Live data from Hacker News

It might be possible to detect gravitons after all

quantamagazine.org

11–20 of 167 posts

Re: It might be possible to detect gravitons after all

#11
post #6
post #2

That's a facinating read. I wonder what are the possible applications of "quantized gravity" ? GPS without satellites?

Cheap GPS receivers already have to do a bunch of tricks to get to the "okay" state they're currently at. Military devices either use GPS, star tracking, dead reckoning, or some combination. For submarines, detecting gravity variations could also be used, but it wouldn't rely on the quantization of gravity. In many places on land, you can use terrain landmarks. Since most things are already either covered, or have im…

You’re mixing up general relativity with quantum gravity.

Re: It might be possible to detect gravitons after all

#12
post #7

I don't understand what a graviton is . The article implies that it's something that communicates changes in gravity? Is that correct? How does it communicate the magnitude of the change? By having lots of gravitons? Or does it have something akin to a frequency?

A graviton is the smallest possible unit of a gravitational wave. The amplitude of the wave corresponds to the number of gravitons, like you said, and its frequency to their frequency (quantum particles have frequencies that are related to their momenta). We're aware that light, at least, works like that.

Gravitons impacting and imparting momentum seems like it would have a bunch of observational implications. Does a massive object cast a graviton shadow? Is the momentum positive or negative?

Re: It might be possible to detect gravitons after all

#13
post #4

> physicists are debating what it would really prove. Well, if we can detect the graviton before we have a working quantum theory of gravity, it would mean that gravity is in fact quantized and that we just need to figure it out. This would be a very big deal.

> This would be a very big deal.

Gravity drive?

Re: It might be possible to detect gravitons after all

#14
post #4

> physicists are debating what it would really prove. Well, if we can detect the graviton before we have a working quantum theory of gravity, it would mean that gravity is in fact quantized and that we just need to figure it out. This would be a very big deal.

They can detect an interaction, but they can't prove that it's quantized without (I believe) sub-Poissonian statistics[0], which requires detecting enough events and with enough certainty that it would require planet-scale machinery.

> Now graviton chasers find themselves in a peculiar position. On the main facts, everyone is in agreement. One, detecting a quantum event sparked by a gravitational wave is — surprisingly — possible. And two, doing so would not explicitly prove that the gravitational wave is quantized. “Could you make a classical gravitational wave that would produce the same signal? The answer is yes,” said Carney, who along with two co-authors analyzed this type of experiment in Physical Review D(opens a new tab) in February.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_statistics#Sub-Poissoni...

Re: It might be possible to detect gravitons after all

#15

So I thought gravity was basically the curvature of spacetime. But if there's a "gravity" particle, those two things seem mutually exclusive? Can someone who understands this please explain it to me, thanks!

Electromagnetism is both a continuous wave and a discrete particle, so it makes sense to me that a continuous spacetime curvature could also be a discrete particle at the same time. (Keeping in mind we're not talking about tangible shapes but mathematical models that describe aspects of reality that are hard for humans to intuitively conceptualize.)

Of course, our idea of how to reconcile quantum gravity with general relativity is much less developed than our understanding of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces.

Re: It might be possible to detect gravitons after all

#16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A graviton is the smallest possible unit of a gravitational wave. The amplitude of the wave corresponds to the number of gravitons, like you said, and its frequency to their frequency (quantum particles have frequencies that are related to their momenta). We're aware that light, at least, works like that.

Gravitons impacting and imparting momentum seems like it would have a bunch of observational implications. Does a massive object cast a graviton shadow? Is the momentum positive or negative?

Classical waves do all of those things too.

Re: It might be possible to detect gravitons after all

#17

So I thought gravity was basically the curvature of spacetime. But if there's a "gravity" particle, those two things seem mutually exclusive? Can someone who understands this please explain it to me, thanks!

Our ability to solve integrals is much more limited when the dx represents a slight change in a function, rather than a small change in a real number. As a result, a lot of things that are easy to say in English such as "quantized curvature in spacetime," or "strongly coupled gauge theory," turn into a big mess when they're written down more precisely. One of the consequences of this limitation is that we have a model for quantized vibrations in spacetime that only works when they do not interact with each other. General relativity says that no, gravitational fields do interact with each other - so the picture we have at present is incomplete. The model of non-self-interacting gravity is a particle we call a "graviton," and it probably describes reality very well when the gravitation involved is so weak that its self-interaction is undetectable.

String theory and loop quantum gravity fit into this picture by trying to replace the integral over something we can't handle with an integral that matches it at large scales, but turns into something more tractable at small scales. Maybe the fact that we still can't make sense of the integral is Nature's way of telling us that she does not do the integral either...

Re: It might be possible to detect gravitons after all

#18
post #15

So I thought gravity was basically the curvature of spacetime. But if there's a "gravity" particle, those two things seem mutually exclusive? Can someone who understands this please explain it to me, thanks!

Electromagnetism is both a continuous wave and a discrete particle, so it makes sense to me that a continuous spacetime curvature could also be a discrete particle at the same time. (Keeping in mind we're not talking about tangible shapes but mathematical models that describe aspects of reality that are hard for humans to intuitively conceptualize.) Of course, our idea of how to reconcile quantum gravity with general…

When you mention nuclear forces, are you referencing weak force and strong force? Do we understand these forces at the same level that we understand electromagnetism?

Re: It might be possible to detect gravitons after all

#19

I'm with the debaters on this one, the energy levels of a bound quantum system are predetermined to change in quantized intervals irrespective of if they are coupled to a classical or quantum field. What theory of gravity is this experiment intended to falsify? It would be great to have an independent gravitational wave detector though.

the statistics would be different. Check out Rabi oscillations (classical EM) vs Jaynes-Cummings model (quantized EM) and phenomena like quantum antibunching (only possible for quantized EM)

Re: It might be possible to detect gravitons after all

#20
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap GPS receivers already have to do a bunch of tricks to get to the "okay" state they're currently at. Military devices either use GPS, star tracking, dead reckoning, or some combination. For submarines, detecting gravity variations could also be used, but it wouldn't rely on the quantization of gravity. In many places on land, you can use terrain landmarks. Since most things are already either covered, or have im…

You’re mixing up general relativity with quantum gravity.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. I know you can have gravitons without "quantum gravity" (as incomplete theories). I'm responding to a commenter on applications.

In a global position finding system, gravitational effects could be used, as could be quantum effects. Maybe even both in the same system.

It seems really doubtful to me a practical system would depend on anything graviton related.

Post reply on HN