Testing Quantum Gravity with Accelerators!?!

Although quantum theory can explain three of the four forces in nature, scientists currently rely on general relativity to explain the fourth force, gravity. However, no one is quite sure of how gravity works at very short distances, in particular the shortest distance of all: the Planck length.

If one describes gravity at the quantum level, the bending of light by gravitation becomes energy-dependent – unlike in Newtonian gravity or Einstein's general relativity," "The higher the energy of the photons, the larger the bending, or the stronger the photon-graviton interaction should be." Gharibyan suggests that this bending of light according to quantum gravity models may be studied using high-energy accelerator beams that probe the vacuum symmetry of empty space at small scales. Accelerators could use high-energy Compton scattering, in which a photon that scatters off another moving particle acquires energy, causing a change in its momentum. The proposed experiments could detect how the effects of quantum gravity change the photon's energy-momentum relation compared with what would be expected on a normal scale.

Quantum or torsion gravity models predict unusual properties of space-time at very short dis- tances. In particular, near the Planck length, around 10−35m, empty space may behave as a crystal, singly or doubly refractive. However, this hypothesis remains uncheckable for any direct measure- ment since the smallest distance accessible in experiment is about 10−19m at the LHC. Here I propose a laboratory test to measure the space refractivity and birefringence induced by gravity. A sensitivity from 10−31m down to the Planck length could be reached at existent GeV and future TeV energy lepton accelerators using laser Compton scattering. There are already experimental hints for gravity signature at distances approaching the Planck length by 5–7 orders of magnitude, derived from SLC and HERA data.

Full paper available here.
arxiv.org...

edit on 18-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

reply to post by ubeenhad


if photons are "massless" how does gravity "bend' the path of the photon? if you assume mass warping space time,
how does the distorted space time effect refraction values?
and how do you "account" for optical refraction rates that may differ in high gravity/energy environments?

is optical refraction at the distance scales implied, even computed in your thesis?

xploder

Quantum gravity is the voice of Source. All matter is energy, and rgravity, right down to the smallest scale, is what gives that energy the shape that is reflected, on the much larger scale, in our reality. Without the seed of quantum gravity, everything would dissolve. Every physical design requires gravity in order to maintain cohesion. Even stuff that is nonphysical requires a different sort of gravity to give it any energy at all. I'll be extremely interested to hear how they interpret the data, and whether my beliefs are well-founded in that area. At the very least, I may have official comfirmation - which they'd have no idea they're giving, but would lend me a whole new level of credibility here in the forums.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

if photons are "massless" how does gravity "bend' the path of the photon? if you assume mass warping space time,
how does the distorted space time effect refraction values?
and how do you "account" for optical refraction rates that may differ in high gravity/energy environments?

is optical refraction at the distance scales implied, even computed in your thesis?

xploder

edit on 18-10-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)

1. Not my thesis.
2. Tho a 0 rest mass, they still always have energy momentum.
3. Distorted space time? As in what, strong gravity fields? And honestly, I couldn't answer that question. Kinda the point of the test. If you want to know some ideas of what black holes are in string theory then google it.
4. Nothing to do with optical wavelengths of light. the refractive index of space would be so different compared to any material in the universe, its almost pointless to mention the word optical. For more info on space refractivity, or what hes trying to explain in the paper read, Here