Accelerators can search for signs of Planck-scale gravity

Oct 15, 2012 by Lisa Zyga feature
The PETRA-III accelerator at DESY and the proposed International Linear Collider (ILC) could test the energy-dependent bending of light by gravity at very small scales. Tests could measure two effects: refractivity, which produces energy shifts (upper scale) and birefringence, which produces a Compton edge asymmetry (lower scale). The Planck length is shown by an arrow. Image credit: Vahagn Gharibyan. ©2012 American Physical Society

(Phys.org)—Although quantum theory can explain three of the four forces in nature, scientists currently rely on general relativity to explain the fourth force, gravity. However, no one is quite sure of how gravity works at very short distances, in particular the shortest distance of all: the Planck length, or 10-35 m. So far, the smallest distance accessible in experiments is about 10-19 m at the LHC.

Now in a new paper published in , physicist Vahagn Gharibyan of Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron () in Hamburg, Germany, has proposed a test of quantum gravity that can reach a sensitivity of 10-31 m down to the , depending on the energy of the .

As Gharibyan explains, several models of quantum gravity predict that empty space near the Planck length may behave like a crystal in the sense that the space is refractive (light is bent due to "gravitons," the hypothetical particles that mediate gravity) and has birefringence/chirality (the light's bending degree also depends on the light's polarization).

In quantum gravity, both refractivity and birefringence are energy-dependent: the higher the photon energy, the stronger the photon-graviton interaction and the more bending. This correlation is the opposite of what happens when photons interact with or matter, where these effects are suppressed by . The predicted correlation also differs from what happens according to Newtonian gravity and Einstein's , where any bending of light is independent of the light's energy.

"If one describes gravity at the , the bending of light by becomes energy-dependent – unlike in Newtonian gravity or Einstein's general relativity," Gharibyan told Phys.org. "The higher the energy of the photons, the larger the bending, or the stronger the photon-graviton interaction should be."

Gharibyan suggests that this bending of light according to quantum gravity models may be studied using high-energy accelerator beams that probe the vacuum symmetry of at small scales. Accelerators could use high-energy Compton scattering, in which a photon that scatters off another moving particle acquires energy, causing a change in its momentum. The proposed experiments could detect how the effects of quantum gravity change the photon's energy-momentum relation compared with what would be expected on a normal scale.

For these experiments, the beam energy is vital in determining the sensitivity to small-scale effects. Gharibyan estimates that a 6 GeV energy lepton accelerator, such as PETRA-III at DESY, could test space birefringence down to 10-31 m. Future accelerators that could achieve energies of up to 250 GeV, such as the proposed International Linear Collider (ILC), could test birefringence all the way down to the Planck length. For probing refractivity, Gharibyan estimates that a 6 GeV machine would have a sensitivity down to 10-27 m, while a 250 GeV machine could reach about 10-31 m.

As Gharibyan explains, probing Planck-scale gravity in this way is somewhat similar to investigating nanoscale crystal structures.

"Conventional crystals have cell sizes around tens of nanometers and are transparent to, or do not interact with, photons with much larger (m or mm) wavelengths," Gharibyan said. "In order to investigate crystal cells/structures, one needs photons with compatible nm wavelength: X-rays. However, visible light with wavelengths 1000 times more than the crystal cell can still feel the averaged influence of the cells: the light could be reflected singly or doubly. Comparing this to the Planck-length crystal, we don't have photons with a Planck wavelength or that huge energy. Instead, we are able to feel the averaged effects of Planck crystal cells – or space grains – by using much [relatively] lower-energy photons."

In fact, as Gharibyan has found, there are already experimental hints of gravitons.

"This work presents evidence for interactions by applying the developed method to gamma rays faster than light, which I found earlier in data from the largest US and German electron accelerators," he said. "The absence of any starlight deflection in the cosmic vacuum hints that Earth's gravitons should be considered responsible for the observed bending of the accelerators' gamma rays."

Gharibyan found that data from the now-closed 26.5 GeV Hadron-Electron Ring Accelerator (HERA) at DESY measured a Planck cell size of 2.6x10-28 m, and data from the mothballed 45.6 GeV Stanford Linear Collider (SLC) at Stanford University in the US measured a space grain size of 3.5x10-30 m. While these results provide some hints of Planck-scale gravity, neither of these experiments was designed as a tool to specifically test gravity, so Gharibyan warns that uncontrolled pieces of setups could mimic observed effects.

If Gharibyan's newly proposed experiments are performed, they would provide the first direct measurements of space near or even at the Planck scale, and by doing so, offer a closer glimpse of gravity in this enigmatic regime.

Explore further: Nuclear spins control current in plastic LED: Step toward quantum computing, spintronic memory, better displays

More information: Vahagn Gharibyan. "Testing Planck-Scale Gravity with Accelerators." Physical Review Letters 109, 141103 (2012). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.141103

Vahagn Gharibyan. "Possible observation of photon speed energy dependence." Physics Letters B 611 231-238 (2005). DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.02.053

Journal reference: Physical Review Letters search and more info website Physics Letters B search and more info website

4.7 /5 (34 votes)

Related Stories

Looking at quantum gravity in a mirror

Mar 18, 2012

Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum physics are expected to merge at the Planck-scale of extremely high energies and on very short distances. At this scale, new phenomena could arise. However, the Planck-scale ...

Doubly special relativity

Mar 21, 2011

General relativity, Einstein’s theory of gravity, gives us a useful basis for mathematically modeling the large scale universe – while quantum theory gives us a useful basis for modeling sub-atomic ...

Physicists propose test for loop quantum gravity

Jan 03, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- As a quantum theory of gravity, loop quantum gravity could potentially solve one of the biggest problems in physics: reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics. But like all tentative ...

Gravity eases its pull

Nov 04, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Ever since Galileo first dropped his balls off the top of the Tower of Pisa in the late 16th century, gravity has caused a major headache for mathematicians and physicists down the ages.

Integral challenges physics beyond Einstein

Jun 30, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- ESA's Integral gamma-ray observatory has provided results that will dramatically affect the search for physics beyond Einstein. It has shown that any underlying quantum 'graininess' of space ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ValeriaT
1.1 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2012
could test the energy-dependent bending of light by gravity at very small scales
Why they didn't test the dispersion of glass first? Such a research is like the search for forest between the woods (salary & job generation).. After all, the rotating black holes are dispersing the light with their gravity quite apparently and nobody is surprised with it: the gamma rays can escape from their poles, but not from any other direction.
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2012
From abstract: "in particular, near the Planck length, around 1E-35 m, empty space may behave as a crystal, singly or doubly refractive". The Kerr metric applies to polarization of CMBR in connection to so-called dark flow at the boundary of the observable Universe. These models aren't handled like the consequence of quantum gravity though, but like the extension of relativity with Maxwell's electrodynamics. Phenomenologically it's the very same stuff, though.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2012
The mainstream theorists (BTW Sabine is specialized to Planck scale phenomenology of quantum gravity) aren't impressed with this study too - just from the opposite perspective:
The author proposes a test for effects that are already excluded, by many orders of magnitude, by other measurements. The "Planck-Scale Gravity" that he writes about is nothing but 5th order Lorentz-invariance violating operators. These are known to be extremely tightly constrained by astrophysical measurements. And the existing bounds are much stronger than the constraints that can be reached, in the best case, by the tests proposed in the paper. We already know there's nothing to be found there
So, what the poor layman should think about all of it?
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2012
First, the domain of quantum gravity isn't some area of obscure physics somewhere around Planck scale. The quantum mechanics begins at the 10E-9 meter scale, the relativistic scale begins at the 10E9 meter scale. The quantum gravity struggles to interpolate between general relativity and quantum mechanics, so it applies just at the intermediate scale, which is traditionally the domain of so-called classical mechanics. If you seek for quantum gravity phenomena outside of this scale, you may still get some grants and money for it, but you aren't doing the research of quantum gravity. Lets face the sad reality: the quantum gravitists have no idea about the actual scope of their subject, not to say about its phenomenology.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2012
Despite of it, there exists some motivation for research of the scales most distant from the human observer scale, but its pretty roundabout way. The water surface model makes it apparent in miniaturized way: the domain of general relativity applies to scale, where the spreading of surface waves is solely driven with surface tension (the influence of underwater can be neglected). This is the zone of so-called capillary ripples of 2 cm wavelength. The analogy of quantum scale begins at the distance, where the Brownian noise blurs the surface wave spreading (let say ~ 0.02 cm). So if we would live at the water surface instead of vacuum, we would occupy the thin zone of "classical physics" between 0,02 - 2 cm distance scale. Not quite accidentally, this is the scale at which the behaviour of the water surface gets most complex and hyperdimensional: it's the scale of formation of bubbles, solitons and nested foam and it enables the highest complexity (speciation) of living forms.
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2012
The distance scale between 0.02 and 2 cm at the water surface is the zone, where the prevailing character of transverse (capillary) waves changes into longitudinal waves (Brownian noise). But as we know, if we would get above the 2 cm scale, then the capillary waves scatter into the underwater and their character is changing back again into longitudinal ones in geometrically similar way, like at the 0,02 cm scale. This is the reason, why we can observe the quantum phenomena in immensely magnified and slowed down way even in the most distant parts of Universe. And similarly, bellow quantum scale the quantized character of particles disappears gradually and it changes into classical again. So we can observe the traces of quantum gravity behavior even at the very large and very small scales, where the Universe changes into random system of space-time curvatures. This geometric similarity between quantum scale and relativistic scales is the subject of so-called AdS/CFT correspondence.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2012
So we have essentially two ways, how to define the scope of quantum gravity along dimensional scale of the observable universe. The first one is "maximalistic" and it considers the quantum gravity as a sorta interpolation between "pure relativity" scope and "pure quantum mechanics" scope.

The second way is minimalistic and it considers the quantum gravity as a model, which deals with dimensional/energy density scale inside of the thin zones around "pure relativity" and around "pure quantum mechanics", which still cannot be described with classical physics.
Nanowill
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2012
I think this is complete nonsense, gravity arises with the localization of electromagnetic energy to form particles at a scale of about 10^-15m, there can be no gravity below this scale. I'd like to remind everybody the Planck scale is no more than a conjecture. There is no evidence for its existence. The conjecture relies on Newton's gravitational constant G being fundamental. Recent publications remind us Newton's equation is the only source of G and describes gravity as an observer domain force. General relativity shows this is not true, so G is likely not fundamental. If so the Planck scale conjecture is also invalid.
thermodynamics
4.9 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2012
ValeriaT: You said:"The quantum mechanics begins at the 10E-9 meter scale, the relativistic scale begins at the 10E9 meter scale."
While that is true for the convenience of observations,both theories are applicable to any scale. Planck didn't say small and Einstein didn't say large. It is just that to see the effects we have to look at where they show up. However, you have to apply relativity to atomic behavior just as you have to apply quantum mechanics to lens coatings at a macro scale. The fact that we haven't been able to make them work together in a single theory does not mean their realms don't overlap.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2012
From solely phenomenological perspective, the quantum gravity was already observed with "energy dependent refractivity and birefringence" as so called quark jets during particle collisions, because these jets are analogy of jets of rotating black holes. The jet can be understood as a manifestation of dispersion of radiation coming from black hole trough the gradient of event horizon along axis of rotation. The infrared radiation escapes from surface of the whole event horizon as a Hawking radiation, whereas the short-wavelenght radiation escapes through poles only. The absorption of light with black hole is therefore [wavelength dependent](http://i47.tinypi...me.gif), so its of dispersive nature, so it can serve for confirmation of quantum gravity. The quantum gravity manifests itself with whatever violation of general relativity and the Hawking radiation belongs into such a violation too. To have theory and to recognize it in well known phenomena are two different things.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2012
both theories are applicable to any scale
Only theoretically. In which observable phenomena the quantum mechanic manifests itself at 1 km scale, for example? In which observable phenomena the general relativity manifests at the 1 nm scale? The particle physicists itself are saying, at the nuclear scale the gravity effects are negligible and even if they could exist, they would disappear in quantum noise. Analogously the cosmologists are saying, the expansion of Universe doesn't manifest itself inside of atoms, which are held together with strong forces.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2012
As a general clue, the domains of (the validity of) the quantum mechanics and general relativity theories can be recognized easily as the distance (or mass/energy density) scales, at which the objects in the Universe appear symmetrical and pretty round (i.e. the spherical): atom orbitals or medium size stars or large planets. The shape of small planets (bellow 200 km in diameter) is already affected with quantum mechanics phenomena and vice-versa: the pancake-like shape of galaxies is affected with flow of dark matter (which is quantum gravity phenomena, despite it's not recognized yet so). Very tiny particles or very large objects are already as irregular, as the objects at the human observer scale, where the relativity is violated with quantum mechanics heavily. Also, the quantum mechanics of very heavy particles gets violated, because these particles do exist in high number of quantum states only and their energy is as poorly defined, as the mass of large galactic clusters.
vacuum-mechanics
2 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2012
(Phys.org)—Although quantum theory can explain three of the four forces in nature, scientists currently rely on general relativity to explain the fourth force, gravity. However, no one is quite sure of how gravity works at very short distances, in particular the shortest distance of all: the Planck length, or 10-35 m. …


Actually, conventionally general relativity does not explain how gravitation MECHANISM works, what it say is just gravity was created by curve space-time, with NO reason behind! May be this physical view could help to visualize how gravity works!
http://www.vacuum...18〈=en
Jitterbewegung
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2012
If they can test down to the Planck scale with a few hundred Gev then imagine what they could do at CERN or Fermilab with Tevs.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2012
Gharibyan's version of "quantum and torsion gravity" predicts deformed energy-momentum relations. These are known to be trivially excluded by observing macroscale objects, because superposition to build many-atom objects reject the predictions. See reviews on "double special relativity" that were based on this.

Add the Backreaction analysis that ValeriaT points to. It seems legit, Sabine is herself a "quantum gravity" backer IIRC.

The problem with quantum gravity is that photon dispersal observations of supernova photon timing (and polarity, if supersymmetry is correct), probes well beyond Planck scales already, and space is perfectly smooth there as predicted by relativity.
JIMBO
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2012
As usual, PhyOrg thinks all its readership has access to APS journals. For most of us 99%, we do not, & its easier to hit the arxiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7297
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2012
@ ValeriaT:

We know that QM can never be predicted by classical mechanics, and that is of course the whole point of introducing it in the first place. No hidden variables.

So your speculations are amusing but unfactual.

Also, magnetism is an everyday relativistic low energy effect of electricity, the Lorentz force can be derived by applying relativity to classical E fields. Similarly quantum effects like entanglement can be applied to macroscale objects. It is fuzzy lines.

@ Nanowill:

Gravity can't be predicted by EM theory, it is its own fundamental (so far) interaction.

@ vacuum-mechanics:

GR is a mechanistic theory. You are asking for more detail, which is what the article is about.

You are linking to a crackpot non-peer reviewed "theory of everything". Sorry, no Nobel prize has been awarded to those, and peer review has rejected all of them to date ( mostly because most proposals are crackpot).
El_Nose
not rated yet Oct 16, 2012
No one finds it funny that they would have to build a machine that is less powerful than the LHC to test these energy levels. The LHC operates at 3 - 14 Tev
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2012
quantum vacuum is build out of 3D quanta called "Planck volume" Vp.
energy density of quantum vacuum in empty space is: (mp x c2) Vp

by an elementary particle energy density of quantum vacuum diminishes: (mp x c2)- E(energy of the particle) / Vp.

Diminished energy density caused inertial mass and gravitational mass of an elementary particle.
Standing Bear
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2012
There are hints in this article concerning the effects of photon energy of gravitons as proportional, maybe progressively as well....and combination with chiral effects as well. Here may lurk within some hints at quantum mediaeed chiral photonic anti-gravitic forces. The implications of this for applied practical projects involving these effects in macro are great, such as quantumphotonic antigravitic drives in large vehicles that as a side effect would be also resistant to inertia....and would not obey relativity at all. We have observed such craft for thousands of years and here are hints for us to build them.
jsdarkdestruction
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2012
12 of the first 13 posts are zephyer, what a disappointment. i was hoping for a nice lively scietific discussions, not a one man spam fest.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2012
Just set your threshold to 1.1 and this forum just gets WAY more enjoyable.
Jitterbewegung
not rated yet Oct 16, 2012
"Diminished energy density caused inertial mass and gravitational mass of an elementary particle."

I thought that inertial mass was caused by the Higgs mechanism?
allotrope6
not rated yet Oct 16, 2012
If I recall correctly a cosmological group earlier this year found no birefringence down to like 1e-42m. Is this proposal looking to measure something different?
Leavingmymind
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2012
Here is my theory on it. The quarks of the photon interlock with the quarks in the neutron. The photon is affected by both EM field and the Higgs field. The neutron is only affected by the Higgs field. This allows an interlocking of the two and a way to define a fixed position in 4D space. Their spins all point inward if you were to draw it out and can be seen as a way to move through both fields at the same time. It would also show small amounts of physical energy produced if all spins face inward The pull of the Higgs on the neutron, and the pull of the EM field on the proton. The two fields performing work makes a great basis for energetic life, I would think. This would eliminate the need for quantum gravity and the space in which the fields overlap in the nucleus is our conception of gravity (a point of pull). It is a more simple way of producing the same effect. Bring it to the masses. :)
Leavingmymind
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2012
This also would help explain the weak and strong forces depending on your locality to a magnetic field and it's strength. Energy would be exerted on the protons for each atom and the neutron would not be affected by it. It, however, should change your weight when standing next to a powerful electromagnetic source. It should fit with current physics as well as help with ideas behind planet building.
Leavingmymind
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2012
I believe boson interaction is the key to the Higgs attraction to the neutron of an atom. So go with it, if you like this idea.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2012
I believe boson interaction is the key to the Higgs attraction to the neutron of an atom.

It's sort of funny what people who have never made an experiment or even ever looked at (much less tried to work with) any math/physics believe.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2012
Well Einstein did no experiments through whole his life (with exception of his thesis at school, of course). And Pauli is even known by ruining all experiments in his neighborhood...;-)
Leavingmymind
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2012
I believe boson interaction is the key to the Higgs attraction to the neutron of an atom.

It's sort of funny what people who have never made an experiment or even ever looked at (much less tried to work with) any math/physics believe.


Its funny how those that keep their head in the math never see. :D

Eyes open, the world is around you.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2012
Its funny how those that keep their head in the math never see. :D Eyes open, the world is around you.


That's the whole point. You open your eyes. make a theory based on what you see. AND do the math (and physics). Then you extrapolate from that math and look where you haven't looked before to see if what your prediction expects is actually there.

What you re doing i brainfarts without looking at anything. That's not 'looking around you'. That's just living in lala-land.
Leavingmymind
1 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2012
So if I never was good at math and may have had a great idea, the world should shun something that may make sense because I can't prove it mathematically? Wrong. Someone could take an idea from what I have thought and put it to good use.

Looking around refers to observation. Thats where this comes from. Stop being arrogant, and pose a reason why this doesn't work or shut up.
randybeemen
5 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2012
"Stop being arrogant, and pose a reason why this doesn't work or shut up."

The problem is that, without the math, what you are proposing is just a random collection of words that could easily be substituted with any others and have just as much of a chance at being correct. It is the same with every alternate "theory" posed in the comments section on this site, something outlandish is proposed and then it is expected that others learned in the art should have to stop what they are doing and fill in the numbers. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. If you wish you argue a point, YOU have to back it up, with all the hard work and withering peer review that this entails. Anything less is mere sophistry.

Scientific discovery is neither easy nor sanguine, nor should it be.
Bowler_4007
5 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2012
The quarks of the photon interlock with the quarks in the neutron.
the photon does not consist of quarks

So if I never was good at math and may have had a great idea, the world should shun something that may make sense because I can't prove it mathematically?
you don't need to know maths just make some proper observations and someone else can help with the maths

Well Einstein did no experiments through whole his life
Einstein was a theoretical physicist not an experimental physicist
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2012
The problem is that, without the math, what you are proposing is just a random collection of words that could easily be substituted with any others and have just as much of a chance at being correct.
Even the math is based on predicate logics - not vice-versa. No theorem in math can be used for quantitative calculations, until it's not proven at the formal level. Event the pile of math didn't save the Ptolemy's epicycle model against simple logical counter-arguments of Galilei, who just pointed out the logical problems of geocentric model (order of Venus phases, etc.) - not qualitative ones. The problem with pure math approach is, it's merely a regression fitted to data, so it cannot be never wrong, even if it's based on logically fringe model. We can see it at the example of Big Bang model, which was gradually adjusted with inflation, dark matter, dark energy... In similar way the Ptolemy's model was adjusted with another level epicycles, when another planet had been found.
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2012
Another problem is, for description of hyperdimensional complex problems the quantitative predictions of formal math become so poorly conditioned, that the fuzzy predicate logics becomes more reliable. It's similar to navigation through fractal landscape: when you get the fuzzy averaged perspective, you can find the highest mountain in it much faster. So that the string theory is useless for physics with its landscape of 10E500 solutions, because it cannot be falsified and it's not more reliable, than the fuzzy natural philosophy of vedian mythology.

My point therefore is, no quantitative description of Nature cannot be complete without it's qualitative understanding and vice-versa: the qualitative explanation cannot be complete without quantitative predictions. Everything else is just a biased politics of various lobbyist groups in physics.
A2G
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2012
Anti-alias wrote: "That's the whole point. You open your eyes. make a theory based on what you see. AND do the math (and physics). Then you extrapolate from that math and look where you haven't looked before to see if what your prediction expects is actually there."

spot on AAPO. You can't just have an idea, or even just an idea and the maths to back it. You have to physically prove that your concept is correct. Ideas in your head can be totally wrong, no matter who you are. Even Einstein. So physical proof is needed to support your idea in the end. Not just the math.

It is not up to the rest of it to disprove your idea if you are too lazy to do the math AND provide the physical proof. It is up to you to prove that you are correct. The rest of us have a lot more to do than work on some unproven idea on a blog or comment section.

In the end the math helps, but you have to have physical proof (physics) or the idea can be total BS.

Math does not always lead to reality.

Leavingmymind
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2012
The quarks of the photon interlock with the quarks in the neutron.
the photon does not consist of quarks

So if I never was good at math and may have had a great idea, the world should shun something that may make sense because I can't prove it mathematically?
you don't need to know maths just make some proper observations and someone else can help with the maths

Well Einstein did no experiments through whole his life
Einstein was a theoretical physicist not an experimental physicist


Thanks. I'm talking about a proton in a nucleus.
Leavingmymind
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2012
"It is not up to the rest of it to disprove your idea if you are too lazy to do the math AND provide the physical proof. It is up to you to prove that you are correct. The rest of us have a lot more to do than work on some unproven idea on a blog or comment section."

This has little to do, in my mind, with asking someone to disprove it. The idea is posed to ponder on by people who wish to do so and know about the physics. I ponder on things creatively and logically, and, as a hobby, I like to research quantum and put the workings into motion in my head. I'm in no way capable of doing atom scale physics experiments in my garage. So take it for what it is worth and ponder on it, if you so choose, or scrap it. I care very little.

Blah, blah, blah,... blah spot on Jeeves! Neither of you should step on the mouth of creativity, as it serves about as much purpose as you having read the entry in the first place... Troll on and I will see your mom in college. :D

Leavingmymind
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2012
[q/]

Scientific discovery is neither easy nor sanguine, nor should it be.

Actually, I disagree with this completely. Why shouldn't it be easy? It should be as easy as the passion you are willing to apply to the problem. The fact that it isn't doesn't mean it should be. Think without the box.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2012
This has little to do, in my mind, with asking someone to disprove it. The idea is posed to ponder on by people who wish to do so and know about the physics.

The point is that you put out ideas based on unfounded assumptions. No one can disprove unfounded assumptions unless they do an experiment.
Example:
I say: "Gods make electrons spin - prove me wrong"
Now you would immediately say: "Onus of proof is on you. I will not accept this (or do any work on this) unless you show some experiment that corroborates this."

It's just the same with your brainfarts. If you want to ponder your own ideas: fine.
But don't expect others to take the time (we have our own ideas - and much better ones at that)
Leavingmymind
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2012
The point is that you put out ideas based on unfounded assumptions. No one can disprove unfounded assumptions unless they do an experiment.
Example:
I say: "Gods make electrons spin - prove me wrong"
Now you would immediately say: "Onus of proof is on you. I will not accept this (or do any work on this) unless you show some experiment that corroborates this."
But don't expect others to take the time (we have our own ideas - and much better ones at that)


You've taken that the wrong way, I posed an idea to think about; not to disprove. Someone wanted to shoot it down based on nothing but "Oh, do your own work". Such a thing is a musing of possible mechanics, and someone who is not a douche will probably give it some thought. Also, if you had a better idea, maybe it would be solved. Otherwise, you're still sitting with an equally lame idea and your d*ck in your hand, sweetheart.
Bowler_4007
not rated yet Oct 23, 2012
The quarks of the photon interlock with the quarks in the neutron.
the photon does not consist of quarks

So if I never was good at math and may have had a great idea, the world should shun something that may make sense because I can't prove it mathematically?
you don't need to know maths just make some proper observations and someone else can help with the maths

Well Einstein did no experiments through whole his life
Einstein was a theoretical physicist not an experimental physicist


Thanks. I'm talking about a proton in a nucleus.

well next time check your spelling
Leavingmymind
1 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2012
well next time check your spelling


Next time I'll check your grandma on my d.