From: goldenfieldquaternions@gmail.com   
      
   On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 3:50:36 AM UTC-6, ben...@hotmail.com wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 8:24:59 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:   
   > > The graviton with respect to fermions is a bit odd. A four vertex   
   > > interaction of fermions with parallel spins can carry the same   
   > > quantum number as a graviton if this is charge neutral and massless.   
   > > A graviton interacting with a fermion results in something odd. A   
   > > spin 1/2 particle that absorbs a graviton with spin 2 then has   
   > > either spin 3/2 or 5/2. The first of these is a Rarita-Shwinger   
   > > field, and we know electrons etc do not convert into this in a   
   > > gravity field. The RS field can only be an off-shell field that   
   > > decays back into the fermion and graviton. The spin 5/2 is not   
   > > physical. What saves the day for there being a single three vertex   
   > > interaction is supersymmetry. A fermion is associated with a spin   
   > > 1 particle in the (1/2, 1) SUSY doublet. Now the graviton can   
   > > interact with the fermion through its superpartner. So a fermion   
   > > quantum fluctuates into being a spin 1 boson that can absorb a   
   > > graviton. We may then have a nice 3-vertex interaction.   
   > >   
   > > LC   
   >   
   > 4 Vertex interaction:  of two photons and two electrons seems IMO so   
   > unlikely, like lightning striking twice in the same place, it's much more   
   > likely that it would be three different electrons involved in a 3 vertex   
   > interaction with 2 photons.  So 4-vertex seems not to be viable to me as a   
   > main method of gravitational attraction.   
   >   
   > Rarita-Shwinger field:  this is new to me.  It seems a fine idea for a   
   > fermion of spin 3/2 either for a hypothetical elementary particle [easy to   
   > make out of preons] or a composite particle, albeit as a short-lived off-   
   > shell particle; or two entangled particles.  I am unclear why the 5/2 spin   
   > is not physical:  definitely not physical, or the theory not yet worked out?   
   >   
   > I followed Susskind's online SUSY course. The physics and grassman maths   
   > seemed OK to me.  Susskind kept apologising for the weirdness of the fields   
   > but they fitted in very nicely with my mindset of a preon approach. Preons   
   > allow fermions and bosons to mix and so do SUSY fields.  However, I did not   
   > see the need for unique superpartners.  IMO there can be multiple   
   > superpartners depending on which of any number of superfields is present.   
   >   
   > How does the spin 1 SUSY return to a spin 1/2 electron after entanglement   
   > ends? Doesn't that need an appropriate superfield occurring at the final   
   > vertex.  Isn't a juxtaposition of three entities of appropriate superfield,   
   > target particle, and entangled graviton low in probability?  I have modeled   
   > all SM particle interactions and decays using two incoming entities so, to   
   > me,   
   > requiring three incoming entities seems strange.  Of course if various SUSY   
   > fields are ubiquitous, like the higgs, then it would not be low probability.   
   >   
   > If a SUSY spin 1 happened to change to a spin 1/2 in mid flight then it   
   > would have an off-shell short lifetime and presumably decay quickly back to   
   > the SUSY spin 1.  That would be a mechanism to maintain the spin 2 graviton.   
   >   
   > I am not clear what happens to the electron which becomes a SUSY   
   > spin 1.  Is this a case of quantum gravitational kidnapping rather than   
   > tunnelling.  Doesn't the electron just disappear from its environment and   
   > get deposited at the end vertex? Not something you would want to happen in   
   > every gravitational interaction?   
   >   
   > (I am so far behind this that I do not know what the three vertices   
   > are.  But I don't want to cause you bother by explaining.  Thank you very   
   > much for your comments.)   
      
   I had a bit of a brain fart. For some reason I was thinking of the   
   SUSY doublet as a fermion and vector, or spins (1/2, 1). It is   
   instead a scalar and the fermion (0, 1/2). However, we can still   
   see the role of supersymmetry. Suppose we have an electron that   
   absorbs a graviton. The result is a particle that is a massive   
   charged Rarita-Schwinger field. Consequently two fermions that   
   interact by gravitation will be transformed into Rarita-Swinger   
   fields. Now suppose the electron is transformed into the scalar   
   electron (selectron) and a graviton is exchanged. The result is a   
   strange massive spin 2 field with charge. Now suppose both of these   
   processes occur, eg the SUSY transformed version corresponds with   
   the non-SUSY transformed version. There are then amplitudes for   
   spin 2, and -2 with spin -3/2 and 3/2. Now a process whereby the 2   
   - 3/2 and -2 + 3/2 occurs and we recover the electrons.   
      
   LC   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)