Questions related to Physics

It does not matter how you fabricate the surface. I only want to have a physical feeling on how big the reflectance can be. Or if someone has a physical equation to show me, well that's even better.

The equation for centrifugal force for fluids needs correction!

We made an experiment and we got some strange results:

When we rotate the drum to some speed with liquid in it, and when we will leave the drum to rotate alone by its momentum it is rotating much longer period of time when the liquid has more heat in it.

All the time the amount of liquid is the same.

The drum diametar is 310mm and the height is 160mm. The axis of the drum is in it's center. The axis is positioned vertically to the ground.

We rotate the drum with electromotor. The drum is made of semi-steel.

The drum uses 3 lagers.

-On the down side of the axis of the drum we have one axial and one radial lager

-One radial lager on the upside of the axis

The fluid is water. The fluid is heated with water-heater.

In the first case we have 10kg water on 8 °C in the drum. We rotate the drum to 2400 revolutions per minute and than we stop rotating it. And than it rotates 7min by it's momentum.

In the Second case we have 10kg water on 90 °C in the drum. We rotate the drum to 2400 revolutions per minute and than we stop rotating it. And than it rotates 10 min and 20s by it's momentum.

In both cases everything is the same, just the difference in the temperatures on the fluid. And at the end we have important difference in the time intervals of rotating the drum by it's own momentum.

How "wide" is a photon, if any, of it's electromagnetic fields? Is there any physical length measurement of these two orthogonal fields, E and M, from the axis of travel? When a photon hits a surface, and is absorbed by an electron orbital, this width comes into play, as there could have been more than one electron that could have absorbed the photon?

What is the main criteria, if a compound wants to transmit light through it?

Has anybody studied what are the main factors contributed to make a compound which can transmit light through it? For example glass, quartz, diamond and few plastics can transmit the light through them but why can't other materials like ceramics, metals and so on?

What is the main criteria, if a compound wants to transmit light through it?

Has anybody studied what are the main factors contributed to make a compound which can transmit light through it? For example glass, quartz, diamond and few plastics can transmit the light through them but why can't other materials like ceramics, metals and so on?

I would like to clear my concept about half integer spin. Spin Quantum number, we learned are given the values of +1/2 and -1/2 to show their direction. But now I am confused about some other values like 3/2, 5/2 etc. Can anyone please explain?

For Bose-Einstein Condensates people care about the chemical potential. In almost all of the papers, articles or books they give the mathematical explanation for chemical potential and its impact in the dynamics of the condensates. But I want to know the physical explanation for Chemical Potential. Why is it called so?

Physics paper Entropy:A concept that is not a physical quantity Published in (SCI-E Journal) PHYSICS ESSAYS (Volume 25, Issue 2 (June 2012)).

"Entropy:A concept that is not a physical quantity"

You can get this paper via Email: uhsgnahz@126.com

I am very confused about the conditions for fluid to be considered as ideal. We were taught that for an ideal fluid, the conditions required are:

1) Streamline

2) Non-viscous

3) Incompressible

However, if we put the viscosity as 0 in the equation of Reynold’s no, it will result in infinity which suggests fluid to be fully turbulent (i.e Re>4000) which then doesn’t support fluid to be ideal. Please clear my confusion.

In metals, the conductivity increases with decrease in temperature and in semiconductors the conductivity increases with increase in temperature but why in alloys (constantan and manganin) the conductivity practically remain the same with increase in temperature?

Is it due to the following reasons?

Metals : Due to the formation of more free electrons

Semiconductors: Due to the formation of Cooper pairs and hence the creation of Phonon field

Alloys: No Free electrons or Phonon field created

I am working on a project with diametral divided barrel and by the experimental results I get different results for liquids than solid bodies

Also tell me the density matrix approximation?

Assuming a spherical wave emitted from one point on the optical axis and

passing through a lens with spherical aberration.

If I consider two rays, one along the optical axis and one at an angle, these will intersect in some point on the optical axis somewhat closer to the lens than

the Gaussian image plane.

Is it correct that these two rays (wave portions) are in phase in this point, or in

other words, the two light paths contain the same number of waves?

In Newtonian mechanics, the dynamic equation F=ma is Galileo invariant. Its quantization equation, Schrodinger equation, is also Galileo invariant.

In Newtonian gravity theory F=Gm_1m_2/r^2, or its field equation is Poisson equation that is also Galileo invariant. The geometrization equation of Poisson equation should keep Galileo invariance.

Both quantization from the Newtonian dynamic equation and geometrization from the Newtonian gravity field equation should be regarded as generalizations from so-called "classical" theories. It seems to keep their original invariances, namely, Galileo invariance.

Why is Einstein field equation Lorentz invariant?

From this point of view, the geometrization field equation of Newtonian gravity theory should has Galileo invariace instead of Lorentz invariance.

X-ray crystallography is explained as scattering of photons on the electrons of a crystal. But what is the force that leads to this scattering? The usual explanation in terms of absorption and re-emission seems a bit phenomenological to me.

If the only difference between a matter and antimatter is that they have opposite charges, how can that explain the fact that when they collide they are annihilated leaving nothing but pure energy?

I mean how can the electromagnetic attraction make two particles lose all its mass and convert into energy?

Does anyone have an idea on how to calculate the density of states in conduction band of SnO2 or how to modify it?

In a previous question of mine, there was given an expression relating the maximum velocity of lignt to the maximum gravitational force. That expression seems to explain why black holes continue to grow in size instead of becoming a deadly singularity.

It is well known that there are no natural materials having simultaneously negative values of the dielectric ε and the magnetic μ. In general, we call the materials left-hand Material or double-negative Media. But we have found some special materials in our labs. When the electromagnetic waves go though the left-hand Material by some special frequencies, the waves will be changed from right-hand to left-hand. What I want to ask is that, does a left-hand electromagnetic wave exist in nature? And how can we find it?

for example i have got two M-H curves. can by just looking at curves we can say that its ferromagnetic or ferrimagentic in nature?

Suposing we stretch a rope between the Earth and the Sun (for example) and we put a dynamometer in each end measuring a tension (T), when we cut the Earth's rope, when will the Sun's dynamometer stop measuring any tension?: instantly?, after 8:19 minutes?

I want know whether they increase the temperature of the earth's crust if they are in great numbers when they come from the sun?

Let us consider a charged particle beam travelling in a vacuum with relativistic motion. The total Lorentz force on each beam particle is almost zero to the order of 1/\gamma^2 (\gamma being the relativistic mass factor). Then, the beam will diverge only because of the thermal spreading among the paticles. In fact, the blow up due to the electric part of the Lorentz force is almost balanced by the attractive effect due to the magnetic part of the Lorentz force. However, in this process the rms transverse profile of the beam is formally described by the diffraction caustic as given in the paraxial electromagnetic beam motion.

What is your opinion? The above charged particle beam divergence is a diffusion process (due to the thermal spreading among the beam particles) or it is a diffraction process (due to the fact that its transverse rms profile is fully similar to the diffraction caustic)?

Let me only put forward in this discussion that more than 20 years ago I have developed a quantum-like model for charged particle beam transport, the so called Thermal Wave Model. It describes classical processes in particle beam physics, but using the formalism and the language of Quantum Mechanics.

However, beyond such a model, it would be important to deepen the fundamental physical aspects related to my question. Thank you for your attention.

While I learning the Variational calculations peoples wrote a Lagrangian Density Equation from the Gross-pitaveskii (GP) or NLS equation. From that they found the effective Lagrangian and other evolution equations. My question is how can I form that Lagrangian Density equation from GP equation? Can anyone tell the derivation in clear. [NB: In PRA 81, 043636 (2010) Eq. (10) is Lagrangian Density Equation]

Is it possible for a sound wave to be coherent?

Can the direction of sound waves be controlled like (laser) light, so they can be guided in certain position?

Heat capacity as you know is a measure of the amount of energy (heat) required by a certain mass of a material to raise its temperaure by unit degree. The variable heat is required because heat gets absorbed into non-temperature raising modes also (other than kinetic or translational or vibrational). Can we control and hinder say rotational modes so that energy gets redistributed into kinetic ones only? This is very important because it can lead to self raising of the temerature of a given material having same energy, but diffrently divided.

Is SnS is an ntype semiconductor or p type semiconductor?

In some articles it is mentioned as N-type and some shows it was a P-type material. I don’t know what should I conclude.

How much is the Rayleigh scattering cross section of a Rydberg state atom (or molecular)? For example, the light wavelength is 500 nm.

When the radius of the Rydberg state atom is very large, could the scattering mechnism be Mie scattering?

If entanglement is preserved across an event horizon then it is possible to obtain information about the state of a photon inside a Black Hole.

However, long before the Planck length is reached, around ~10(-25)m the energy density (mass) of the photon exceeds that required to create a Black Hole. No cosmic radiation has been seen with a wavelength smaller then 10(-19).

It is clear that the Maxwell Equations are locally gauge invariant with all that this leads to for the conservation of current and electromagnetic coupling to current in (quantum) electrodynamics. How in essence does one consider in a similar way a world of scalar field and current with respect to local gauge invariance?

It works in any single atom, but what about the two electrons located in two nearby quantum wells? Or, does it work for conduction electrons in metals?

Current laboratory syntheses of nanoparticles, especially those based on conventional flask-type reactors, are able to deliver only small amounts of particles, usually below one gram, and are plagued by low reproducibility and high synthesis costs. Various factors are involved here, like limitations of the size of the reactor, high costs of the chemicals involved, their toxicity, uncontrollable side effects of chemical impurities and others. A key activity will be the design of new synthesis schemes, for example based on continuous batch synthesis approaches, which will be able to deliver particles in amounts that are suitable for applications in catalysis, photovoltaics and energy storage.

Is it possible to disintegrate a matter by just sound or some other form of waves (other then heat producing types).

Can sound wave disorder the lattice structure of any material ?

It is possible to use it in modern cars and starcrafts to travel to nearest stars.

Many times in research, it is very difficult to accept either that the theoretical value is correct or experimental value. It is because theoretical minds says " Every experiment equipment has own limitation and approximation and chances of error starts from being " While 2nd time experimental mind says " Theoretical value can't be correct because you method is working after assuming various approximation" . So my doubt is which one is more correct and on what basis. Is there any limit on absolute error?

Why, sometimes, some people do not consider the work in technique and methodology development as research area?

This subject has made me think about which is considered a research area. I have seen people saying that methodology development may not be a research area and that you need to have a sample or system to study. So, for them, the sample/system is the subject of research. From my point of view, there are some areas in Physics where the methodology and technique development is a research area. So, I would like to know what do you think about it.

How does the density of states(DOS) affect the transport properties?

Newton introduced differential equations to physics, some 200 years ago. Later Maxwell added his own set. We also have Navier-Stokes equation, and of course - Schroedinger equation. All they were big steps in science, no doubts. But I feel uneasy, when I see, for example in thermodynamics,

differentiation with respect to the (discrete!) number of particles. That's clear abuse of a beautiful and well established mathematical concept - yet nobody complains or even raises this question. Our world seems discrete (look at STM images if you don't like XIX-th century Dalton's law), so perhaps we need some other mathematical tool(s) to describe it correctly? Maybe graph theory?

We know that electrons have a dual nature just like EM waves(of course all the material are said to have dual nature; noticeable or not). So looking at wave nature of electron and comparing this with photons, is it possible to make it's kinetic energy equal to zero?

Is the pressure value higher at laminar or turbulent flow region?

Is the pressure at its maximum at the laminar flow region or turbulent flow region?
Thank you.

Not very often we can see magnetic hysteresis loops of type-II superconductors in their entirety. The published figures mostly present only their upper and lower branch, but their "ends" are usually outside the figure. Yet, in situation when the exciting field amplitude falls between Hc1 and Hc2, the discontinuity (jump) is observed in sample magnetization, even its sign is changed. Anything like this never happens in ordinary magnetic materials: here the two branches are always coinciding at the return point, i.e. at the maximum of the external field. What could be the possible reason for such an amazing behavior?

I conducted practical class for students, In Hall effect set up, I measured the readings, Hall voltage as a function of Hall current at constant magnetic field, Hall voltage as a function of magnetic field at constant Hall current . i am not able to measure the readings Hall current as function of Hall voltage at Constant magnetic field and then Hall current as a function of magnetic field at constant voltage

I think this phenomenon involves a weak interaction, because as in beta decay the parity of the muon is not conserved.

In 2006, Philip Marston predicted that an object illuminated by a Bessel beam could scatter some of the beam's transverse momentum into the axial direction, thereby increasing the axial momentum density. The object thus would recoil backward up the beam by conservation of momentum. This would be an implementation of a tractor beam. More recently, this idea has been picked up by several groups who have proposed related schemes for implementing tractor beams based on the properties of Bessel modes. As far as I can see, none of these recoil-based implementations have been reduced to practice. Is that right?

The sintering of particles with a size of a few µm with a 1064 nm laser shows unpredictable results, there is either no reaction or evaporation and ablation of material. My suggestion is that I get poor laser absorption, due to the small particle size, as soon as a few particles melted their size grows due to surface tension and the absorption coefficient increases, resulting in an avalanche effect which leads to material evaporation, instead of sintering. Can anyone confirm or negate this theory or point out papers where this has been observed?

While studying Schrödinger's equations of wave, I had this question:

This equation deals with waves, right then, can we apply it in the case of electromagnetic wave, but the equation deals with one particle system. What does this mean?

Before answering this post, make yourself sure you are not a quack, else you shall be deleted. Please check:

't Hooft on bad physicists http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html

John Baez crackpot guide http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Siegel's Are you a quack? http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Energy of a light wave is hv . When it is polarized and divided into two parts then there energy will also hv and total energy will be 2hv. How it is possible. I have some conclusions. If you have any please tell.

Hello friends,

I am conducting a survey about string theory and in understanding the impacts of a simple space-time.That question lingered in my mind there is some probability.

Can you help me? I am doing research on this subject.

Is it true in all cases, that the more precise one property is measured the less precise

the others can be controlled, determined or known?

How to explain this in a very simple manner.

Can anyone really say that to Physics?
Physics is not always the seamless subject that it pretends to be,
or it is a ramshackle tower of Babel.

How much truth is there in Tony Rothman's article?
See the link.
Sometimes I already had bad feelings.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2011/3/the-man-behind-the-curtain/1

For a long time, that puzzled physicists. A neutrino's variety determines how it interacts with matter. Physicists built experiments to detect the flavour coming out of the Sun only to find far fewer than they expected.

In 2001, that mystery was solved when they discovered that the missing neutrinos had flipped, or oscillated from one flavour to another, during their journey from the Sun to the Earth.

Since then physicists have scrambled to understand neutrino oscillations in more detail. It turns out that the effect is sensitive to the distance that the neutrinos have traveled and also to the amount of matter the particles have passed through.

The current theory is thus that the oscillations in a beam of neutrinos created at one point on the Earth and beamed through the crust to another point, ought to reveal information about any change in density along the way. This technique ought to be able to spot cavities some 200 km across or larger filled with water, iron-based minerals, oil accumulations or even regions of charge accumulations.

Is this actually possible/feasible? How would one create such an intense bean of neutrinos?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1201.6080 : Searching For Cavities Of Various Densities In The Earth’s Crust With A Low-Energy ν¯e β-Beam.

Attached is the full text publication for the above.

It has been observed in many theories related to space and time that time can be warped but my question how would we able to control the wormhole for a time interval for our warp if possible?

If we store photons or directly sunlight then we can use it for many purposes like use for lightning at night, to generate electricity at night by using solar cells and the time of availability of light may increased about 24 hours of the day.

A few years ago, physicists showed that it might be theoretically possible for neutrons to make the leap from our universe to a different one if the gravitational potential of an entire galaxy were involved. Lucky for us, we happen to live in a galaxy so if we look closely enough, it should be possible to spot these neutrons jumping out of our galaxy.

By watching a bunch of neutrons all at once, we might be able to experimentally verify whether any of them are disappearing off to alternate universes.

How Neutrons Might Escape Into Another Universe:

Attached is the full text for the publication:

Experimental limits on neutron disappearance into another braneworld.

Michael Sarrazin, Guillaume Pignol, Fabrice Petit, Valery V. Nesvizhevsky

"Recent theoretical works have shown that matter swapping between two parallel braneworlds could occur under the influence of magnetic vector potentials. In our visible world, galactic magnetism possibly produces a huge magnetic potential. As a consequence, this paper discusses the possibility to observe neutron disappearance into another braneworld in certain circumstances. The setup under consideration involves stored ultracold neutrons - in a vessel - which should exhibit a non zero probability p to disappear into an invisible brane at each wall collision. An upper limit of p is assessed based on available experimental results. This value is then used to constrain the parameters of the theoretical model. Possible improvements of the experiments are discussed."

Thoughts?

Does antimatter behave differently in gravity than matter? This could possibly explain why the universe seems to have no antimatter and why it is expanding at an ever increasing rate.

E=mc squared establishes that energy is related to mass in proportion to the speed of light squared. Since that speed is calculated by dividing distance in space by time, it raises the question of whether there are any limits to the spacetime scale in which the equation must hold. If one makes the assumption that energy must equal mass times the speed of light squared on all spacetime scales and follows it to its logical conclusions, it seems to lead to a Theory of Everything that explains the nature of many of the aspects of the universe that physicists don't understand, like dark energy and dark matter for example. I have written a paper that describes this theory.

It is argued that the Markovian Brownian motion of a particle immersed in an environment does feature continuous but not differentiable paths. As far as non-Markovian effects are concerned, do such Brownian trajectories hold non-differentiable?

For CS2 it is high but we find new material better than it.

For example: How do vary kinetic energy of atom electrons when atomic mass increases؟ For example this equation (E at Z) is liner, power, exponential or, logarithmic؟

i was just reading a book on laser and I found that in the book its written that Einstein's Postulates are as follows:

1.light energy is not emitted continuouslybut intermittently by indivisible amount of energy called quantum of energy.

2.these quanta of energy travel in space in definite bundles and are called photons.

but as far as my knowledged leads to me, I believe that I have read these in Bohr's Atomic model.

in my opinion Einstein postulated in theory of relativity.

according to that all the fundamental laws of physics have the same form in all inertial frames of reference and second is: speed of light in vaccum is same in all inertial frames of reference.

Quantum ESPRESSO(opEn-Source Package

for Research in Electronic Structure, Simulation, and Optimization)

Non-locality is built into the theory with noncommuting space coordinates. One might wonder if quantum entanglement can naturally arise from noncommutative spaces, or whether they can play any important role at the Planck length?

This discussion continues the preceding forum on neutrinos

I need note of the above asked question..if anyone knows please reply me..

Neutrinos run faster than light...

A particle immersed in a given environment (a fluid, for instance) undergoes a jittering movement dubbed Brownian motion. As far as quantum effects are concerned, could we describe the quantum Brownian motion of this particle through a Schrödinger function? In other words, is the wavefunction description of quantum phenomena universal?

To understand the scope of the question, suppose that there are only two particles A and B in the Universe.

If A changes its position, then B must also change, because the barycenter of the system must remain unaltered. However, if the distance between both particles are very large, when the information from the position of A reaches B some time T has passed, and meanwhile A changes again. Perhaps, the existence of a single point as barycenter instead of a fuzzy region requires an instantaneous information, which contradicts relativity theory.

A new class of exact solutions to the classical Maxwell's equations of wave propagation have been found, which prove that there can be light beams that bend around a circular path without diffraction

I know that steel has large elasticity but don't know why.

Suppose we place a detector in the forward direction (practically not possible) to collect the scattered particles only. Will it collect infinite no. of particles for a finite incident flux?

Am I missing some mathematical subtlety?

(The statement I gave above is based on the definition of scattering cross section)

I'd like to hear opinions about the utilization of the terms 'principle' and 'law' assigned to statements or equations in physics. What characterise a principle as a 'principle' or a law as a 'law'? What's the difference between these concepts?

What is the quantitative difference of strength between nuclear interaction and the electromagnetic interaction?

Strong nuclear force supercedes all known forces in strength. The electromagnetic force is just below in the ladder of strength. Many constants are also employed in both of them in the same senses. Therefore, it is natural to inquire about the numerical difference of strength.

Do all electrical appliances obeys ohms law ?

We know from v=iR all the devices which work based on electricity shoud obey it

Is the Warp Drive fact or fiction?

Can the Warp Drive be fact or fiction?

Warp Drives are Exotic solutions of the Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity that "allows" Faster Than Light Space Travel within the framework of General Relativity

Note that the word "allows" is between quotes.

The first of these Exotic solutions was discovered by the Mexican mathematician Miguel Alcubierre in 1994. The second was discovered by the Portuguese mathematican Jose Natario in 2001.

Alcubierre is PhD from University of Wales in Cardiff UK and Natario is PhD from University of Oxford UK.

Their works are here:

The Warp Drive is an entire family of solutions of the Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity like the Schwarzschild or the Reissner-Nordtstrom solutions are for Black Holes but Warp Drives, although mathematical elegant solutions faces some serious problems

an excellent description about the problems Warp Drive faces can be given by

I would like to discuss in ResearchGate the Warp Drive. Using the scientific works of arXiv or HAL to start to show how this theme can be interesting for people in General Relativity

abstract of arXiv:0710.4474

The General Theory of Relativity has been an extremely successful theory, with a well established experimental footing, at least for weak gravitational fields. Its predictions range from the existence of black holes, gravitational radiation to the cosmological models, predicting a primordial beginning, namely the big-bang. All these solutions have been obtained by first considering a plausible distribution of matter, and through the Einstein field equation, the spacetime metric of the geometry is determined. However, one may solve the Einstein field equation in the reverse direction, namely, one first considers an interesting and exotic spacetime metric, then finds the matter source responsible for the respective geometry. In this manner, it was found that some of these solutions possess a peculiar property, namely 'exotic matter,' involving a stress-energy tensor that violates the null energy condition. These geometries also allow closed timelike curves, with the respective causality violations. These solutions are primarily useful as 'gedanken-experiments' and as a theoretician's probe of the foundations of general relativity, and include traversable wormholes and superluminal 'warp drive' spacetimes. Thus, one may be tempted to denote these geometries as 'exotic' solutions of the Einstein field equation, as they violate the energy conditions and generate closed timelike curves. In this article, in addition to extensively exploring interesting features, in particular, the physical properties and characteristics of these 'exotic spacetimes,' we also analyze other non-trivial general relativistic geometries which generate closed timelike curves.

Does Fine Structure Constant play any role in gravitation?

Fine structure constant is often used in nuclear physics and electromagnetism. Sometimes, it is looked as a mysterious quantity. Its role and importance in Gravitation are to be clearly defined.

According to the canonical quantization scheme, a given classical physical system is said to be quantized as long as quantization conditions are imposed on its Hamiltonian or Lagrangian functions. So, no Hamiltonian! No quantization!

Are there quantum effects on non-Hamiltonian systems?

Like the way we point the light using lenses , can we have a device to focus the sound ???

The equation is Energy = Force * Area^(1/2) or E^2 = F^2 * A

Is the above listed equation physically relevant in the classical domain?

What physical behavior does the equation describe?

Other researchers and I experimented with this formula and discovered that it accurately determines the amount of energy that is transferred when a force sensor with a certain area head bounces after going down a ramp and bouncing off a solid "immovable" object.

Our experiment showed that the formula was accurate between 10-50N. We believe this equation has ballistic applications as well.

Out of curiosity we seek the opinion and ideas of other scholars on ResearchGate.

Thanks in advance.

Let's say an iron rod connects the moon to earth, and a machine connected to one side pulls and pushs it a bit to transmit some message, then a computer connected to the other side read those pushes and pulls. So can we affirm that the information travelled instantaneously between these 2 computers?

Water has density, diffusion, specific heat, compressibility unusual behaviors. Why?

Water boils at 100 degrees Centigrade.

Water freezes at zero degrees Centigrade.

What does directional and non-directional in materials mean?

Under the topic bonds in solids ( ionic, covalent .... ) what does directional and non-directional property mean...

Can anyone explain X-Ray Diffraction by Rotating Crystal Method

Which book to refer

Today in class I heard the following affirmation:

"In just the same way the photon field A_i has two helicities related by parity, the graviton, associated to the g_ij field, must have its physical degrees of freedom related by parity."

The metric tensor g_ij is defined by a solution of Einstein's field equations, which are pairs (M,g) where M is a four dimensional Lorentzian manifold. Well, if you accept that definition, then parity is not a global symmetry, simply because M does not necessarily have a "global parity transformation" or more precisely a Z_2 action. Therefore, if you can in some way make sense of some parity like symmetry in a general manifold M, it shoud be a local one (unless M has a Z_2 action), and then that would mean that those degrees of freedom coming from the local parity are not physical at all, therefore the graviton doesn't exist as a spin 2 particle in a general spacetime manifold M.

Energy and mass are eqivalent, so does it? Also due to the fact there are an abitrary number of wavelengths that can exist in this field, what would that contribute to its mass?