I Was Dyson Correct That Detecting A Single Graviton Theoretically Impossible?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter ohwilleke
  • Start date Start date
ohwilleke
Gold Member
Messages
2,650
Reaction score
1,609
TL;DR Summary
Freeman Dyson concluded in a highly cited 2013 talk that a single graviton cannot be detected, even in theory. Why did he reach this conclusion, and is it widely accepted?
Dyson concluded that the detection of single gravitons is not physically possible, according to this pre-print, citing Freeman Dyson, "Is A Graviton Detectable?", Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1330041 (2013) (which has at least 94 citations).

This was a conclusion that he made in an "Invited talk given at the Conference in Honour of the 90th Birthday of Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 26–29 August 2013." This was basically his own keynote speech at a Festschrift convened in honor of his 90th birthday (he died six and a half year later, on February 28, 2020).

The brief excerpt from his talk available in lieu of an abstract states (after some introductory thank you's and formalities) that:

Screenshot 2024-11-26 at 1.15.56 PM.png


Obviously, this omits all the good stuff.

1. What was the gist of the reasoning behind his conclusion?

I ask, because the published version of the talk is not an open access paper, it does not appear to have a counterpart on arXiv, and I don't have access to the journal through, e.g., a university library subscription.

2. Is his conclusion on this point widely accepted?

I ask because some of Dyson's most notable ideas (across an exceptionally broad range of fields) are controversial or speculative, although others have near universal acceptance.

Also, many famous scientists tend to make some of their most controversial statements in the final years of their careers, and this statement was definitely one of his last notable pronouncements about physics.

So, it cannot be taken for granted that this conclusion was widely accepted even though he was an eminent physicist. On the other hand, because he was such an eminent physicist, no conclusion he reached about physics can be dismissed out of hand.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
renormalize said:
Dyson apparently gave essentially the same talk in Denmark in 2012. See here for the full text: https://publications.ias.edu/sites/default/files/poincare2012.pdf.
After Eq. (23) Dyson concludes: "If the experiment continues for the life-time of the sun, which is 5 billion years, the expected total number of gravitons detected will be 4. The experiment barely succeeds, but in principle it can detect gravitons."
 
@javisot20 your posts are still not making sense and you are hijacking someone else's thread. You have now been banned from further posting in this thread.
 
This is an alert about a claim regarding the standard model, that got a burst of attention in the past two weeks. The original paper came out last year: "The electroweak η_W meson" by Gia Dvali, Archil Kobakhidze, Otari Sakhelashvili (2024) The recent follow-up and other responses are "η_W-meson from topological properties of the electroweak vacuum" by Dvali et al "Hiding in Plain Sight, the electroweak η_W" by Giacomo Cacciapaglia, Francesco Sannino, Jessica Turner "Astrophysical...
this thread is to open up discussion on Gravi-GUT as theories of everything GUT or Grand Unified Theories attempt to unify the 3 forces of weak E&M and strong force, and Gravi-GUT want to add gravity. this peer reviewed paper in a journal on Gravi-GUT Chirality in unified theories of gravity F. Nesti1 and R. Percacci2 Phys. Rev. D 81, 025010 – Published 14 January, 2010 published by Physical Review D this paper is cited by another more recent Gravi-GUT these papers and research...
In LQG and LQC there are solutions called "black to white transition". I'll add some references: (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.07251 (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03872 (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.06330 (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.04264 (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.12823 https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02691 https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.07589 https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01788 https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.12646 https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03027...

Similar threads

Back
Top