DIY experiment proving graviton is a particle

[hecd2]

1- So you measure the gravitational acceleration of the Sun and the Moon independently when they are not aligned.
.

What is the gravitational acceleration of the Sun and Moon and how do you propose to measure them?

 

[Mojo]

Yeah, thanks. I just wanted to do a head's up here.

Up where?

 

[philippeb8]

What is the gravitational acceleration of the Sun and Moon and how do you propose to measure them?

- Sun's g: G*1.9885e30/(1496e8^2)/9.8 = 6e-4

- Moon's g: G*7.342e22/(384400000^2)/9.8 = 3.38e-6

1) I'll see if the gravimeter of the iPhone is reliable first by pointing into the Moon and the Sun's directions individually.

2) If that works then I'll do the same for the eclipse.

3) If that doesn't work then I'll see if the tidal effects are precise enough.

4) If that doesn't work then I'll contact professional scientific laboratory for assistance with high precision gravimeters.

 

[hecd2]

- Sun's g: G*1.9885e30/(1496e8^2)/9.8 = 6e-4
.

Ok - so you mean the acceleration of the Earth due to Sun’s gravity. You can’t measure it with an accelerometer as the Earth is in free fall - you could measure the tidal force due to the Sun, which is 5.15e-8 g IF you had an accelerometer with sufficient sensitivity, precision and stability. The iPhone’s accelerometer is not it. The idea of measuring some small change in this gravitational force during an eclipse is even more ludicrous.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't think that's how it works.

Didn't Einstein show that gravity is a curvature of spacetime?

Assuming that gravitons are real, how would they work anyway? Do they move from one place to another? At what speed? Do they pass through baryonic matter without interacting or do they interact? If they don't interact, what explains the force of gravity that we observe? If they do, how does it work? They come from the sun, but they pull, not push? Do they impart some sort of negative momentum? Do they have mass or are they massless?

To me, curvature of spacetime is a much simpler way to think about gravity. If it's particles, I have a hard time even picturing a mechanism by how they would work in the way we observe gravity.

 

[Crossbow]

- Sun's g: G*1.9885e30/(1496e8^2)/9.8 = 6e-4

- Moon's g: G*7.342e22/(384400000^2)/9.8 = 3.38e-6

1) I'll see if the gravimeter of the iPhone is reliable first by pointing into the Moon and the Sun's directions individually.

2) If that works then I'll do the same for the eclipse.

3) If that doesn't work then I'll see if the tidal effects are precise enough.

4) If that doesn't work then I'll contact professional scientific laboratory for assistance with high precision gravimeters.

You are still failing to show how Gravitons are particles.

 

[cjameshuff]

Seems like this effect could be tested to at least a close approximation just by looking at tidal data.

There's a variety of ways to test for gravitational shielding, as it's a prediction of some theories of gravity...unsuccessful ones, in part due to the negative results of said tests. There's also much more sensitive tests based on the fact that it'd be a violation of the equivalence principle. Results are all consistent with GR...that is, no shielding.

Of course, this has nothing to do with "proving the graviton is a particle". Of course it's a particle, it's defined as such. Whether that definition is useful for describing gravity has yet to be seen, but since it need only "exist" as a force-mediating virtual particle, the given logic is nonsensical. But all this has been explained to philippeb8 before.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If gravity were a particle-object interaction, it would have to travel faster than light and that goes against the basic laws of physics.

 

[philippeb8]

There's a variety of ways to test for gravitational shielding, as it's a prediction of some theories of gravity...unsuccessful ones, in part due to the negative results of said tests. There's also much more sensitive tests based on the fact that it'd be a violation of the equivalence principle. Results are all consistent with GR...that is, no shielding.

Of course, this has nothing to do with "proving the graviton is a particle". Of course it's a particle, it's defined as such. Whether that definition is useful for describing gravity has yet to be seen, but since it need only "exist" as a force-mediating virtual particle, the given logic is nonsensical. But all this has been explained to philippeb8 before.

Maybe you misread by last thread on CQ but if a gravity is indeed composed of gravitons and travels through the Moon then it will lose energy because it interacts with the atoms of the Moon. So when the graviton reaches the opposite side of the Moon then it should have lost a lot of energy therefore becoming much less effective. If gravity really is a curved spacetime then there shouldn't be any difference in the gravitational acceleration of the Sun as measured from the surface of the Earth.

 

[philippeb8]

I don't think that's how it works.

Didn't Einstein show that gravity is a curvature of spacetime?

Assuming that gravitons are real, how would they work anyway? Do they move from one place to another? At what speed? Do they pass through baryonic matter without interacting or do they interact? If they don't interact, what explains the force of gravity that we observe? If they do, how does it work? They come from the sun, but they pull, not push? Do they impart some sort of negative momentum? Do they have mass or are they massless?

To me, curvature of spacetime is a much simpler way to think about gravity. If it's particles, I have a hard time even picturing a mechanism by how they would work in the way we observe gravity.

I proved here that you do not need curved spacetime to explain the light bending or the perihelion precession disparity. Newton's gravitational acceleration and gravitational time dilation are sufficient:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=340734

 

[philippeb8]

Ok - so you mean the acceleration of the Earth due to Sun’s gravity. You can’t measure it with an accelerometer as the Earth is in free fall - you could measure the tidal force due to the Sun, which is 5.15e-8 g IF you had an accelerometer with sufficient sensitivity, precision and stability. The iPhone’s accelerometer is not it. The idea of measuring some small change in this gravitational force during an eclipse is even more ludicrous.

If we are capable of measuring the tidal force of the Sun and the Moon then all I say is the eclipse will be lesser than their individual summation. If the uncertainty of the instruments is good enough then that's all we need.

 

[rjh01]

You are still failing to show how Gravitons are particles.

If gravitons were particles they may travel slower through matter in the same way that light goes through matter at a slower speed.

If gravity were a particle-object interaction, it would have to travel faster than light and that goes against the basic laws of physics.

No. Gravity travels at the speed of light.

However, gravity is not a particle. It has long been established that it is a bending of space. So no Nobel prize.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If gravity were a particle-object interaction, it would have to travel faster than light and that goes against the basic laws of physics.

Uh, no. Isn't light itself an "particle-object" interaction?

However, gravity is not a particle. It has long been established that it is a bending of space.

How does that make it not a particle? Do you reject the photon for the same reason? The graviton is the analogous gauge boson.

 

[Lothian]

I proved here that you do not need curved spacetime to explain the light bending or the perihelion precession disparity. Newton's gravitational acceleration and gravitational time dilation are sufficient:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=340734

This may help you.

PROVE
verb
past tense: proved
1.
demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
"the concept is difficult to prove"

2.
demonstrate to be the specified thing by evidence or argument.
"if they are proved guilty we won't trade with them"

 

[Norman Alexander]

According to your theory, Ms P, the moon "emits" gravitons that have some sort of effect when the moon is NOT aligned with the sun - it "performs gravity" that you can supposedly measure. The moon is far closer than the sun, so the gravitons from there will be "fresh" and powerful. Also, the moon should not cease to "emit" gravitons at any time, even when aligned with the sun.

However the sun is huge in comparison to both the Earth and the moon. REALLY huge - many thousands of times bigger. Assuming graviton "particles" do not lose the effectiveness once emitted, the graviton field from the sun should be vastly overwhelming compared to the moon's graviton field. Any gravitons going through the moon would be but a minuscule fraction of the total coming from the sun. So even if the moon stopped all of them that hit, the effect would be effectively zero on Earth.

So putting all this together...

When the sun aligns with the moon, the nett result on Earth would be the gravity effect of the moon PLUS a very fractionally reduced flood of gravitons from the sun. Thus, according to your own theory, the effect would not be a lessening of the "gravity effect" but an increase.

But wait...that's already been proven using standard gravitation theory. To quite a degree of accuracy. So you still have not proven your particles theory.

 

[hecd2]

Discussing this is like trying to work out a theory of physics that describes Balrogs, but anyway, here goes. If the moon was able to shield the Sun's gravity to a detectable extent, then the Earth would shield the Sun's and moon's gravity to points on the Earth's surface on the opposite side of these bodies to a greater extent. So you wouldn't need to wait for an eclipse. But as scjameshuff has already pointed out, experiments have already been done to detect gravitational shielding with null results to a high sensitivity (including gravity anomaly measurements during a solar eclipse).

 

[philippeb8]

Discussing this is like trying to work out a theory of physics that describes Balrogs, but anyway, here goes. If the moon was able to shield the Sun's gravity to a detectable extent, then the Earth would shield the Sun's and moon's gravity to points on the Earth's surface on the opposite side of these bodies to a greater extent. So you wouldn't need to wait for an eclipse. But as scjameshuff has already pointed out, experiments have already been done to detect gravitational shielding with null results to a high sensitivity (including gravity anomaly measurements during a solar eclipse).

Just because some experiments are null doesn't mean it refutes gravitational sheilding, I just means the gravitons are losing a lesser amount of energy.

This experiment can also be done repeatedly in a 12h cycle where the actual shield is the Earth itself but during the night.

I already discovered that 2 errors canceled each other in the particles accelerator so I'll have to review what has been done on the gravitational shielding already. Hopefully this won't date back to the 19th century...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andy_Ross]

Just because some experiments are null doesn't mean it refutes gravitational sheilding, I just means the gravitons are losing a lesser amount of energy.

So the lack of evidence is the evidence?

 

[sackett]

So the lack of evidence is the evidence?

It is if somebody's covering up.

 

[theprestige]

Just because some experiments are null doesn't mean it refutes gravitational sheilding, I just means the gravitons are losing a lesser amount of energy.

No it does not mean that gravitons are losing less energy.

It means your prediction is wrong.

That may be because gravitons are losing less energy.

It may be because gravitons aren't losing energy at all.

It may be because gravitons as you understand them don't exist.

Etc.