This New Idea to Detect a Quantum of Gravity Might Just Work
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ย. 2024
- Check out my course about quantum mechanics on Brilliant! First 30 days are free and 20% off the annual premium subscription when you use our link ➜ brilliant.org/....
Correction to the screen text at 05:04: It's in the range of microgram. What I say is correct, the text isn't. Sorry about that.
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com...
Gravitons are one of the most sought-after particles in physics. They could help physicists combine quantum physics with gravity to create a theory of "quantum gravity." We thought until recently they were for all practical purposes impossible to detect, but now scientists are coming up with some ideas for how graviton-detecting experiments could work for real. Let’s take a look.
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.sub...
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfe...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.c...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #physics #gravity
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1725943531613x147023938740833180
You can now create your own quizzes on my website and embed them into your website or add them to your own videos. It's free -- just set up an account and a creator profile.
YOUR SO SMART
@@user-dd4nx2js8xEh. She's just an elon musk sycophant.
This sounds like a great experiment for the ISS. Keeping the mass in shadow and insulated will allow it to cool to 2.7K for free. That's a good start
SABINE SHUT UP !!!!
thank you for the qizz, 16/18
Hi Sabine, thank you for covering our work! I am glad you found it interesting, and it was a nice explanation! But one point of clarification: We don't need to use 1 ton of mass. Rather, ideally one would have around 10kg of Beryllium, this would be the ideal detector to catch a single graviton from a neutron-star-merger event (maximal probability to absorb only a single graviton). Cooling close to the ground state in this mass range has been achieved. Nevertheless, detecting a single quantum jump of exactly one graviton energy is still difficult at these masses, so it certainly requires significant effort for the sensing part. But it can be done in the kg mass-range.
..and just how is this not going to ring as a bell coz of black body radiaton?
Always great to see contribution from the researchers in the comments!
Wouldn't cooling a large mass be easier in the shadow on the moon? If yes this kind of experiment will be the kind a moon base would be great for... And yes I know this would be really expensive and difficult... But so was building the large hadron collider. If only a certain Elon could have the same idea!
@@regisdumoulinwhy not Jupiter? Both more shielding and more gravitons (hypothetically, I'm personally not sold on the whole idea).
@@truhartwood3170 I guess, yes, Jupiter would be better... But we'll have a hard enough time building a base on the moon, so a base on Jupiter! Plus the fact it would take ages to ship anything there let alone astronauts (I don't believe such a base/detector could be built by remotely operated robots)
Thanks Sabine.
1\ Physicists sometimes say that gravity is not a force, but the curvature of space. So why would it be expected to have particles as the three forces do?
2\ You said micrograms but your graphics guys said mg (milligrammes). 😲
1) Yes that is a very good point. There are ways that gravity is similar to the other interactions and ways that it is not. Those who think they are more similar than not, tend to think there ought to be a graviton.
2) Dang. Microgram is right, but they are trying to reach milligram, hence the mixup. Thanks for pointing out, will add a note to the info.
Thank you! I was thinking the same thing! And thank you, Sabine for the reply.
Should the detector be in space?
Physicists : we have a good idea that may or may not work. Please give us 100 billion dollars to build a device and a long prize-winning career talking about our idea.
It sounds like they deny the physical reality of curved space in favor of a bizarre particle with such effect on a flat space.
Quantum computing, fusion reactors, and graviton detection are all possible, but we're just not cool enough yet.
Apparently we got cool enough for quantum computing. And we're almost cool enough for fusion reactors. (check out the Helion Pulsed Fusion Reactor design.)
Dr. Sabine must be a large source of high energy motivons by working through all these 🦄- papers for us.👌
Dude I just discovered she can also sing and I’m literally binge listening to this one
th-cam.com/video/BX_WZPG-7hc/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
@@khalidalamri.Yes she made about twenty music videos over the years very nice and special, unfortunately she made the last about 3years ago. My favorites are these ones: "Schrödinger´s Cat" and "This is how I Pray".
It helps if you can get sufficient futons. (The quanta of sleep...)
@@khalidalamri. th-cam.com/video/I_0laAhvHKE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=9gorrElPvJ0QWZbY
@@khalidalamri. th-cam.com/video/4cJIW5FTbRo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=vUKLaPwWsjc5xVDI
I’m afraid my motovons are quantized and I never have enough energy to pump them into an excited state. This channel explains life so well.
shit me too the reason my wife left me is cuz my penitons dont get excited no more
So the motivon is a WIMP? 🤔
Maybe you just need to chill. Let us know when you reach 1 Kelvin or below.
Your best hope might be to wait for them to quantum-tunnel to a higher energy state.
In the meantime, don't look at them!
Maybe you need more Dopons or Noradrenons. In less severe cases Caffeons might help. Caffeons can lead to undesirable high temperatures, though (more random wiggling of the base particle we seek to excite - we also do not want the base particle to physically collide with it's surrounding particles or even exert excessive interparticular forces on them instead, since those could become annoyed). I think this negative effect is inherent to Caffeons because I suspect they decay into (Actely-)Cholinons, which are similar to Noradrenons but different.
Sorry, I experience a shower of Dopons and Noradrenons right now, that scramble my communication protocol xD .
2:25 but what if the cake is a lie?
Ha!
The cake is a lie!
Much ❤ Love
🌏🌎🌍☯️⚡️
World🌞Peace
I'm sure you've already caught this, but at about 5:03 the screen says milligrams (mg) but your voice says micrograms (µg)
I saw that too.
I no longer know whether we need gravitons at all. But this experiment would still be a great thing. This is something that can't be solved without using empirical data.
and isn't background noise what LIGO is all about.
@@carlosgaspar8447LIGO is all about measuring distortion of space time and gravitational waves (not particles) caused by e.g. merging black holes
@@arctic_haze And tons of money. Inertia is expensive.
@@AisleEpe-oz8kf I don't know about that. My background inertia seems to be more than my needs require.
If there are no gravitons, I don’t see how true artificial gravity or antigravity could ever be a thing.
1:35 I see Ricky Gervais is now doing stock footage.
Almost, but not grumpy enough.
I once found a graviton on the beach and I brought it back home. My girlfriend thought it was a tick and she threw it away.
That's exactly what happened to the magnetic monopole I found!
Ticks are gravi...? I TOLD the vet my dog isn't fat. This would explain everything!
@@GizzyDillespee No, ticks are chronotons. They make your dog older. To make your dog younger, you need some tocks (antichronotons).
3:36 finally we get to see Sabine from the waist down
The CUORE experiment at the LNGS has cooled down about a tonne of tellurium dioxide crystals to under 10mK and kept it stable for years, so the cryogenic technology is definitely there
6:12 There exists a universe in which she instead said "Metal".
Heavy metal at that lil mama😊
Imagine that supercooled chunk of metal suddenly starts to emit echo of some _modulated_ signal. Like in "His Master's voice" by S.Lem
It's exciting that people are coming up with ideas to test quantum gravity that are, like, remotely possible. Cooling a tonne of metal to near absolute zero might be out width our current abilities, but its almost certainly doable. It has a foundation in a sensible theory, and doesn't rely on sci-fi level megastructures in space, and travelling to neutron stars and other garbage like that.
Why would it be so hard?
If it's not cold enough, you just need to add more isolation and refrigerators... 😂
(No really, that's all. Start with a meter of foam and a basic cooling system. Leave an air/vacuum gap for better isolation. Then add another layer of isolation and cooling system with another gap. Repeat enough times, and eventually you can add those NASA heat-shield tiles. The more repetitions, the colder you can make it. There'd be no reason it can't be done.)
Frozen mercury has a density of 14 gr/cc. A tonne wouldn't be that big of a volume and it's a lot cheaper than platinum or iridium.
@blinking_dodo I think the quantum computer example as a explanation of comolexity is a little misleading. If I had to guess I think this is the only industry where they try to cool sizeable amounts of material to temperatures close to the papers requirements. Now I will say you can completely isolate the material because you need sensors to pick uo and transmit the vibrational signal which sounds like a feat all of its own. But also we are talking about 1000x cooler than what industry is trying to do at greater sizes. However it's still worth pursuing because this is the type of experiment where the unexpected could be found and teach us so much more
@@blinking_dodo You can only cool so far with traditional phase-transition cooling like a refrigeration cycle (specifically, you can only get down to the lowest boiling point of the coldest possible refrigerant, which I think would be helium, ~3K) . Getting down to milliKelvins requires exotic cooling techniques like electromagnetic and laser cooling, where you're basically applying energy in just the right way to counteract the kinetic energy of particles. Than you have the challenge of radioactive decay, pretty much everything has some level of radioisotope contamination, including both the insulation and the thing you're trying to cool, normally the heating produced by this would be negligible but when you're trying to get something down that close to absolute zero a piece of cryolite insulating foam might as well be a fission reactor fuel rod.
I would imagine the easiest way to cool down a big chunk of metal to far below the cosmic background would be to develop a really efficient exotic refrigeration setup that cools helium down that low and than use that as a coolant for the sample. It would still be a really big challenge in terms of material processing to try and make things as non-radioactive as possible so they don't generate more heat than the exotic refrigeration system can remove.
@@jgt2598 Neat explanation.
I guess that cooling to 3k is the best i can do in that case.
At least i can have my superconducting computer go gigahertz speeds... 🙃
I occasionally write fiction, and sometimes the lore of my fiction becomes indistinguishable from this kind of " it should exists because it fits" science to the point that some of my more excitable readers actually told me I should use my lore to write a quantum physics paper. Of cause I won't, for one because aI made that shit up out of nothing and the sole purpose of lore and world building is to make shit fit to things like intergalactic portals, not to JWT observations or other real things, and secondly that I'm just an engineer with applied science credentials in electrical engineering, computer forensics, and computer statistics, I'm nothing close to an astrophysicist or particle physicist, so even if it wasn't completely made up fiction, I couldn't write a quantum physics paper to safe my life. One thing however that I feel stands out from the discussions I've had is it feels like the real physicists seem to only consider "emergent" as an absolute last option, while these excitable readers seem to exactly cling to the "it's emergent, stupid" way of thinking. I got triggered by this subject because in my fiction gravity is emergent (in short, there is a quantum chrono field with chronotons, no gravitons), but the same avoidance of considering emergent properties other than as last resort is there when you discuss things like free will. This really makes me wonder: Sabine, why are emergent properties always at the end of the line when it comes to physics hypothesis creation and testing?
Excellent question.
@SabineHossenfelder
Will you share your thoughts on this with us?
Tell them to go read some Terrence Howard.
@@tharrrrrrr 😂
I hope you use paragraphs in your stories.
Hilarious
Okay, maybe I am missing something here. Will have to read the paper, but this is just a modified version of the existing experiments for gravitational wave called resonant mass detectors which have been used since the 60s. The issue with those detectors was the dimensions of the solid cylinders used in the detectors would have a narrow range of frequencies it could detect because you needed a strong enough passing gravity wave at the exact resonant frequency in order to have a chance to detect anything. And that is after you isolated it from all the outside sources of noise. If I recall correctly, the last generation of these detectors use to keep the temperature at 4 K, but in the 90s there was a proof of concept experiment that maintained a temperature of 50 mK or so. If they are able to maintain a low mK environment with high quality vibrational isolation, you will still have the issue of narrow frequency bandwidth and how do you separate the quanta measurement from the bulk wave? I need to read this paper.
This version exploits quantum effects to be MUCH more sensitive. The quantum sensors needed don't yet actually exist.
@@kellymoses8566 Fair enough considering much of the gravitation wave detection tech for LIGO did not actually exist at the time of its design.
Joseph Weber. Anyone remember him and his aluminium cylinders with piezoelectric sensors?
Nice response
This sounds like revisiting the history of gravitational antennae. First, Weber tried giant metal cylinders but thermal noise drowned out any signal. The obvious next thing was to cool them to cryogenic temperatures. But stresses captured in the metal slowly released in random pings producing false signals. Then Braginsky concluded that a perfect crystal cylinder (still cryogenic) was needed to ring for a long time after a wave hit it and aluminum oxide(sapphire) was a good material. At this point I no longer remember the quantities accurately but I think his engineers had gottten to the point of being able to produce 5kg crystals and were striving towards 10kg with 25kg the eventual goal.
At this point the story gets amusing. Someone located a company in the US was already producing suitable 15kg crystals. Their current equipment could attain 20kg but no one had previously asked for one that size. As for 25kg, they would merely need to build a bigger oven. All the techniques would be the same.
And who were the customers for these perfect crystals? Manufacturers of armored cars. They made excellent windows, clear and tough.
This was in the late seventies and I heard no more until LIGO eventually made the effort somewhat moot.
Yep, the early gravitational detector research was quite something. We may, eventually, revisit these techniques. We have much better control over crystal growth and we can produce much, much lower temperatures as well.
Sabine - your dry humor and eloquent articulation make me laugh and learn at the same time. Brilliant!
This metal would also need to be monocrytalline for enhanced absorption into the phonon modes. A large, perfect, monocrystalline metal is very difficult to make. Additionally 1 ton would certainly reorganize due to the strain in Earth's gravity. Most dark matter searches take advantage of a high Q resonance to make the response less broadband and their responses all would look like gravity if you don't have dark matter.
I also wondered why it would have to be metal. A tonne of monocrystalline silicon sounds feasible too.
Very difficult bordering into impossible.
@@bernhardschmalhofer855Some metals superconduct at lower temperatures. I don't know if this is a factor, but maybe it is.
I don't understand, how gravitons are supposed to interact with absolutely everything - from quarks, to gluons, to electrons, to photons. How do gravitons deflect all photons - regardless of each photon's energy (frequency) - by the same amount (as seen in gravitational lensing)? How would any graviton manage to interact with a radio photon whose wavelength can span many meters? Also, how would gravitons be compatible with frame dragging, or the geodetic effect? Does gravitational time dilation apply to gravitons (and if so, how would that not be a case of a snake eating its own tail: are gravitons also interacting with other gravitons, now?)
I know it's not a proper answer but a nice suggestion I believe is to recall that gravitons can be very highly delocalized; about the frame dragging, I think the Shapiro effect could give some insights; about time dilation, we have now very tight evidence against Lorentz violation, so I'd say a non pathological theory should include Lorentz transformations consequences; the idea of the self-effect also doesn't bother me too much, since self-interactions would clearly needed to be include for us to have a proper generic quantum theory
Still, maybe I just said some generic bs, wdy think?
Gravitons would be a transfer of energy based on a change of a gravity field. A static gravity field (as represented by a curved space/time) would not have any gravitons but it would cause photons to be deflected from an apparent straight line. How gravitons could interact with energy or matter is entirely unknown and would require a reformalisation of quantum physics. The gravitons are an expression of relativistic effects, that is they are the Einstein Field Equations, but when interacting with matter become particles. So it is the calculation of gravitation time dilation in EFE that produces gravitons.
Time dilation happens in electrical
signals when the frequencies are moving forward or backward.
Sabine’s sign wave diagram doesn’t show or explain the scalar frequency that is the “zero point” of the wave.
5. - -
4. - - -
3. - - -
2. - - -
1. - - -
0.•••••••-••••••••••••-•••••••••-•
1. - -
2. - - -
3. - -
4. - -
5. -
This zero standing wave can have a forward or backward wave form.
On gravity..
It comes down to charge and the dipole moment.
Gravity has no particles.
It is an effect of mass.
Mass is an effect of charge.
In my
“Welcome to your Electric Universe” playlist,
16th from the top,
“The long path to understanding gravity” may help explain it better.
It’s better than most things on tv these days.
@@chriswatson7965 nicely put. That makes much more sense. I was very bothered by the energy transfer myself
> How would any graviton manage to interact with a radio photon
Gravitons would interact with photons just like with any other particle: two particles which gravitationally attract each other are simply exchanging a virtual graviton.
So, a photon deflected by a galaxy cluster exchanges a virtual graviton with every particle of the galaxy cluster.
This is 100% analogous how quantum electrodynamics works: virtual photons.
As the graviton is a fundamental particle what is the finite mass at the time of the Big Bang and does this this affect the expansion of the Universe as the field is restricted to initial mass as matter can not be infinite . If the graviton field “condenses” back to a particle in a heavy core of a celestial object , does this cause a negative energy flow with gravitons following the laws of entropy to fill the “void” as a graviton vacuum effect or time dilation mimicking the same negative pressure .
You know it's good news when even Sabine is optimistic 😂
4:45 "...you might catch a few photons..." I think she meant gravitons.
4:45 - capture photons or gravitons? 😉
Here's a thought. If the way to detect gravitons is to have a thing that behaves like one extremely heavy particle, then what about making one extremely heavy particle? Experiments in the LHC at CERN have shown that by hyper-accelerating a particle to nearly the speed of light, and then adding enough energy to accelerate it beyond light speed, instead of going faster than light, the particle begins to gain mass, to balance out against the energy being applied to it. If a particle can gain mass, that means something is added to it which makes it heavier. Like perhaps a graviton. If we can figure out and quantify the means by which a hyper-accelerated particle gains mass, then perhaps that would lead to figuring out the quantum of gravity.
They dont gain mass, energy and mass are equivalent. They gain energy. Also they dont give it energy to exceed light speed the amount of energy required for that according to our theories is infinite
The ton of metal is cheap-ish.
The heavily shielded chamber that's capable of being cooled down to microKelvin temperatures would be useful for a multitude of other different experiments if this one doesn't pan out the way they wanted.
It'll probably need to be something like spectrally pure scandium or zirconium. Not cheap. Most of these experiments need large amounts of something exotic. Perhaps the physicists hope to sell it off once the experiment is over.
@@EbenBransome something like this would end up with DARPA eventually
LOL imagine the ebay listing "Ultra-Low Temperature Cryostat - 100L Volume, Millikelvin Range!
Taken from working setup. Helium not included."
Then imagine the silly stuff some youtubers would do with it.
How does one detect a few milli Kelvin in the center of a ton of metal with any accuracy?
The temperature on the inside should change following known laws based on the temperature on the outside, and visa versa?
Quantum physics says nothing about the intrinsic quanta of light,
It only talks about the quanta of absorption and emission of said light.
It's a very subtle point, but an important one if you want to understand what's really going on.
The reason why this is true is when considering how light is produced or absorbed.
The most basic way is through an electron being in quantized energy states.
When an electron changes states, it experiences an interim superposition which is when/where the absorption or emission occurs.
This is important, because it is technically possible for light to not be quantized into packets,
But we would never know, because we have no way of detecting and absorbing that light other than through discrete particles in discrete energy states.
One more point about gravity being "weak".
It's a monophasic force, it's actually very strong, just the phase difference is very small.
If you were able to make the phase difference a full Pi, you would see how strong gravity truly is.
Why not look for quantized space-time? In relativity, we talk about gravity as an effect that mass has on space-time. Not so much a force. It's like we are looking to quantize a shadow, and not looking for how the light is being blocked. The shadow is an effect, gravity is an effect. We can't find a quantum particle for either.
One fundamental problem of gravitons is that it consists of the quantized energy, if the gravitons continuously escape from a mass object, in theory the object with lost all the gravity, the smaller in mass ; the faster it vanished, am I correct?
You might be mixing this up with black hole evaporation. Black holes heat up as they lose mass. But this isn't generally the case. Generally you expect a less massive object to emit fewer gravitons. However, graviton emission doesn't come from mass per se, it comes losely speaking from the motion of masses and their closeness to gravitational collapse. This is why black hole emissions emit so many gravitational waves.
@@SabineHossenfelder Thanks a lot 👍
i think it is not the case
@@SabineHossenfelder black hole emissions emit gravitational waves? or collisions?
@@SabineHossenfelderis this frame dragging?
If that ton of supercooled metal is actually feasible as a graviton detector, it would have such a low tolerance for noise that the experiment would almost certainly have to be performed in deep space. Though not necessarily impossible, that would definitely be several decades beyond our current technical capabilities, if not more.
Just wondering, though the so-called Electric Universe idea doesn't seem to be acceptable to establishment physics. It's been around for decades and not a peep from people like Penrose and Hawkins (when he was alive), even though they (proponents of EU--electric universe) say they see similarities between plasma streams and cosmic filaments, etc. Maybe its time for a closer look? What do you think?
Why do you think Sabine attracts so many contrarians?
@@drdca8263 Perhaps because she has supported the obviously failed climate hoax and said that the best place to find 'facts' are with the sources that have been exposed as manipulators, data inventors, and those dependent on a despicably ideological government for their funding. This is disappointing, especially for someone who is clearly intelligent and knowledgeable.
On the other hand, my suggestion regarding the EU is not because I'm a supporter, but because, as an actual physicist, she may be objective enough to provide a reasonable evaluation in the light of modern cosmology's and modern physic's admitted condition of stalemate and the fact that telescopes are finding things that the standard models can't explain. You know, like doing real science, examining alternative ideas.
EU is older than the big bang.
My tinfoil-hat side says there's a conspiracy to hide the electro-gravitic effect and any possible related technologies. This is akin to hiding technology around nuclear weapons, but has been successful so far. There are hints it's there (strongly associated with the electric properties of a vacuum), but often research is dissuaded in some fashion or other. There's always some red-herring argument brought up that says you're going against Einstein when your point is that it fits within his model, and is relativistic. Yet it may have ties to the UAP stuff and more efficient ways to perform nuclear fusion. Black-budget projects show signs of knowing about it, unlike the public domain. Weird but you have to dig there.
The issue is that some Electric-Universe models don't account for gravitational effects as much as gravitational models don't account for electric field effects, when the real interesting stuff happens under conditions with both fields actively present. I think that's the unresolved thing on the astronomy side to get the math to balance out without inventing undetectable stuff to explain the "accounting errors".
I thnk all of physics accepts the idea of electricity. Whats makes this theory different? Well electricty is somethign we really dont understand I think as im learning electroincs as a hobby, lots of conflicting information, and half baked anaologies, we just know it works more then anything, not really why. Which means theres probably more to elecricty and the universe then we realize I agree with that, but what more is this? Does EU give us more? Youd think a theory would have some killer apps, ideas. bullet points you can spew everytime like e=mc2, but usually i just get "go check it out" and links to braninwash sessions to sell me stuff instead of any real information.
There's a book called "Gravity Control With Present Technology" by David and Frederick Alzofon. Very interesting reading, and it's claimed scientific proof.
Serious question, if gravitons rarely interact with matter wouldn’t we expect to see the effect quickly dissipate as soon as the interaction is over? Meaning matter would just gradually move apart when not interacting with these hyper rare graviton interactions. What we do see is a somewhat smooth curve applied consistently and evenly across densities of matter.
I’m with Sabine, I’m skeptical. If Einstein is right, there are no gravitons
Why should there be gravitons at all? Surely gravity is simply a property of mass, or a component of the definition of a geodesic through spacetime. If gravitons existed then why would we not have also "massitons" or "inertiatons" ?
Here’s one reason we might expect this (though I think there are other reasons that are more complicated but stronger if one understands them, which I don’t):
1)Gravitational waves exist
2)when we model light waves in the context of quantum mechanics, and when we model sound waves in the context of quantum mechanics, we get that both are comprised of (or can be described in terms of) quanta for those waves (photons and phonons respectively. Note that this is true for sound waves even though sound waves are an emergent behavior of a material rather than fundamental! Accordingly phonons are quasiparticles, arising as collective behavior of the medium they are in.)
3) perhaps, along the same lines, when modeled in the context of quantum mechanics, gravitational waves can also be described in terms of some quanta, which we might call “gravitons”. (And perhaps, just as photons explain the electromagnetic interactions, gravitons might explain gravitational interactions.)
@@drdca8263 personally I think quantization is a phenonemenon of the observation event rather an integral component of some underlying substance (which I believe to be continuous/analog in nature anyway) but thanks for elucidating. Communicable observations are by their nature boolean unlike qualia which is not, so it would make sense for there to be some strangeness where one gives way to the other.
@@robfrost1 My understanding of quantization is pretty much, that it comes from the spectrum of various observables/operators being discrete.
Whether the “underlying stuff” is continuous or discrete…
I don’t know, I don’t think either of those fully matches my view of things?
I guess my view of things is like, “some operators have continuous spectra, while others have discrete spectra. The only qualities that can be scientifically measured in quantum mechanics are tied to the spectra of operators.”
The problem with gravity, is that unlike pretty much everything else, it doesn't come in discrete quanti. Gravitons do exist the moment you start talking about them, but from there on, explaining what they are is an infinite story.
It is quite irrelevant ,sort of mathematical philosophy of natural events that never can be proved. They should study and research more inner problems that confronts today world or in the near future.
@@MKSense1 The problem I have with mathematical philosophy, is that it tends to turn into mathematical religion, wherein people loose awareness of the fact that mathematics is, always was and always will be an expression of imagination. Some people truely believe there is no higher truth than mathematics, and the only step from mathematics to reality is resolution of data.
Which means gravity is like time, a result of something, not a thing in itself. Time being the result of all this motion, things move spin, and we can demark time ,but if they didnt spin or move nothing would change and therefore our concept of time would also be non existant, therefore time doesnt exist on its own. The begining of time was the beginning of movement. Maybe gravity is the same way.
Aren't protons, neutrons, and electrons discrete quantums of gravity?
@@gocrazy432 Hmm, yes, but no not really. You see, when you just consider that and conclude that gravity is only something between quanta of mass, and base your calculations on that, it doesn't add up. Worse than that, the part missing isn't always the same. In most cases, you must assume there is mass you can't see, but then in some cases, for no appearant reason, you don't need any of that.
The poblem with using math as an investigative tool, is that all it can give you is consistency in mathological relations between discrete quanta, but when that discretion fails, you're hopelessly lost, because math doesn't tell you what it is you're calculating.
The reason why particles in the standard model have such weird names, is because besides their mathematical consistency, which in itself is of course invalueable information, we don't really know what they are, why they are there or what it is they are doing. The black sheep of the family being gravity, which appears to be something everything is doing to everything else, but in an inconsistant i.e. not quantisable way.
My best guess is that there are no gravitons. How could there be considering the principle of equivalence?
What a turn of events after the video from yesterday! 😂
"Motivons" 😂 - I'll use this trick next time I get a chance. "I'm sorry. I'm weak on wantions right now. Try bothering someone high on asskissons." 😂😂😂
6:06 worst case we have spent all of our grant money and have no result so we have to apply for a new grant..
It's all about the Benjamin's...a grift...just like climate change, funding wars, youtubers spreading false information, infrastructure bills, 87,000 IRS agents, lawfair, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Food, MIC, CDC, FDA, NIH. FBI, CIA, NSA...and at the bottom...millions of hard working countryman and women working 2 and 3 jobs...
Energy changes as we go further to the mass it means if graviton exist its wavelength also change as go further to the mass. So graviton here at surface of the earth is different from what we detect high above the earth.
Thanks, it boggles my mind more than space. This is a bit of a fairytail, wishfull thinking, a fantasy, a boys dream😂
It could be possible to cool a ton of mercury with liquid helium and get it close to 0 Kelvin. Then to avoid contamination from decay and cosmic stuff with water around it in a enclosed but separate stainless steel container and the cooled mercury inside. Just how cern created their collider.
Given that we have the Higgs Field/Boson, how do they intersect with gravity? I seriously doubt that the graviton exists and that Einstein is right about mass distorting space-time. The tricky bit is understanding how the Higgs phenomenon fits into the mass- gravity phenomenon.
" Gravitational waves have a wide range of wavelengths, from a few miles to larger than the observable universe. Shortwave gravitational waves have wavelengths of a few miles and frequencies of milliseconds."
"The graviton's Compton wavelength is at least 1.6×1016 m, or about 1.6 light-years, corresponding to a graviton mass of no more than 7.7×10−23 eV/c2."
Huh? I thought the graviton should be massless, and the Compton wavelength would depend on the momentum?
@@drdca8263I would have thought it to massless as well. Having a particle containing mass acting as a force applier between two larger masses seems like nonsense. When the whole thing is about mass causing forces to begin with.
@@nickcarroll8565 Well, gluons have a non-neutral color charge, and they are what mediate the strong force between things with non-neutral color charge, so I don’t know that is absurd for that reason.
Rather, it is because gravity is a long-range force that I expect the graviton to be massless. Iirc/aiui, the bosons for the weak force are massive, and this imposes a limitation on how far the interaction can be (through some sort of time vs energy uncertainty principle).
Though I wonder if gravitons were massive, then maybe it would be a bit like the strong force with the “flux tubes” and such, and not allowing things to separate? Hm, no, I’d guess not, but idk. (I don’t know the math for that)
@@drdca8263 well let me explain my reasoning a little more. I’d be worried about a recursion issue. I’m a graviton mediating between two objects. But I have mass, now I need another graviton to mediate between me and one of the other objects, ad Infinitum. I’m probably explaining poorly. And there may be some physical reason why that wouldn’t be an issue like you said with the gluons.
@@nickcarroll8565 Yeah, the concern makes sense! I just think that probably it wouldn’t be fundamentally contradictory or anything like that, as gluons have something analogous going on (which I think does make the calculations involving gluons super difficult?), (though it might have weird effects that would make things very much unlike reality even in situations where gravity shouldn’t be relevant? Though my guess is that it would just make gravity short range.)
A ton-O-metal chilled in the “cold” direction to milli-Kelvin(s) of a degree above absolute zero … -273 deg. K. … There’s #Ur-limit! 😊 4:47
5:45 wouldn’t it work if you just put that ton of metal into space and put an umbrella/shield to protect it from the sun?
or put it in a shielded (but unheated) new chamber in the ISS for example
The downside: more noise via cosmic rays etc due to less magnetic shielding via the earths magnetic field, atmosphere and you could shield the metal via large amounts of rock or water.
Nope, space is way too hot. This experiment needs to be milliKelvins away from absolute zero. The cosmic background temperature of our universe is several thousand times hotter than that, around 3K, so anything shielded from other infrared sources in space and looking only at the coldest, emptiest part of the sky would still only get as cold as 3K.
JWST hides behind a sunshield and has an elaborate active cooling system on board that only manages to get MIRI down to 6.7K. Even the coldest darkest part of space is still heating you from all sides at about 2.7K from the cosmic microwave background. It's impossible to easily get to milliKelvin temperatures.
The L2 of Neptune would be a good start. Thats about 50 kelvin. Use the joule-thompson effect to get it as cool as possible that way. Put it inside a balloon of radiative cooling material. Keep emitting and reflecting out and douse it with a steady stream of Bose Einstein condensate and eventually it will get pretty cold. Maybe eventually 38pK?
The LIGO Gravitational-Wave Observatory had to measure a variation of the distance between two masses suspended four kilometers apart by less than one ten-thousandth of the diameter of a proton. They succeeded. This makes me hopeful that this new project might succeed as well, although it might be a few decades before it is functional.
the benefit of conducting this sort of an experiment is at least two-fold.
the conductors of the experiment may or may not get the answers to confirm whether gravitons exist,
AND they get to have the perfect cover/excuse not only for getting the funding for this, but also getting their hands on a ton of some precious material both at the expense of tax payers.
0:40 "Motivons" Okay, I'm stealing that.
Gravity might be the accumulation of all attractive forces
So your smokin' hot girlfriend exerts a huge gravitational pull?
Particle interactions with the Higgs field account for only 1% of mass. The rest comes from the binding energy between the quarks, which would be gluons. Gluons mediate the strong force, which has a small are of effect, but what if gluons have unlimited range, could some kind of long range gluon exchange or annihilation be the cause of gravity?
lol motivons
Motivons must be composed of 3 up quarks. Why else would coffee make us so positive?
I'm very optimistic that Sabine wouldn't run out of jokes, as long as there are humans. This is not a scientific point of view, but one based on life experience.
#Graviton … Particle Physics … 😊 0:10
This is indeed a comment
If the Higgs field gives mass and mass causes gravity, isn't a graviton and Higgs particle two sides of the same coin?
I don’t think so,
the Higgs isn’t thought to be the reason for the masses of e.g. neutrinos, only of certain particles?
(I don’t remember exactly which)
@@drdca8263 from what I know is that particles traveling through the higgs field create drag and that is what causes mass/inertia. If gravity is a curvature of spacetime and mass curves spacetime, then isn’t it logical for the Higgs field to have some direct link to spacetime. I’m totally unqualified in this field btw 😅
@@wb3904 First a side note: So, my impression is that describing it as “drag”, while popular in popularizations of the topic, is also considered to in some ways not be a great explanation? Like, if it were like drag, that might help explain why it could be hard to get something moving, but doesn’t seem to explain the “why is it hard to stop something moving”, whereas with the Higgs mechanism, the two are explained in exactly the same way (because making something start moving in one reference frame, is the same as making it stop moving in another reference frame, and the Higgs field is the same in one reference frame as it is in another).
Second: for many particles, there are so-called “left-handed” and “right-handed” versions. Actually, uh, I think this is the case for all known Fermions with the exception of, as far as we know, neutrinos, which only have one version as far as we can tell?
And, from what I’ve read, I think the way the Higgs field gives Fermions their masses, is by something relating the left and right handed versions of the particles?
But the neutrinos seemingly only have one of the two handednesses, so it doesn’t work for them?
But, neutrinos should still be affected by gravity like any other particle, presumably.
So, unless neutrinos actually do have the other handedness as well, I think probably Higgs and gravity are probably separate?
But, I don’t *really* know what I’m talking about..
Thought is EMR. Electric, electric, electric. No black hole. Birkeland currents Z-pinch. Currents or lines of force, not gravity.
Please do an episode on the elusive motivon.
Thanks for the new information Sabine . You must work hard for this channel, thanks for your hard work.
5:03 Micrograms is "μm" not "mg". If you are going to make a youtube channel where you criticize scientific publications, please get the facts straight in the video. The videos on this channel are riddled with small errors.
In case you haven't noticed, the person reading the script isn't the person doing the video editing or the graphics. Stuff happens. This isn't a peer reviewed paper.
The new frontier in physics is to propose to detect the undetectable by doing experiments that are undoable.
A reason not to do it “just in case” is that, like much of quantum physics, the cost would be high enough to build another synchrotron or neutron source or ultrafast laser etc. open to general beamtime proposals that would help relieve the oversubscription and be useful to a very wide range of the sciences.
Very interesting indeed! Thanks, Sabine! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
I'd like to have Ockham's Razor for both: Higgs and Graviton both work on space itself. Why should they be different?
Okay this helps me... sounds like this whole time, we have no idea what's "in" the layer of spacetime that takes on the shape we call "curvature" in Relativity --and that in real life we just call "gravity." (I've given up on "field" as simply being a word we use instead of, "I have algebra for that!")
Well, if I accept the standard model as is, such that photons "fly" out the end of my laser, and neutrinos fly out of my ...CERN... but without interacting with any other stuff, ...and that just having energy is enough to require us to calculate "mass" but "mass" is the old concept before "Relativity" ...then maybe we just need to retire the idea of "mass"? After all, "condensate" sounds like something I'd say.
🤦♂️...Is cosmic "Higgs wetness" really the best analog we can come up with for the cause of spacetime shape change? Do we need to change the diaper?
I'm trying to be funny. But I'm dying of curiosity! What do we assign as the medium through which EM force(s) propagate(s)? No I don't mean "strings" but I might be beginning to understand that urge... Thoughts?
I'm fishing for the fundamental assumptions. Like, if photons and neutrinos act like they're in a separate reality, maybe they are? Seems like Strong Force is separate too. Even if they are found in these collections too often to be coincidence, why do we think these separate algebra equations interact with each other directly?
What do they call the force that gives rise to the Coulomb... "effect"? I mean the... whatever it is that Bohr was saying makes electrons have orbitals? (I feel like I fall off the edge of this subject area, rather than grow an understanding.)
But while we're here, how do we describe "charge" in quantum terms? Electrons don't like to give up their personal space, but quarks detest personal space. But somehow electrons are captured by a set of quarks in a specific configuration... but exactly in "shells"...? No doubt we have algebra for that? And we assume that these objects have existences that are distinct from each other?
Okay Sabine, I guess I'm gonna have to exert a little more effort. I'll do your course in Brilliant... 🫣
There is no cake >> thank you for the quantum mech course on Brilliant >> Will do this >
> PS love the lipstick colour >>
Hi Sabine, Gravity is a longitudinal/scalar wave in the Aether/ZPE field. It registers as a voltage potential on any oscilloscope. Every single capacitor ever made is essentially a ‘gravitator’. The Earth has gravity due to the alignment of all its atomic nuclei into a single scalar gradient field, which registers as a voltage potential the higher up into the atmosphere you go. This has been demonstrated in the lab with the Biefield-Brown Effect, The Abromov-Boem effect, the casamir effect, and any and every capacitor humans have ever made. An asymmetrical capacitor of two parabolic plates where the top plate is larger than the bottom plate, and is energized to at least 10,000 volts per cubic centimeter will levitate and move towards the positive polarity. That’s ‘anti-gravity’ but really its just making an isolated gravitational field. Mass reduction can be seen in an aluminum chassis with a hexagon fill pattern, when hit with pulsed DC current at microwave frequencies at roughly 8ghz. The “Quanta” in Quantum Mechanics comes from the nucleus of every atom, which is a scalar oscillating voltage potential, and a standing longitudinal wave in the Aether/ZPE field. The oscillating scalar impulse of the nucleus acts as a “pump” which extracts a fixed integer based ‘quanta’ of energy from the Aether/ZPE field at each oscillation. The orbiting ‘electrons’ which are transverse waves of dielectricity and magnetism, are created by the scalar oscillatory pumping action of the nucleus, and the frequency of the nucleus’s oscillations determines how many electron orbital patterns materialize based on longitudinal wave interference patterns. The mass of an atom and the number of electron orbitals are directly related to and generated from that scalar longitudinal impulse frequency of the nucleus. The higher the frequency of oscillation means the greater the mass of the nucleus (more protons and neutrons in classical terms) and it also creates the electron orbitals and their overlapping transverse waves that create the spectral lines of each element. So gravity is the summation of every atomic nucleus’s scalar nucleus to form a single unified field which becomes a scalar field gradient and is registered as a voltage potential. That’s why the Earth is basically a dynamo floating in space.
Sabine. It should have been "that would be cool. Super cool." And the shades come down during "super cool".
Improved strategy: do the experiment in space perhaps? (even LEO should be good?)
Actually pretty hard to get things super-duper cold in space, I think?
Because you need somewhere to put the heat you want to get rid of.
You *can* radiate some heat away through infrared/thermal radiation, but the colder your surface is, the slower you lose heat that way.
And also like, the temperature of the environment in space (of all the light hitting your craft), while cold (assuming something is keeping e.g. the sun from shining on you), is still like 2.7 Kelvin, which, again, very cold, but not as cold as we want for this,
and to get our vessel’s insides colder than this, we can’t just have our insides be the same temperature as our outsides, as this will only get us to at best this 2.7 or so Kelvin,
I think what you would have to do is make something that pumps heat from the inside of the craft to the surface, making the surface of the craft hotter than 2.7 Kelvin, so that on net it loses energy from the infrared radiation, rather than gaining it or being neutral.
This would require maintaining a heat gradient in the craft, and continually pumping the heat out costs energy, which ends up also producing heat on its own.
Which is not to say that it is impossible of course. The earth is in space, and making things significantly colder than 2.7 K can be done on earth.
Just, I get the impression that getting things much colder than 2.7 K is actually harder on a spacecraft than it is on earth, because on earth you have lots of places to put the heat you want to remove.
I would guess that getting that much metal down to the mK range could take weeks or months, for all of the heat to trickle out of the middle of the bar.
Is it possible to detect gravitons from high energy gravitational waves? I mean if gravitational waves could be produced with high enough energy and frequency, would spacetime radiate gravitons out of the vacuum the way photons radiate from high energy electromagnetism? Perhaps even other unknown particles would be discovered such as particles of space and time. We could call them spacialtons and chronotons.
I measure gravity utilizing my cat and my bladder. Where Wc = total weight of cat, Wp = force exerted by one cat paw, Be = bladder empty, and Bf = bladder full; then Wp x Be = (Wc)6, whereas Wp x Bf = (Wc)125. The ∆ of (Wc)125 - (Wc)6 = the quantity of gravity, or gravitons. I can't explain why, but there it is.
Well we could cool down several of those tons. So if we do not find gravitons, we can still in their ground state and behaving as one quantum particle see, if there matter waves interfere and how they go through the double slit.
The proposal is a detect in principle with no proposal on shielding or cooling even in principle. There needs to be a closer look at what counts as 'in principle' to qualify for publication in a top line publication.
The metal is interacting with and altering 10**large number of such particles every second and sends them out. They don't know if the objects gravitation is a clean never changing or more random statistically changing that averages out process.
I'm curious to know whether experiments performed in a gravity well, surface of the earth, gives results that does not detect what gravity is. My understanding was that gravity was a side effect of mass, therefore, wouldn't the effect of gravity on quantum particles entering a gravity well be more revealing?
it would make sense to me gravity is not the same kind of field, but rather all the particle _interactions_ causing "drag in time" (they take extra time in some sense) and this naturally creates the "curvature" which comes from where in time the other (far) particle is already, and combination of many looks like smooth curves.
- idk. why but by "intuition" gravity just feels like a consequence of something, probably time related, and not just directly correlated with mass itself.
- It just so happens mass and interaction "density" correlate very well.
I love the Gravitron, it used to be my favorite ride.
My motivons interact weakly with everything except my paycheck.
Finding a Graviton would definitely make me require changing quite a few of my perceptions on physics.
Maybe do it at the Earth-Moon L1 point during a new moon.
You're welcome.
Let me have the following remark/question. I am a physicist but in a completely different field.
We say that photon is a particle of quantum nature. However, how do we know that? Well, for instance based on results of photoelectric effect. But... photoelectric effect has a discrete (quantum-like) nature not due to properties of incoming electromagnetic radiation but due to properties of quantum waves of electrons in metal. Hence, photoelectric effect does not prove at all particle-like nature of electromagnetic radiation. Somehow this objections apply possibly to other quantum-like interactions. Would it be different in case of graviton?
I feel like the easiest way to build this detector will be to launch this chunk of metal with seonsors attached to it and use a shield like we did in James Webb to shield sun's heat. The only issue is, James Webb only cools to a few Kelvin. Making it BEC level cool is the real task I believe.
love it when you talk physics!
The biggest problem of physics is that it invents nothing useful and is largely a waste of money. Without tax money, nobody would be researching this stuff.
Reminds me of the University of Western Australia (my alma mater) gravity wave detection experiment 1993-2001.
They cooled a 1.5 tonne bar of niobium down to 5K and listened for ringing resulting from gravity wave strikes. Basically a resonant-mass gravitational wave antenna.
Very early setups were able to detect buses travelling on a nearby highway.
It reminded me of the MiniGRAIL experiment in Leiden University. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniGrail and www.minigrail.nl/. I worked close by, in the IT department.
I hope it works! We could really use a gravitronic sensor.
The most promising methods of advancing fundamental physics I'm aware of currently are by measuring cosmic rays, measuring gravitational waves, and of course improving the existing electromagnetic satellite technology. That said, if we can improve our methods of supercooling macroscopic objects, this seems like an extremely promising experimental setup.
ok the Motivons joke was so damn good, you just needed a little pause there to let it sink in
I would think they could achieve some results even if they didn't get a ton of metal close to absolute zero. If they went at it in stages (1 gram, 10 grams, 1 kilogram, etc) they would likely start establishing upper and lower bounds for detection as they progressed, whilst demonstrating proof of concept as they go. Smaller rods should get the same number of detection as larger ones if given more time. I doubt we're anywhere near the level of technological capability to bring a ton of matter close to ground state.
The quanta of light is the photon. So the photon is the quanta of electromagnetism. How is (or could) the quanta of gravity be related to this?
To be fair, even the bobble head didn't think we'd ever get to see gravitational lensing. Gravity waves made that look likely. So who knows, maybe we'll figure it out in a few hundred years.
That we can think of a way at all is kind of amazing. Even if it needs more work
Professor Francis Yu - "Gravity does not bend light". His lecture "Einstein's General Theory Belong to the Realm of Science?"
NASA laser optics engineer - "Dr. Ed Dowdye: Solar Gravitation and Solar Plasma Wave Propagation Interaction".
One of the best explanations of the WHOLE quantum particle thing ... at least for me.
It would be wild if gravity was just the pressure of the vacuum energy of space as we move through it. I always walk away from these kinds of videos with amazement and a little bit of existential crisis, and a lot of "how do you even visualize this stuff to come up with an experiment?"
I want to mention that the Auriga gravitational antenna, a 3 ton alluminio resonant bar, was actually meant to be cooled to millikelvin temperatures (of course, not to the ground state however, but even that might not be totally impossible since it was readout through a capacitor coupled to a squid). However, what they found out is that when they connected the dilution refrigerator to cool it down that much, too much noise was coming down from the dilution pumps and they were unsuccessful in suppressing it, so in the end they worked at superfluid He temp instead.
Fun fact, they still have the best limit on GWs in their frequrncy range, and ot was actually as sensitive as modern laser interferometers, but the frequency range was wrong so no signal was found there.
Obviously they should also make the big chunk of metal tiny so it looks like a particle as well, just to fool gravitons that have weak eyesight.
To be serious, it sounds interesting but needs sone refinement. Hope it works!
Static hair (1:42). What a great demonstration.
4:25 I heard "one that can REEE" and I can't get it out of my head