8 ms·
Physicists discover that gravity can create light
- jordann 4y agoThomas Pynchon was ahead of his time with his book title https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity%27s_Rainbow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity%27s_Rainbow
- blockwriter 4y agoIsn’t that about the arc a rocket makes?
- mr_dupes 4y agoHe picked a metaphor with many possible interpretations : ) My main take away is something like "gravity" is ~ death / extensional pain of life & the "rainbow" is the beauty that exists/we make under that
- stared 4y agoAll quantum fields have their vacuum energy fluctuations. When we change the parameters of the space (e.g. stretch or compress it), the current state is no longer the ground state but becomes a so-called squeezed vacuum state. This effect is used in laser physics to "split photons" in spontaneous parametric downconversion. That is, an intense laser changes the refractive index of a medium periodically. These oscillations generate a squeezed vacuum state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezed_coherent_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezed_coherent_state
- westurner 4y agoIs there a corollary SQG Superfluid Quantum Gravity fluidic description of squeezed coherent states? And what of a Particle-Wave-Fluid triality?
- westurner 4y ago[flagged]
- westurner 4y agoNoting that I attempted to link to relevant research and cite the source for fluidic corollaries but was prevented from contributing. https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/#comment-35661155 https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/#comment-35661155
- westurner 4y agoIs there now, ironically, a cycle in the comment graph like there are cycles of fluidic nonlinearities in graphs of relations in real complex - possibly adaptive - systems? FWIR there are Degrees of curl: convergence, divergence But are paths of photon particles always non-intersecting?
- westurner 4y agoFWIW, so inspired, I continued to write a few better prompts for all of this. """Explain how specific (for example Fedi and Turok's) theories of gravitons and superfluidity differ from General Relativity, the Standard Model, prevailing theories of Quantum Gravity and dark matter and/or dark energy non-uniform correction coefficients, classical fluid dynamics, and quantum chaos theory in regards to specific phenomena in the quantum foam. Also, are is there one wave function or are there many; and are they related by operators expressible with qubit quantum computers or are qudits and qutrits necessary to sufficiently model this domain of n body gravity gravitons in a fluid field? If graviton fields result in photons, what are the conservation symmetry relations in regards to the exchange of gravitons for photons?""" And then (though apparently currently one must remove "must use `dask_ml.model_selection.GridSearchCV`" presumably due to current response length limits of Google Bard): """Design an experiment as a series of steps and Python code to test (1) whether Bernoulli's equations describe gravitons in a superfluidic field; and also (2) there is conservational symmetry in exchange of gravitons and photons. The Python code must use `dask_ml.model_selection.GridSearchCV`, must use SymPy, define constants in the `__dict__` attribute of a class, return experimental output as a `dict`, have pytest tests and Hypothesis `@given` decorator tests, and a `main(argv=sys.argv)` function with a pytest `test_main`, and use `asyncio`."""
- gaze 4y agoThat's a nice explanation. Finally some high falutin physics I can understand in terms of paramps.
- heelix 4y agoI, on the other hand, looked at this and thought "I know these words". I don't think a cup or to of coffee is going to help.
- upsidesinclude 4y agoYou seem educated on some matters, so please reply here. My physics education stopped at modern physics (optics, general relativity) so I'm missing the core mathematics of quantum mechanics and deeper dives into particle physics. In the actual summation, does the calculation of vacuum energy take into account a cross section of neutrinos and extended "particles". I've always found the concept of vacuum energy lacking in that most(even physicists) do not fundamentally conceptualize a permanent neutrino and elementary particle flux in all but the most astoundingly shielded vacuum. If there is a medium in which to effect the refractive index, then isnt this an interaction of the molecular structures therein?
- methods21 4y agoThought LIGO can detect these waves? https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/
- dogma1138 4y agoLIGO detects gravity waves as in when space actually expands and contracts slightly this is about gravity being able to emit photons.
- raattgift 4y agoThe paper summarized at the link at the top hypothesizes that in a setup like this: Bb --- Earth --- molecular cloud --- B'b' where Bb and B'b' are very similar (from the molecular cloud's perspective) inspiralling binary black hole pairs, and Earth is where LIGO (and Virgo and other detectors) are, then we will see characteristic bright flashes from within the molecular cloud and a change in the B'b' detected waveform because it will have lost some energy to the production of the flashes of light. (The light flash will trail behind the dampened B'b' waveform detection because this hypothesized mechanism only works when a refractive medium slows light from c (its speed in vacuum) but does not slow gravitational waves from c. Although the authors do not touch on the matter, I suspect that we would also be interested in <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_echo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_echo>s.) The paper focuses on an analysis of water as the dominant molecule. There are known astrophysical water megamasers (see second paragraph at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megamaser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megamaser>), so this is far from ridiculous. Trying to match detected flashes of light (including gamma rays) and neutrinos with gravitational wave detections is part of multimessenger astronomy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-messenger_astronomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-messenger_astronomy>.
- harveywi 4y agoAll this time I thought that gravity creates heavy, not light.
- parlortricks 4y agoI see dad found the Internet again.
- slewis 4y agoHow dare you! This is a serious place. ^
- 1letterunixname 4y agoBurn them. With a gravity-assisted optical laser.
- layer8 4y agoIt’s the light side of the gravitational force, bringing balance to the universe.
- SebJansen 4y agoyou underestimate the power of the dark side
- sinuhe69 4y agoAnd God said, "Let there be light," and there was light Interesting coincidence, huh ;)
- kazinator 4y agoGravity makes heavy; gravity makes light.
- brad0 4y agoHow does this not have more upvotes? This is a great find!
- aaron695 4y ago[dead]
- yarg 4y agophys.org can be a bit sensationalistic. Quanta takes their time getting to the point, but is a bit more reliable in terms of the summary provided. So if there's a popular physics article, it generally seems to be quanta.
- uoaei 4y agophys.org re-publishes press materials from universities. The writers at Quanta write their own articles.
- avmich 4y agoThe title is about gravity, but the first line is about wave of gravity. Hmm. We know that gravity alone can create radiation - the Hawking one. We also know that gravitational waves - the spacetime curvature changes with time - carry energy, so can be transformed into light. Do we still know if spacetime alone can create light?.. I'm not sure we know it today. So... we have a great experiment here, which shows something known in a different way - is it correct?
- adastra22 4y ago> We know that gravity alone can create radiation - the Hawking one To be pedantic, we don't know this. Hawking radiation has never been observed.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoRelevant: https://phys.org/news/2021-02-stationary-hawking-analog-black-hole.html https://phys.org/news/2021-02-stationary-hawking-analog-blac...
- dogma1138 4y agoNot particularly. This isn’t an actual observation, this is just an experiment that attempts to create some analogous phenomena.
- deciplex 4y agoto be even more pedantic, hawking radiation isn't exactly created by gravity
- mitthrowaway2 4y agoWe know that light can create gravity, so it stands to reason that there should be a reciprocal relationship!
- cocoa19 4y ago"We know that light can create gravity" I've never heard of light creating gravity, where did you learn this?
- nimish 4y agoConcentrate enough energy in a small area and baby, you got a black hole going!
- raattgift 4y agoIn General Relativity, any momentum is encoded in the stress-energy tensor in the Einstein Field Equations, which relates curvature (mainly described by the Einstein tensor) and matter (mainly described by the stress-energy tensor). The vacuum of General Relativity has the stress-energy tensor filled with zeroes in all its components; a wave or beam of light introduces one or more nonzeroes. In suitable coordinates and the flat spacetime of special relativity, this is encoded in the "p" (p for momentum) in e.g. E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2, a fuller version of the famous E = mc^2. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relati...> for details. Alternatively, we can consider the active and passive gravitational charges of a given mass, also commonly called the active gravitational mass and the passive gravitational mass. The passive charge describes a mass's response to a known source of gravitation; the active charge describes the strength of the gravitational effects generated by an object. In General Relativity the version of the equivalence principle that says that all objects fall identically no matter what their internal composition is ("universality of free fall") ensures that the passive and active charges are identical for all matter. Moreover, in the approximately three hundred years before General Relativity was first written down, there were many successful tests of the equality of the active and passive gravitational charges for many masses; many of these tests were motivated by the work of Newton. In both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity, light is deflected around large masses (e.g. light from distant stars, or radio beams from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MESSENGER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MESSENGER> grazing the sun, and also lunar laser ranging experiments), so in both theories light has a passive gravitational charge (or passive gravitational mass). If passive and active gravitational charges are identical or at least totally equivalent, light must also source gravitation.
- monstertank 4y agoObviously gravity works on particles to condense into stars, which create light...so I'm guessing it's not talking about that?
- jacquesm 4y agoYou added 'particles'.
- joadha 4y agoThe authors added "electromagnetic field", which also happens to involve particles.
- jacquesm 4y agoTo create one, yes. But to propagate it, no.
- computerfriend 4y agoPhotons are particles.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y agoSo the trick to creat this light in todays environment would be to make a gravity amplifying device similiar to a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_laser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_laser and overlay the amplitudes? That can be easy. Just have a microscopic black hole particle go back and forth in a field..
- soylentcola 4y agoAnd I just upgraded all of my bulbs to LED...
- kgwxd 4y agoThis made my fucking day
- digitaltrees 4y agoPhenomenal. (Second definition intended)
- yosito 4y agoCreating a microscopic black hole sounds like a great filter type of event.
- still_grokking 4y agoIf Hawking was right microscopic black holes should be harmless. If not, well… But we only find out if we try, I guess.
- _8j50 4y agoIsn't gravity just a fundamental force? Could it be matter reacting to gravity? Light is energy but gravity is not energy and has no mass so how can it create something out of nothing? How is hawking radiation even possible unless something else was involved?
- habibur 4y agoOr gravity is just bending of space around a mass. And not a force.
- cronix 4y agoNot a physicist, but how do you get something to bend without a force exerted upon it?
- habibur 4y agoThey attribute it to the fact that space around the object is bent. Which is causing the other object to drop, accelerate or bent. Check General Relativity's explanation of Gravity. That might not answer all of your or my question. But maybe we didn't give enough time to ponder on that line.
- scotty79 4y agoThe cool thing about gravity is that it doesn't bend anything it just alters space so that straight things are bent.
- _8j50 4y agoSo without it planets are like cubes? Can't even imagine how deformed people would be
- a_wild_dandan 4y agoIt's just unfortunate nomenclature. Space(time) is a set of dimensions. It's not a substance, like a ruler, anymore than temperature is a substance in a thermometer. The word "bend" misleads us by equivocating "bending" a ruler (forcefully rearranging its atoms into a new shape) with "bending" spacetime (e.g. changing how fast someone's clock ticks).