If they are real, what exactly do gravitons do?

[kashiark]

If they are real, what exactly do gravitons do? I mean are they absorbed by other particles resulting in an attraction like photons and warp space-time in the process or do they just warp space-time which causes the attraction? If it's the latter how do the gravitons get "used up?"

 

[Naty1]

You are essentially asking what is gravity...and how does it work...very serious questions.

A graviton is the particle version of the continuous gravitational field...Gravitons are the quantum theoretical quantization of the classical gravitational field just as photons are to the electomagnetic field...emergence and absorption of gravitons is even more mysterious than the analogous process for photons...one particle carries EM and the other gravitational energy...at least with photons we can relate them to discrete electon energy levels.

A difficulty arises in that quantum and classical descriptions diverge at singularities such as big bangs and black holes, so there appears to be a problem with each theory...

Grasvitons can also be explained according to string theories...which was accidentally discovered after string theory was developed for other reasons...

Some decent discussion but no absolutely firm answers at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitons

Ask "why" about five or six times with any theory of matter, energy, time, space,etc...and you usually end up at the level of "unknown, uncertain, or experimentally unverified" or close to it...

Many of us can't even figure out which section to post such questions...I suspect this one may be moved!

 

[benk99nenm312]

If they are real, what exactly do gravitons do? I mean are they absorbed by other particles resulting in an attraction like photons and warp space-time in the process or do they just warp space-time which causes the attraction? If it's the latter how do the gravitons get "used up?"

This is the biggest problem with inventing a graviton. When one looks at relativity, one realizes that they know what is happening in nature. Space-time is being warped. With Quantum Field theory, they haven't got a clue as to what is really happening in nature. They just like the concept of fields, with particles being excitations of that field. How is a graviton responsible for attracting particles? There is some really fancy math, but no concrete explanation. There are no pictures, or diagrams. They have no idea. The only reason they invented the graviton was because everything else is regarded as a particle, so why not a particle for gravity?

 

[humanino]

Space-time is being warped

So you gave it a fancy name and have sexy picture of what's going on, but that's not how science makes progress. Interestingly enough, Feynman wrote a lecture on (classical) gravitation entirely based on the (quantum) field theory picture.

Also, there are plenty of sexy pictures and fancy names to "simplify" the mathematics of quantum field theory. Maybe as many of them as there are physicist and mathematicians actually. For the moment, either none of them is correct, or all of them are correct, depending on whether you are pessimistic or optimistic. But in any case, our understanding of Nature progress very little with those considerations.

 

[kashiark]

all quantum field theories of gravity are mathematically equivalent and are supersymmetric and I've read that there is a gravitino of each theory but doesn't that fundamentally oppose supersymmetry?

 

[robva]

Indeed, Feynman showed in his lectures on gravitation that one can for example,recover the number for the advance of perihelion of mercury by using field theory using gravitons rather than the usual general relativity. It is equivalent to use the general relativity tensor or treat the problem with gravitons and self interactions of gravitons.

 

[benk99nenm312]

Indeed, Feynman showed in his lectures on gravitation that one can for example,recover the number for the advance of perihelion of mercury by using field theory using gravitons rather than the usual general relativity. It is equivalent to use the general relativity tensor or treat the problem with gravitons and self interactions of gravitons.

It is equivalent mathematically. The concept of a particle compared to a tensor and/or space-time warping is very different.

 

[tom.stoer]

all quantum field theories of gravity are mathematically equivalent and are supersymmetric and I've read that there is a gravitino of each theory but doesn't that fundamentally oppose supersymmetry?

You are limiting the question to something like supergravity or theories derived from string theory. In supergravity the graviton always comes with a spin 3/2 partner, the gravitino.

The SUGRAs are not all equivalent. Some of them are rich enough to embedd matter and gauge symmetries. Others are not. Some might be fully renormalizable or even finite, others not. Some can be derived from string theory, others not.

And there are approaches to quantum gravity where the graviton is not the fundamental quantum object (LQG, CDT). In LQG the graviton is something like a derived concept that exists only in certain "semiclassical" or "IR" regimes.

 

[Buckethead]

If they are real, what exactly do gravitons do? I mean are they absorbed by other particles resulting in an attraction like photons and warp space-time in the process or do they just warp space-time which causes the attraction? If it's the latter how do the gravitons get "used up?"

Whether or not gravitons actually get used up is an interesting question. Take for example the Sun and the Earth. Is the Earth using up some of the gravitons that might normally make their way to the planets beyond? If one were to make the Earth large enough to absorb a significant number of gravitons from the sun, there would be no way to know as the Earth would then be emitting it's own gravitons to make up for the "absorbed" ones from the Sun, and if the Earth were made small enough so it's own gravity did not contribute, it wouldn't be large enough to significantly affect the total quantity of gravitons from the Sun.

 

[Max™]

Consider Feynman's plate trick.

To get a 1/2 Spin particle to it's original state (put your TV remote on your palm, with your hand in front of you, and your elbow pointing down) you have to rotate it twice.

Keeping the buttons on the remote aimed upwards, turn it to the right and let your elbow rotate out and upwards.

Note when you have the remote facing forwards again, your elbow/arm will be in the opposite state from when you started.

Put the back of the hand holding the remote into the palm of your other hand, with that elbow oriented downwards.

Fits nicely huh, they can share that state because the elbow state is different.

Now continue rotating the remote to the right, under your elbow, and bring your elbow back down to the starting position.

2 Rotations = back to normal.

Can you put the back of the remote hand in the palm of the other hand with both elbows like that?

They can't share that state, neat, but moving on.

How could you rotate something once to reach the starting position?

Grasp the remote, rotate it to the right and flip the buttons so they point down after half a rotation, and then bring it back around forwards again. (NOTE: this is not exact, just helping to consider these concepts)

How could you rotate something halfway and have it arrive at the starting state?

Is there anything you can think of that fits that description?

Does a direction work? the x-axis rotated 180 degrees... is the x axis.

Just something to think about, Gravitons return to the same state when rotated 180 degrees. Spin 2.

 

[benk99nenm312]

Whether or not gravitons actually get used up is an interesting question. Take for example the Sun and the Earth. Is the Earth using up some of the gravitons that might normally make their way to the planets beyond? If one were to make the Earth large enough to absorb a significant number of gravitons from the sun, there would be no way to know as the Earth would then be emitting it's own gravitons to make up for the "absorbed" ones from the Sun, and if the Earth were made small enough so it's own gravity did not contribute, it wouldn't be large enough to significantly affect the total quantity of gravitons from the Sun.

This is exactly why gravitons don't make any sense, or haven't been found in nature. They don't predict the right things. Just because a satellite is positioned behind Earth doesn't mean it is not affected by the sun's gravity.

 

[benk99nenm312]

If they are real, what exactly do gravitons do? I mean are they absorbed by other particles resulting in an attraction like photons and warp space-time in the process or do they just warp space-time which causes the attraction? If it's the latter how do the gravitons get "used up?"

I also just thought of this. Let's say, from a fantasy point of view, that we find a graviton. What does it do? If it does warp space, then the laws of Relativity are intact. There is still the correct prediction of time dilation, and everything else. If it doesn't bend space, then there are some big shoes to fill, because a graviton would have to somehow be responsible for time dilation and all kinds of other predicted phenomenon.

 

[humanino]

This is exactly why gravitons don't make any sense, or haven't been found in nature. They don't predict the right things. Just because a satellite is positioned behind Earth doesn't mean it is not affected by the sun's gravity.

What about photons ?

 

[benk99nenm312]

What about photons ?

What specifically is your question? What about photons?

 

[LitleBang]

The very fact that time slows as we approach any particle with mass should imply that time and gravity are very closely related. If we could explain the mechanics of how time slows it might also explain gravity.

 

[Naty1]

The satellite will receive a diminished number of photons (there will be some light) since most are blocked by the earth...but some also are dragged by gravity and bend aound the Earth as they pass on their way from the sun...and if the altitude above the Earth increases and the satellite is further from the earth, more photons are received as they are closer to a straight line from the sun...

 

[benk99nenm312]

The satellite will receive a diminished number of photons (there will be some light) since most are blocked by the earth...but some also are dragged by gravity and bend aound the Earth as they pass on their way from the sun...and if the altitude above the Earth increases and the satellite is further from the earth, more photons are received as they are closer to a straight line from the sun...

but some also are dragged by gravity and bend aound the earth...

This is key. This is why photons work. They match predictions and observations. But the only way light can hit the satellite is if we think of gravity.

Now, try that same experiment with gravitons. How do they bend around earth? You have gotten rid of that clever mechanism by essentially burning Einstein's brilliant papers. Photons can still bend around earth, because they are now interacting with gravitons, but gravitons can't do that now (unless they somehow interact with themselves).

Anyway, Even if light bends around the earth, most of the light is blocked. Is this the case for gravitons too? Does the gravity of the sun weaken as we pass behind other objects? I thought is was merely reinforced by the Earth's gravity. Look at your diagrams with the sun and the earth, even the simplest matress-sheet ones. The Earth is already in a slight decline thanks to the sun, but that same decline is not countered by the Earth merely sitting there.

 

[benk99nenm312]

The very fact that time slows as we approach any particle with mass should imply that time and gravity are very closely related. If we could explain the mechanics of how time slows it might also explain gravity.

General Relativity predicts Gravitational Time Delay. This follows from the parameters of the Lorentz factor. We already know the mechanics of how time slows, and how gravity works (unless we look at black holes).

 

[OB 50]

Here's another fun thing to think about: gravitons and black holes.

If light cannot escape the event horizon of a black hole, then what properties would a graviton have to possesses in order to escape and exert gravitational influence on outside objects?

 

[tom.stoer]

It may seem strange, but gravitons do not escape from black holes, either. The gravitational field = "static gravitons" outside of a black hole is the relict when matter was still present outside the black hole horizon. The spherical collaps of a star into a black hole does not affect its gravitational field. No gravitons are emitted; everything is just static. THe field before and after the collaps is identical.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is exactly why gravitons don't make any sense, or haven't been found in nature. They don't predict the right things. Just because a satellite is positioned behind Earth doesn't mean it is not affected by the sun's gravity.

Which has nothing to do with the predictions of gravitons.

By analogy with photons, just because a satellite is positioned behind Earth doesn't mean it wouldn't affected by the sun's electric field if it were charged.

 

[OB 50]

It may seem strange, but gravitons do not escape from black holes, either. The gravitational field = "static gravitons" outside of a black hole is the relict when matter was still present outside the black hole horizon. The spherical collaps of a star into a black hole does not affect its gravitational field. No gravitons are emitted; everything is just static. THe field before and after the collaps is identical.

That's pretty much my point. It contradicts the notion that gravitons are "radiating" like photons, which is what most of the discussion so far describes.

If gravitons exist at all, then each static gravitational field is maybe "a" graviton. They definitely don't shoot out of things and bounce around like photons. It just doesn't make any sense to think of them like that.

 

[tom.stoer]

Hi OB50,

you should compare this to QCD, not to QED! In QCD with self-interacting gluons there is an exact mathematical construction of gluonic degrees of freedom. You can see that the gluon field is split into different quantum mechanical degrees of freedom, some of them describing something like "plane wave states", others decribing "static field configurations". In QCD you have nothing like a static electric field! Even the quark-antiquark potential is not a Coulomb field but it contains dynamical gluons.

w/o too many formulas the situation is the following:
In QED you have a differential operator D(x), something like a Laplacian; the inverse operator 1/D ~V(x-y) is something like the coulomb potential (as the kernel of an integral equation);
In QCD (and this is much closer to QG than QED) the differential operator D[A] depends explicitly on the gauge field A; so does the inverse 1/D[A]. If you write A as an integral over plane wave states ("gluons") you have 1/D[A] as an integral operator with a kernel depending on plane wave gluon states. Therefore a "static" field in QCD is not "a gluon" but a very complex state consisting of different gluonic degrees of freedom. I expect that something similar will happen in QG.

The question is therefore what you call a graviton? In my opinion it's simply wrong to talk about plane weaves only. They are not sufficient to describe QCD - and I am pretty sure they will not be able to describe non-perturbative aspects of QG. The approach even fails for perturbative QG due to the non-renormalizibility of the theory.

So the whole discussion only makes sense if we agree on the following
1) we must have a common understanding what gravitons are!
2) if the majority wants to talk about gravitons as plane wave states only, then we must stop discussing non-perturbative aspects like gravitational fields of stars, black holes etc.
3) unfortunately we have to accept that up to now nobody has a clear and mathematical sound understanding of the nature of QG

 

[benk99nenm312]

By analogy with photons, just because a satellite is positioned behind Earth doesn't mean it wouldn't affected by the sun's electric field if it were charged.

Which doesn't have anything to do with gravitons in gravity.

The electric field depends upon the mediation of photons. They can 'bend' around the Earth due to gravity. But you can't use gravity to explain gravity.

Space-time is warped around the sun. This is analogous to an indentation in a bed sheet. Roll the Earth around the sun. It causes a slight warp. The sun adds to the indentation in all directions around the earth, because the Earth is already traveling in warped space-time.

This is an example. From what I understand, the gravitons would strike the Earth head on, but then what? How do they get around to the other side of our planet? If you set a basketball on the ground, and then shine a light on it, it casts a shadow. I think this same conclusion would be drawn from gravitons striking the earth. If the gravitons don't get around to the backside, then how does this match observations and predictions? It wouldn't. If they do somehow get around to the other side of our planet, I'm curious as to how.

 

[Buckethead]

The very fact that time slows as we approach any particle with mass should imply that time and gravity are very closely related. If we could explain the mechanics of how time slows it might also explain gravity.

General Relativity predicts Gravitational Time Delay. This follows from the parameters of the Lorentz factor. We already know the mechanics of how time slows, and how gravity works (unless we look at black holes).

We know the precise relationship between gravitation and time but I don't believe we actually know the mechanics. By this I mean what is it about gravity that would cause the various physical effects we observe when measuring time change such as slowed orbits of planets or slowed decay of unstable subatomic particles. We know that time slows in the presence of gravity, but what is the mechanism?

I would venture to say the answer must be broad and encompass a large number of phenomenon. What I mean is that it doesn't make much sense to say a graviton interacts with a photon which results in a "drag" slowing the photon down, as this could not also explain slowed decay of subatomic particles and so on. A larger paradigm would be needed to cover all events that describe the slowing of time.

Or better still, a better explanation of "time dialation" might be needed. If gravity can cause time dilation and velocity can cause time dilation then what do these two things have in common that can cause time dialation.

These questions may be more philosophical than anything, but interesting to ponder non-the-less

 

[apeiron]

You can see that the gluon field is split into different quantum mechanical degrees of freedom, some of them describing something like "plane wave states", others decribing "static field configurations".

Thanks for some informed comment Tom. Is the basic point here that EM is "simple", other kinds of radiative particle would be more "complex"?

So we can visualise EM as the fate of emitted point-like particles following discrete paths. Little energy pellets fired through space. But the force particles of gravity, strong force and weak are all in their various ways more complicated structures. There are other "sideways" entanglements.

And through SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) we would have a good idea of what the three forces "look like". But the shape of a graviton remains unclear, though spin 2 gives us some clues?

 

[apeiron]

From what I understand, the gravitons would strike the Earth head on, but then what? How do they get around to the other side of our planet? If you set a basketball on the ground, and then shine a light on it, it casts a shadow. .

Isn't the answer simply that the Earth also radiates the "light" of gravitons in this model? So the Earth blocks the sun, but there is no shadow as the Earth then itself glows brightly to the other side. The degree to which it shields would be equalled by the degree to which it attracts.

 

[CarlB]

Interestingly enough, Feynman wrote a lecture on (classical) gravitation entirely based on the (quantum) field theory picture.

Humanino, could you tell me exactly what book this is in? I'm very interested in reading it.

 

[benk99nenm312]

Or better still, a better explanation of "time dialation" might be needed. If gravity can cause time dilation and velocity can cause time dilation then what do these two things have in common that can cause time dialation.

Velocity is increased by an increase in energy, which equates to an increase in mass, which equates to an increase in gravity (*in the direction of travel). Time dilation can be mapped as an increase of gravitational time delay in the direction of travel. Does this make sense? I'm pretty sure the answer is easy to find in Einstein's papers, if I have not already given the answer.

 

[benk99nenm312]

Isn't the answer simply that the Earth also radiates the "light" of gravitons in this model? So the Earth blocks the sun, but there is no shadow as the Earth then itself glows brightly to the other side. The degree to which it shields would be equalled by the degree to which it attracts.

The Earth would radiate gravitons. The sun radiates gravitons. The gravitation attraction of an object, such as the moon, is influenced by both. This is the sum of the Earth's and sun's graviton emissions. The Earth can't do it all.

Note that in this example, it doesn't matter what object is sitting beind the earth. It could easily be on the other side of the earth. Ocean tides for example. Or it could be a satelite orbiting very close to earth, but on the opposite side as the sun.

In the end, anything local is affected by both the sun and the Earth's gravitational pull.

I've been thinking about this lately, and I've come to a conclusion.

Either gravitons don't exist, or they are able to interact with themselves. Does anyone know if gravitons couple with other gravitons? That's something I'd be interested in finding out. I dson't believe they do, but I could be wrong.

 

[benk99nenm312]

Isn't the answer simply that the Earth also radiates the "light" of gravitons in this model? So the Earth blocks the sun, but there is no shadow as the Earth then itself glows brightly to the other side. The degree to which it shields would be equalled by the degree to which it attracts.

Actually, are you saying that the Earth absorbs gravitons, and then re-emits those same ones? That might work actually. Maybe. I dont's know for sure.

Even do, if the gravitons are re-emitted, then they would be re-emitted sporadically. A graviton would have to penetrate through or travel through a lot of material to get to the other side, wouldn't it? I still don't get why it wouldn't be shot back in the direction it came from. And if it did shoot in a different direction, again, it wouldn't bend around the Earth unless it couples with other gravitons from the earth, which I adressed in the last post. So either it couples with other gravitons, or it penetrates through the Earth in order to reach the other side.

 

[CarlB]

Either gravitons don't exist, or they are able to interact with themselves. Does anyone know if gravitons couple with other gravitons? That's something I'd be interested in finding out. I dson't believe they do, but I could be wrong.

I typed up an essay for the annual gravity essay contest that addresses the question of how gravitons interact with gravitons. The essay got an "honorable mention" and was invited for review and publishing in IJMPD. The essay, as submitted to IJMPD is here:
http://www.brannenworks.com/gravity2009.pdf

The whole idea of gravity as created by gravitons is why I want to see the Feynman paper on the subject.

 

[apeiron]

Actually, are you saying that the Earth absorbs gravitons, and then re-emits those same ones? That might work actually. Maybe. I dont's know for sure.
.

I was being tongue-in-cheek, giving a classical way out of the classical way you are imagining the situation.

I'm not expert in this area but I believe that a more correct approach would see it as a field story, knit together by virual rather than actual gravitons. So if you have your stretchy trampoline, the sun would make such a big dent that the Earth would already be halfway down a gravity well. Object to the other side of the earth, like a satellite, would be already sliding down due to the dent caused by the sun, and the Earth would then make a dent upon the dent.

Gravitons would only appear as actual particles as the result of a sufficiently excited field. So you would need a rapidly wobbling mass to make waves/particles as observables?

Perhaps this is the black hole story as well? Only virtual gravitons being virtually emitted. And you would need to waggle the black hole about to shake out actual gravitons from the event horizon?

 

[benk99nenm312]

I'm not expert in this area but I believe that a more correct approach would see it as a field story, knit together by virual rather than actual gravitons. So if you have your stretchy trampoline, the sun would make such a big dent that the Earth would already be halfway down a gravity well. Object to the other side of the earth, like a satellite, would be already sliding down due to the dent caused by the sun, and the Earth would then make a dent upon the dent.

Exactly! I was trying to say that for ten posts or so, but I'm so bad with words that it never came out right. Nicely put. And yes, this is what I am worried about. I don't know how one would solve the problem with gravitons.

 

[LitleBang]

Buckethead, I don't think velocity causes dilation. The acceleration getting to the velocity is what causes the time dilation.

 

[benk99nenm312]

I typed up an essay for the annual gravity essay contest that addresses the question of how gravitons interact with gravitons. The essay got an "honorable mention" and was invited for review and publishing in IJMPD. The essay, as submitted to IJMPD is here:
http://www.brannenworks.com/gravity2009.pdf

The whole idea of gravity as created by gravitons is why I want to see the Feynman paper on the subject.

This is very interesting. Nice job. I lack some of the math to understand parts of this but I get the just of it. So, is it a consencus that gravitons interact with others or is it still debated?

 

[tom.stoer]

Let me ask another question: is there consensus what gravitons are?

 

[Max™]

No, they're unobserved, there is just a graviton shaped hole in current quantum theories which suggests we should find one.

 

[Vanadium 50]

benk99nenm312, let me try again. Your view of what a graviton is has nothing to do with what physicists mean when they say the word "graviton".

I can have a static electric field, and charged objects feel a force in that field. I can also have excitations in that field, and they are called photons. That doesn't mean that charged objects must emit photons - a charged object doesn't have to glow.

I can have a static gravitational field, and massive objects feel a force in that field. I can also have excitations in that field, and they are called gravitons. That doesn't mean that massive objects must emit gravitons for exactly the same reason a charged object doesn't have to glow.

Your complaints about gravitons are based on a model that has nothing to do with what physicists mean when they say the word "graviton".

 

[benk99nenm312]

I can have a static electric field, and charged objects feel a force in that field. I can also have excitations in that field, and they are called photons. That doesn't mean that charged objects must emit photons - a charged object doesn't have to glow.

But if the charged object in the field wants to interact with another charged object, it mediates photons between them, right?

 

[Vanadium 50]

But if the charged object in the field wants to interact with another charged object, it mediates photons between them, right?

No. That would mean it glows.

You might have heard virtual photons are exchanged. Virtual photons are not real photons. You can't see them; you can't measure them; you can't count them; you can't detect them. You don't even need them to do the calculation. They are mathematical artifacts - on par with drawing an auxiliary line in geometry.

 

[benk99nenm312]

No. That would mean it glows.

You might have heard virtual photons are exchanged. Virtual photons are not real photons. You can't see them; you can't measure them; you can't count them; you can't detect them. You don't even need them to do the calculation. They are mathematical artifacts - on par with drawing an auxiliary line in geometry.

So you are saying that gravitons are mathematical artifacts?

A photon is real when it is not mediating the electromagnetic force. When is a graviton real?

 

[tom.stoer]

That is exactly my question: what are gravitons? physical particles? virtual obejcts derived from perturbation theory (which in inconsistent for GR)? a mathematical concept in Hilbert space? ...

My feeling is that the failure of naive perturbation theory for GR forces us to think about different concepts. If you look at some recent approaches for quantum gravity (loops, dynamical triangulations) you wan't find anything like a graviton in the fundamental concepts. That does not mean that these theories are wrong, it simply means that the concept of ordinary quantum field theory cannot be applied to quantum gravity.

 

[Max™]

That is well known, I thought. If it did work perfectly, we'd have a very good candidate for a unified field theory.

As for LQG, the actual links between nodes in spin foam models could be described as gravitons at least metaphorically.

Trying to fit things to actual physical particles isn't a helpful idea though, you can speak sensibly of wave-like or particle-like behavior, but assuming there is a neat little transverse wave diagram or point like particle down in there is misleading at best.

We know that whatever this stuff is, it behaves in certain ways which we can often find easily understandable metaphors for in our day to day experience.

We still aren't sure what this stuff actually IS exactly though.

Applying the methods which have successfully produced the Standard Model to Gravity is very difficult, but a few things happen when you do.

When you include the SSB/Higgs Mechanism, you get a Spin 0 Massive Boson shaped "hole" in the theory, and Spin 2 Massless Boson shaped "holes". The relationship between other symmetry groups and their bosons suggests the Spin 0 one should be the Higgs, which should then couple to other particles in certain ways to produce their observed masses.

The nature of Gravity in that it has no "poles" plus seems to propagate at light speed suggests the Spin 2 one should be a Graviton. This is at odds with the smooth continuum of spacetime described by GR, and one of the big problems seeking resolution which drives String/LQC/etc Theories.

 

[tom.stoer]

Max!

I fully agree with you - but reading the other posts I don't think that the colleagues have the same opinion.

I think that the graviton in LQG (if this concept makes sense at all) is the fundamental excitation of a spin network.

But the majority seems to have something in mind that is derived from ordinary quantum field theory, something like quantized plane waves. This is INCONSISTENT in GR. A plane wave in LQG is a very complex spin network state. I do not understand Rovelli's arxiv papers completely, but I understand enough to see that it is not the "ordinary graviton" as the majority may expect.

The problem with ST is that it works fairly well perturbatively (and therefore ST is able to tell us what the perturbative graviton is), but I do not see results for fully dynamical spacetimes with propagating gravitational fields (not necessarily plane waves).

Tom

 

[Vanadium 50]

So you are saying that gravitons are mathematical artifacts?

No, I am saying that virtual gravitons are mathematical artifacts. Just like virtual photons.

A photon is real when it is not mediating the electromagnetic force. When is a graviton real?

Just like when the photon is.

 

[benk99nenm312]

No, I am saying that virtual gravitons are mathematical artifacts. Just like virtual photons.

Just like when the photon is.

I don't understand. If the graviton were real at any given time, what would it do? What would be its effects? What would we measure, detect, observe? Why haven't we observed it then?

 

[Max™]

Are you falling towards the center of the Earth currently?

There's your answer, I think.

 

[benk99nenm312]

Are you falling towards the center of the Earth currently?

There's your answer, I think.

So are you saying that, when real, gravitons have no effect what-so-ever on me or anything else.

This would indicate to me that they are not 'real'.. ever. That's why I'm confused.
(The only way something has absolutely no effect on anything else is if it doesn't exist.)

 

[Max™]

Again, it's a very misleading way to think of things.

Mathematically it is convenient to describe electromagnetic fields in terms of particles shooting photons at each other, and it turns out that light, real photons, actually has electromagnetic properties.

The difference being you don't see magnets "glowing" at each other literally.

So right now your butt is "glowing" at the Earth with virtual gravitons in a convenient mathematical description.

So a gravity wave (literally a ripple in spacetime) would be akin to a photon in that it would be a defined waveform with gravitational properties instead of electromagnetic properties.

There's more truth and understanding to be found in that comparison if you really consider the nature of a magnetic field and light.