Why the Graviton Can't Be Found

Why hasn't the graviton been discovered yet? A thought experiment could shed some light on this question. Imagine a universe with only a Higgs field and nothing else. No strong, weak or electromagnetic interactions, no spacetime as we understand it. The basis of this universe is just the Higgs, so the only boson available is the Higgs boson. It's true the Higgs can decay into other particles, but let's focus on it while it is a Higgs.

Now, in such a universe, there should be no gravity, since there are no gravitons, right? (We performed a similar thought experiment in a previous post involving photons. Click here to read all about it.) Let's lay out the mathematics and see. First, we define the variables:

If we find gravity in our Higgs-only universe, that would explain why the graviton hasn't been found--it isn't necessary--so let's begin with the Higgs Lagrangian (L) at equation 1 below. At 2 we convert the Lagrangian to the Hamiltonian (H). To make the math less cumbersome we set the kinetic term equal to chi at 3.

We make a substitution at 4. Equation 5 is a Hamiltonian (H') with the same energy as H, but a different mass and kinetic energy. Equations 4 and 5 represent two adjacent fields whose centers of mass are r distance apart. At 6 we show the equality or conserved energy of the two fields. At 7 and 8 we equate the kinetic and potential energy differences.

Here is an overly simplified, crude diagram for illustrative purposes only:

As you can see the two adjacent fields are outlined with imaginary boxes and labeled blue (high kinetic energy/low mass) and red (low kinetic energy/high mass). The white dots represent the masses. Now, equation 8 fails to take into account distance r, so let's convert mass m as follows:

At equation 11 we have distance r where we want it. Equation 11 is the value of the kinetic-energy difference between the two fields. Classical kinetic energy is a function of velocity squared. What we want to know is the value of the velocity squared:

Now that we know the value of velocity squared, we can do one more step and determine the value of the gravitational constant for this Higgs universe (Gh):

We made a substitution at 14 above and end up with Newtonian gravity! And no gravitons! Equation 14 reveals that gravity is the net velocity squared of kinetic energy differences. If we divide both sides by another r, we get gravitational acceleration. Given these results, one could postulate that gravity is the net motion resulting from motion differences. And motion differences are caused by mass differences. Einstein suggested that matter curves spacetime. However, that assertion is very specific to our universe. A more general assertion is mass disturbs the status quo, whatever that may be, and causes kinetic energy variations. At the quantum scale, gravity does not seem to need its own boson. Information is passed using whatever boson is available. In this case, it's the Higgs.

Now, for extra credit, let's derive Einstein's field equations from equation 14:

If you are feeling ambitious, you can work backwards and derive the Higgs Langrangian from Einstein's field equations.

Update: Here is a couple of videos that falsify the graviton:

Why Gravitational Waves Fail to Confirm Extra Dimensions

According to the holographic principle, our four-dimensional universe, consisting of three space dimensions and one time dimension, is a surface area of a five-dimensional spacetime called "the bulk." The remaining dimensions of string theory or M-theory are allegedly compacted and rendered insignificant.

Gravity, compared to the other fundamental interactions, is weak due to the graviton's unique ability to move between the surface area (our spacetime) and the bulk. Other particles remain fully in our spacetime and thus have more intensity. At least that's how the story goes. Unfortunately, the gravitational-wave test described in the above video failed to confirm the existence of "the bulk" or any extra dimensions beyond our four-dimensional spacetime. This does not surprise me, given the problems extra dimensions can cause (click here to read all about it).

So why did the gravitational-wave test fail? Do we really need "the bulk" to explain the nature of gravity? We will explore these questions. First, let's define the variables we will use:

According to general relativity, gravity is a function of energy density, so let's begin with the energy density of an atom. An atom is mostly space, so let's only consider the volume of space taken up my the average nucleus and the electrons. That approximate volume can be found in the denominator of equation 1 below:

Of course if we put that volume in the numerator, we get the energy (E):

If we put a larger volume (V) in the denominator (equation 3), we get a reduced energy (E'). Reduced energy is consistent with weak gravity, so we are on the right track.

We don't want Energy units, so at 5 and 6 we use meters and Newtons to adjust the units:

Now, coincidentally, 10^-45/N is approximately equal to G/c^4, so we make the substitution:

We use distance D and the alpha scale factor to make more substitutions at equation 9. From there we derive equation 12.

Equation 12 is Newton's equation. We were able to derive this equation because we started with the premise that the intensity of gravity is determined by the actual amount of space a particle interacts with. For baryonic matter, that actual amount of space corresponds with the gravitational constant G. Note that no extra dimensions are needed to get equation 12. Our 4D spacetime is sufficient. So why should we be surprised that the gravitational-wave test failed to confirm "the bulk"?

Caveat: the above mathematics may work just fine for ordinary matter such as atoms and molecules, but what about singularities such as black holes? Theoretically, a singularity takes up no space, so there shouldn't be any interaction between the matter and space, but there is! To resolve this conundrum, we first need to establish that light speed is truly the top speed in our universe. Consider the familiar Lorentz equation:

The main problem with this equation is time (t) is arbitrary. Let's make it precise. Let's make time (t) equal to the age of the universe. When I say universe I mean everything including the megaverse if such a thing exists. What we want is the longest time ever lapsed--so we set t accordingly and define the other variables we need:

Now we derive 21 below:

Line 21 shows that no velocity (v) can exceed light speed (c). So what does this have to do with gravity and black holes? Given the fact that light speed is the top speed, we can derive the following:

Take a look at 25 and 26 above. At 25, G stays constant as long as the change in time (delta-t) is equal to or less than the age of the universe. Note that delta-t increases as radius r decreases, so G remains constant. But delta-t has an upper limit of t. If r continues to shrink, G must also shrink. Thus it appears the intensity of gravity is determined by how much space interacts with matter. The smaller the radius r, the smaller the space the matter occupies. Equation 27 shows that the intensity of gravity never exceeds the speed of light squared no matter how much radius r shrinks.

In conclusion, "the bulk" and extra dimensions are completely unnecessary to describe gravity.

What Einstein Didn't Tell You About Time

According to Einstein, if you are sitting in your chair, you are moving more through time and less through space, so time is moving faster for you than it is for a speeding jet. Unlike you, the jet is moving more through space and less through time. If a particle is completely at rest, it moves exclusively through time. If a particle is propagating at the speed of light, it is moving exclusively through space. Below is a Minkowski diagram illustrating the point. The vertical arrow represents the particle at rest and the horizontal line represents a photon. The diagonal arrow could be anything going less than light speed but not at rest.

Now, think about how we humans measure time. We see repeating patterns like day and night, the four seasons, the moon's phases. We then assign time units to these patterns. But imagine a universe where there are no patterns or events, where everything is at rest. How could time be measured? Who would do the measuring?

According to Einstein, everything in that universe is moving through time only, but how can we verify that? There are no clocks to track the alleged passing time. Consider his thought experiment where he has a clock consisting of a light beam oscillating in a boxcar. In the diagram below we mimic that thought experiment with an imaginary photon oscillating vertically inside a box:

The photon is moving at light speed, so special relativity says it experiences no time, but we do. Why? Because we see something happening. We see something that is not at rest. We decided to make that moving photon our clock. Ironically, in order to have time or know time exists, we need something to move through space.

Here's another irony: If all the particles in our imaginary universe were to change to a new overall state, we would say time has moved forward. If all the particles returned to a previous state, we'd say time has gone backwards. If you grow older, time is progressing; if you grow younger, time is regressing. Now, suppose you didn't age or grow younger? Suppose all particles stopped changing states? We would no doubt say time has stopped.

But how can that be? Didn't Einstein say when particles are at rest they move through time?

What gives a sense of time is ongoing change and/or repeated patterns. Time feels real when stuff is happening. When nothing happens, it is as if time has stopped. When things happen faster, it's as if time has sped up, when things slow down, time seems slower. However, if the photon box moves through space, the photon does not appear to complete the cycle as fast, so from our point of view, time has slowed:

But here's the thing: do all clocks slow down when they move faster through space? We will demonstrate the answer to this question is definitely NOT a "yes." First, let's define the variables we will be using:

Here's a new thought experiment: We take a photon clock like the one illustrated above. We have it oscillate in a larger box at velocity u. The larger box is moving at velocity v. Let's assume both velocities are well below the speed of light. We use the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the combined velocity. Below is a diagram for visual reference:

Of course the photon in the smaller box is still moving at velocity c, but this is no longer the clock we want to track time with. We decide to use the larger clock with the small box ticking off the time at a steady rate of velocity u. The question is, what happens to this new rate of time when velocity v is increased? To figure this out requires a little math. We start with equation 1 below which gives the relative mass of the entire system. From there we derive equation 9:

Equation 9 is just Einstein's full energy equation. Let's assume energy is conserved and the combined velocity of v and u is held constant. If we increase velocity v, u must decrease accordingly. So far, our new clock is consistent with relativity's prediction that time slows when velocity v is increased.

Now suppose we add energy to the system. Since both v ad u are well below light speed, we can use the additional energy to increase v without decreasing u! The system mass will increase, but time stays the same!

And what of the photon clock? It slows down as expected. What we now have are three time rates: t', t, and u. We can relate them as follows:

If we only change velocity v, velocity u can remain steady while time t' changes. However, if the combined velocity of u and v is light speed, when v increases, u must decrease.

So to keep our new clock ticking at the same rate, we must keep our combined velocity below light speed. That shouldn't be too hard.

Below we derive equations 16 and 17. These equations express u in terms of time rather than velocity:

Thus when when something moves through space it doesn't necessarily move less through time, and vice versa.

How Entropy, Temperature and Chemical Reactions Impact Time Dilation

How do we measure time? Normally we take some event that happens over and over again, and, we assign it a time unit. For example, the complete rotation of the earth we call a day. We can take that time unit (or any fraction thereof) and assign it to other events--that may or may not be periodic--such as a chemical reaction, for instance. We say the chemical reaction happened in time t.

What if that chemical reaction were to slow down? Can we say its rate of time has slowed? If we define time as the rate of change, then the change in the rate of chemical reactions, entropy, or the earth's rotation would indeed impact the rate of time.

Consider the famous twin paradox, where one twin boards a rocket that hurls him into outer space close to light speed. According to Einstein, his time slows, he ages more slowly than his twin back on earth. His body's biochemical reactions are slower, entropy is reduced--at least that is the implication.

When he arrives back on earth, he will be younger than his twin brother. But his twin has a plan: while he's out in space, his twin cryogenically freezes himself. His twin will be thawed out by the time he gets back to earth. If his twin's plan works, they will both be the same age. Now, did the twin on earth reduce his time rate? Can the rate of time be reduced by means other than high velocities and mass density? This post shall address these questions, but first, let's define the variables we will use:

Let's start with entropy. If we somehow reduce the rate of entropy, will the time rate also be reduced?

If we take the Boltzmann constant (which has entropy units) and multiply it by the unit-less Lorentz factor's squared reciprocal, we derive equation 2 below:

Equation 2 shows that entropy is reduced when velocity (v) is increased. The time rate is also reduced. So far it appears we have a correlation between entropy and time. If equation 2 is valid, we should be able to use it to derive a more standard entropy equation:

Equation 6 above confirms the validity of equation 2. So we can say the twin in outer space, traveling near light speed, has reduced his entropy. Now the twin on earth wants to freeze himself, i.e., lower his body's temperature. Will this reduce his entropy? Equation 8 below confirms that it will. From 8 we derive equation 12 which shows lowering the temperature (T) reduces the time rate.

According to equation 12, the twin on earth will age more slowly. Does this imply the rate of his body's biochemical reactions will slow down?

Equation 13 is the Arrhenius equation, where k is the rate of a chemical reaction. When temperature T is reduced, so is the rate of the chemical reaction. From 13 we derive a new entropy equation at 19:

Equation 19 tells us that when the rate of a chemical reaction is reduced, so is entropy. And the reduced chemical-reaction rate reduces the rate of time:

So the age difference between the twins could be nil when the space twin arrives back on earth. If the earth twin cryogenically freezes himself, he may be younger than the space twin. Both twins have found a way to reduce their respective time rates, they have found ways to time travel into the future. Here are four ways to reduce the time rate:

Why Einstein's Time Theory Works So Well

Experiments involving mu-mesons confirm Einstein's special relativity theory and the value of the Lorentz factor. When a particle is moving fast along a straight line, its time slows down. But is this the only circumstance where time slows? This post will address that question and more. First we define the variables we will use:

Einstein's classic thought experiment involved a speeding train passing by an observer who sees the inside of a boxcar as the train whisks by. The rectangular diagram below represents the inside of the moving boxcar. A person inside the boxcar shines a light from the floor to the ceiling (see red line in diagram). If the train is at rest, the light beam goes straight up to the ceiling. When the train moves, the beam goes up at an angle as indicated in the diagram. Using the Pythagorean theorem, we can derive the Lorentz equation (see equation 7 below):

The train and the vertical light beam can be considered a clock. We can say that one unit of time passes when the beam goes from the floor to the ceiling and vice versa. The Lorentz factor is perfect for this clock. As the train moves faster, it takes longer for the light to reach the ceiling--thus our time unit takes longer, i.e., time slows down.

Now, suppose the light beam went from side to side instead of up and down? Would the Lorentz factor still work or does time behave differently? In the diagram below, we have the beam going from right to left. From that, we derive equation 12 below. Note that equation 8 is the velocity addition formula where the total velocity never exceeds light speed.

In the next diagram, the beam is moving left to right. From that we derive equation 18:

Let's take the average of the right sides of equations 12 and 18 at 19. Doing the math we see that the result at 20 is equal to the Lorentz equation at 21. So when the beam goes horizontally, time behaves the same way as when the beam is vertical. But what if the beam goes at an angle? It would have a horizontal and vertical component. At 22 we use sine and cosine for the vertical and horizontal components.

Equation 23 shows it doesn't matter whether the light beam is horizontal, vertical or some arbitrary angle. In any case, we get the Lorentz-equation value of time (t'). It appears the Lorentz factor works splendidly in flat spacetime and where particles, trains, light all move in straight lines. What about curves?

At 24 and 25 below we start with flat spacetime. At 26 we include the metric tensor. From there we derive equation 31:

Equation 31 confirms the Lorentz factor works in curved spacetime. Now what about crazy, oddball geometries (see diagrams below)? We can still derive the Lorentz equation (see equation 41).

Equation 41 will accommodate horizontal light beams, and beams going at any arbitrary angle or curve. At 42 below we calculate the horizontal component which is equal to the Lorentz equation at 41:

To cap things off, we use basic calculus for curves and squiggly lines to derive the Lorentz equation yet again (see 50 below):

We know that the velocity along a curve varies from point to point, so why is velocity (v) in the above equations unvaried? Because velocity v is the average velocity along the whole curve distance. We take the velocity at each point, add them all together, but that would give us infinity, so we need to divide by n, the number of velocities:

OK, so we've established the Lorentz factor works in all situations where a particle, train or whatever is moving at velocity v along any line. We know that mass can slow time as well as velocity. We also know that protons have their mass due to quark oscillations. So we can think of mass as oscillating velocity. The equations below show the relationships between time, mass, angular velocity and the Lorentz factor:

Update: Below are some diagrams (and calculus) that help one visualize how a light beam (or photon) moves along a curved horizontal component. The first diagram below shows the photon (red dot) moving from left to right along epsilon-x. Epsilon-x is also moving from left to right along x. The total distance covered is x + epsilon-x. The second diagram shows the same except the photon moves right to left. The total distance is x - epsilon-x.

In the next two diagrams, everything is the same except x and epsilon-x are now warped, distorted, curved, etc.

Below is a mathematical proof showing that the magnitudes of x and epsilon-x are invariant no matter how they are distorted: