Blogging About Graviton, Quantum Physics, Questions About Validity In Approaches

To:  Waguespack-Seminars Bloggers:
From: Myself
AND
A “third party” (friend) sent me the following article for comment.
My (Richard Waguespack’s) response
This article to follow in preparation of a response is slightly dated but relevant. After reading, I have a number of thoughts and responses but in order to focus, would like to know your main motive, the point you anticipated I receive from article and what might be best to focus on… if you don’t answer fairly quickly I will have to make certain assumptions and prepare a fairly quick response.
Thank you for sending. Hope all is well ______.
My (Richard Waguespack’s)  fuller response
Regarding scientific article on combining gravity and concepts from another framework of force (i.e. electromagnetic spectrum) we find an attempt at integration “quantum gravity” which seems to run short because of some inherent assumptions about ‘the quantum’ and ‘the gravity’ which are not explicit but seem to underscore the rationale for his progression of thought. This rationale seems to believe that we have assembled enough evidence or information to quantize gravity, but if you asked him the basis of quantification of a “graviton” he would be unprepared to answer, thus he is in a very weak position to propose a paradigm of thought for the reader…I hate to put more work into my response than he has put into the article, but I indeed will respond.
For starters, lets understand primary thoughts others have discovered and assembled about the graviton.
They are explained basically here… Note the article explores the inherent limitations with the concept. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/05/what-are-gravitons/
My (Richard Waguespack’s) more extensive response
What Are Gravitons? – The Nature of Reality — The Nature of Reality | PBS.  In a contest for the least contentious statement a person can make, “What goes up must come down” is surely a strong contender. Of the four… Read Full Post pbs.org
I think the barrier to coming up with a precise rather than probabilistic measurement for a gravitation is relativity itself and the variables that pertain to mass and volume that influence the formation of such a force in unique situations that cannot be replicated with sufficient precision because we cannot control all the variables..
My friend’s response
You are right. It is still a field that physicist are trying to find answers but I am amazed at the thought process going into this. That is the function of the theoretical physics and then the practical physics has to find a way to prove or disprove. As is common in science some will disagree with the findings while others will agree. It takes time before the scientific community as a whole will find it valid. That is the beauty about science.
My (Richard Waguespack’s) more extensive response
Now, the fact that the author does not address the issue of a gravitation as herein described, leaves me with the impression that he is thinking fancifully and with little depth of knowledge…. I would not want to go so far to say that the article has no merit, only that is basically forms a concept offering a paradigm that he is grossly to significantly unprepared (evidently) to develop in a fully rational and scientific way. If 8-10 is professional physics and the best college teachers are a 4-7 and the better high school teachers are 3-6 – he is at the low end of high school teachers in terms of competency in my quick and dirty assessment which may be unfair and unfounded, but it is what I honestly think… and it would be wrong to suggest otherwise out of politeness.
I believe a graviton cannot be placed squarely in a quantum framework, but it almost certainly a hybrid — in 100 years it will likely be described in several vectors… I would say at least four.
My friend’s response
Technology is advancing to the point where a lot of the postulates from the 40s and later are been proven to be correct.  It would require a reading of mass surrounding from a very large range of territory.
My (Richard Waguespack’s) more extensive response
One of such theories is the gravitational waves,Sure.. but there is no postulate for a gravitation, which presumably would be a basic unit of measure. I also agree with Sheldrake that the potential for precision even in those areas that are more conventionally “quantum” is confounded by the prospect that such “laws” which though “verifiable” are not immutable, across space and time.
My friend’s response
That means that we have a lot to learn.
My (Richard Waguespack’s) more extensive response
Jesuit thinker Spitzer might disagree with me… so be it… He thinks our established constants, even Planks constant are immutable… but we have evidence already that it is not. But a graviton is probably something that will not be quantified in our lifetime and when it is quantified it will break a world record in complexity.
My friend’s response
That leave us with this question how can we (you and I) actively participate in this area and provide some valuable knowledge in instead on been providing only our opinions.
My (Richard Waguespack’s) response
I would say learn these two guys and that would be a good place to grasp the concept from a casual perspective.
My friend’s response
..and potential disagreements.
My friend’s response
I do not mind disagreements because that is what scientist do.
I think they need to go back to the drawing board on the matter… not sure many are on the right track because they are too influenced by notions such as string theory, the theory of everything, etc… popular science sometimes fuels development, but not in this case…
There are even announcements by the press of breakthroughs on this, but the seem to be kind of like red herons…
My friend’s response
I think we need to start creating our own experiments and prove or disapprove such theories
My (Richard Waguespack’s) more extensive response
We can much more easily study a photon in an electromagnetic wave than a graviton…
Understanding gravity as a macro level force is fairly challenging but mostly covered by classical mechanics. We need to examine the rational and entry point of discussing it in the context within the other forces of nature and be very vigilant about identifying false props and frameworks… Descartes Discourse on Method is a basic place to run a strip down on what has been assembled thus far. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/discoursemethod/
Too much nonsense to have a great discussion… I think discussing the relationship between fields of gravity and fields of light (or electromagnetic spectrum and derivatives) is still an area that needs to be developed… we barely have this down…
Here we might have a good discussion.
I think a graviton is not going to be categorized as a quantum measurement except in one probabilistic vector that by itself is incomplete… bottom line…. It will need to relate to the four forces of nature but not be described in terms of any of them exclusively.
It is in itself a force of nature.
It will need to be related to itself to start off…
I think they will have to make more distinctions about gravity per se before we even begin to flesh out a bona fide theory of gravity that touches other forces of nature.
I think its relativistic nature will need to be exposed in a bigger way… and I think that also there is a relativistic side of the electromagnetic spectrum that we pay lip service too (ie. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), but that we have yet to define in ways which will not be routinely overturned in a future series of events.
Final note… even though I sent the article on Descartes, I disagree with literary writer whose understanding of the history of math is very deficient. Mischaracterizes Descartes here in chapter one… he was a very abstract thinker in math for his time, actually arguably the primary inventor of complex numbers and “i” which in my view represents a value outside of three dimensional space. So, the article is so, so and the remark on math not correct. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/discoursemethod/section1.rhtml
SparkNotes: Discourse on Method: Part One
A summary of Part One in Rene Descartes’s Discourse on Method. Learn exactly what happened in this chapter, scene, or section of Discourse on Method and what it means. Perfect for acing essays, tests, and quizzes, as well as for writing lesson plans.
sparknotes.com

Before retiring… possibly the expansion of your field may be in observing group dialogs in science and technology to detect possible dangerous group think, etc… applications for Bohmian Dialog… perhaps SAFETY and quality control may extend into moral philosophy and human process for the top end of the profession… In other words, are goals and objectives, explicit and hidden variables reasonable and sound and in the best interest of humanity… from a safety point of view we are looking at authenticity and self disclosure and thinking aloud – the absence of which, especially if manipulation or power plays evident a danger sign if such individuals are involved in planning and development. Thanks for making contact… Good night.

My friend’s response
Good morning 😃

My (Richard Waguespack’s) more extensive response
: ] Just a thought…
Good Morning…
Want to help my friends expand their horizons… lol

Leave a Comment

Translate »