believe they exist.

And, keep in mind, if science has taught us anything, it's that the majority opinion is not always right.

dogma wrote:The problem most people have with string theory is that the models don't readily lend themselves to mental imagery. To paraphrase Leonard Suskind: if someone tells you they understadn string theory, they're lying.

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Yay quantum physics! The subject where you're supposed to go: 'wait, WTF IS THIS!??!' when you're first exposed to it.

And then comes string theory.

Andrew1975 wrote:

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Yay quantum physics! The subject where you're supposed to go: 'wait, WTF IS THIS!??!' when you're first exposed to it.

And then comes string theory.

Then of course there is silly string theory!

KingCracker wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Yay quantum physics! The subject where you're supposed to go: 'wait, WTF IS THIS!??!' when you're first exposed to it.

And then comes string theory.

Then of course there is silly string theory!

And lastly its L.M.T.S.U theory. That stands for lets make gak up theory

Least thats how it feels when I hear/read/watch things on similar subjects

ChrisWWII wrote:

dogma wrote:The problem most people have with string theory is that the models don't readily lend themselves to mental imagery. To paraphrase Leonard Suskind: if someone tells you they understadn string theory, they're lying.

Well, the idea itself is relatively easy to visualize, but you're right, the implications beyond the idea become hard to think of.



This is the limit of understanding I have of string theory, beyond that I scratch my head, and find something easier to read.

There's also the fact that its probably all crap, but pay that no heed.

Hell, isn't that true with everything?

corpsesarefun wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I was under the impression that they aren't quite sure if gravitons even exist.

Its a model we use to demonstrate a principle. Fun fact about gravitons, they would have to move faster then light as gravity works instantaneously across large distances, which means that it transmits information faster then the speed of light which is theoretically impossible.

However this problem can be nicely dodged with quantum entanglement.

Andrew1975 wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Yay quantum physics! The subject where you're supposed to go: 'wait, WTF IS THIS!??!' when you're first exposed to it.

And then comes string theory.

Then of course there is silly string theory!

And lastly its L.M.T.S.U theory. That stands for lets make gak up theory

Least thats how it feels when I hear/read/watch things on similar subjects

Well your not far off, Many theories are just best assumptions based on collected data. Many are patches, as in they know things don't really work that way, but it provides a credible workaround so that we can move onto another problem. Here we are talking about Gravity, a very fundamental theory, we know it works, we are just still not very sure exactly how or why.