Gravity Quantized (~GRAVITON~ )

In summary: But that is not what we observe. What we observe is that protons (and neutrons) aggregate together and form atoms - and the atom has a nucleus with a positive charge ( protons ) and electrons with a negative charge. But at what point do these charges become so dense that they form an "electrostatic barrier" preventing particles from aggregating any further? Furthermore, the force of attraction between two particles does not seem to be based on the particle's mass, charge or spin. In summary, I've been looking around in various physics books and websites - talking to some people too - and cannot find anything on gravity.
  • #1
~()
30
0
I've been looking around in various physics books and websites - talking to some people too - and cannot find anything on gravity.

I don't mean the inverse sqaure law [ F = G m1m2/r2 ] or
gravity's constant [ G = 6.67 * 10^11 m3 Kg s-1 ] but more to the point how the particles ( on the quantum level ) exist. How is it thougth today - from Theory of relativity & Newtons Law of Universal gravitation or any other theories to how gravity interacts and behaves in the terms of particles?

I've heard about it being a boson with a spin of 2 and so forth, but as the photon requires a source ( such as a charged particle e-, p+ ) so should classically the gravity require a fermion source to which the particle is a interaction field boson carrying the gravity force?

Is this force thought to be a particle that is emmited directly from mass?

_________________________________________________________________

On a separate note - it seems that most hypothesis's formed for gravity somehow relied on EM (ElectroMagnetism) in some way.

How does a system (a proton and electron, - so hydrogen) keep the conservation of energy is terms of emmiting its charge.

1/.

If a electron where to travel through space, then I am assuming that it will emmit photons (quantized they are the EM charge, 0 mass) and after a certain time (a great deal of time) the electron would eventually disintegrate into nothing and only photons would be left scattered. I'm assuming that the charged particle does expend photons as the charge and after a certain amount of time the energy is used - that it can't expend a charge forever. But if you were to count up all of the scattered photons then the original energy would be accounted for -i.e " conservation laws '' - in an isolated system energy is conserved.

2/.

We have two main interaction fields inside EM in this instance
,repulsion and attraction. A charged particle will expend a charge (force carrying particle - photon) onto another charged particle and this will cause a repulsion - assuming that both particles are of the same charge - i.e proton ++ proton or electron -- electron. But these photons, they have no charge so how do the EM fields differ between positive and negative? Furthermore is there a certain radius (in fermi say 10^-10, or 10^-15 or something) where a dense aggregated amount of charge exists, say a "electrostatic barrier" where another charged particle of the same charge would find it extremely hard to get into. And if it has breached this barrier than it may interact on a baryon-baryon level using the strong interaction?
What I am basically asking is does the barrier of one particle at a certain distance away repel the charged particle (assuming same charges) or do the barriers of each particle repel each other from the surface on each EM field?

So how does a electron and proton (inside a hydrogen molecule) exist?
How is the charge conserved - energy conserved. Is there an absorbtion of photon? Is a + particle attracted to the photons of a - particle and absorbs them, then somehow interpolates the charge and expends its respective charge - how does this conservation work in a atomic system for such a long amount of time? How are particles attracted to each other yet they stay at a certain distance away in orbit?

_________________________________________________________________

This further leads me to believe somehow that gravity fundamentally does not work as explained or theorized.

Say if a 2 lead balls of the same size and mass were put into a empty region of space and put at rest at 100m from each other then theoratically it is believed by everything we are told, i.e Newton once said - through the Universal Law of Gravitation, that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe. So these two objects should attract one another - assuming that they are stationary and no external force is applied. Both objects should gain acceleration towards each other. Now this is where the problem arises. The force of attraction is much more complex then repulsion. Repulsion only requires the expeniture of force carrying particles to stike another body. With attraction however classically described through electromagnetism - both particles must have the same but opposite force (i.e the proton has 1.6*10^-19C and the electron has -1.6*10-19C). So you need equal but opposite gravity in this case for both lead balls. Now if you were to discriminate against particles, then you should classically be able to arrange each elementary particle - whether it be a fermion or a boson into sepertate list's - either having positive or negative gravity( just as they have spins, mass and charge ). That way the same repel and opposites attract.

Now because both balls are lead, metal made of cations in a sea of electrons the particles are exactly the same and the balls should not be theoratically able to attract on each other. Furthermore - this brings me to the supposition that space not mass is where gravity originates from. By space I mean empty 3-Dimensional geometric space with the inclusion of time.
So instead of mass/energy expending gravity and the system is distorted as particles run into this gravity, that gravity itself is a product of space and the inclusion of mass into space distrorts the very facric of geometry. The gravity pertains to the space. Furthermore I am compelled to say that gravity emmits from a gravity fermion source, and the gravity particle which are the interaction field bosons carry the gravity force. So through this hypothesis one assumes the fermion to be the graviton, and the bosons to be the gravity particles. (analogous to electron and photons)


_________________________________________________________________
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
so should classically the gravity require a fermion source to which the particle is a interaction field boson carrying the gravity force?

Not necassarily, it can be a source of any kind. Also, charged particles do not emit photons, per se. Virtual photons are created with a momentum which is then transferred after which the photon disappers (or that is the formalism, in anycase). Thus conservation laws are upheld.

If a electron where to travel through space, then I am assuming that it will emmit photons (quantized they are the EM charge, 0 mass) and after a certain time (a great deal of time) the electron would eventually disintegrate into nothing and only photons would be left scattered.

This would happen only if the electron collided with a positron.

charged particle will expend a charge (force carrying particle - photon) onto another charged particle and this will cause a repulsion - assuming that both particles are of the same charge - i.e proton ++ proton or electron -- electron.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. What do you mean by "expend a charge"?
So how does a electron and proton (inside a hydrogen molecule) exist?
You mean atom, right?

How is the charge conserved - energy conserved. Is there an absorbtion of photon?

Yes, but the hydrogen atom is better descriped by the standard non-pertubative Schrödinger equation.

The force of attraction is much more complex then repulsion.

This is well defined inside Quantum Electrodynamics. The exact process is not simple to explain, but it may be thought of as the sign of momentum of the virtual photon determines whether the interaction will be attractive of repulsive.

Now if you were to discriminate against particles, then you should classically be able to arrange each elementary particle - whether it be a fermion or a boson into sepertate list's - either having positive or negative gravity( just as they have spins, mass and charge ). That way the same repel and opposites attract.

No. Antigravity was never observed, so this wouldn't make any sense. One of the reasons that the graviton field is postulated to be spin-2 field istthat for all matter gravity should be only an attractive force.

The rest of your text is completely illucid to me.
 
  • #3
Particles do not just attract each other, they do not just grab other particles and bring them in. What I was stating in the last statement was that two bodies that are made up of exactly the same particles cannot attract -classically speaking - it always requires opposites.

If you read the section inside a physics book (specifically about the inverse square law pertaining to gravity) than it should mark a statement that equal but opposite gravity plays a role in the function of how gravity works.
But anti-gravity does not exist, you can't have a repulsive gravity...

Furthermore how does charge inside electrons, and protons work?
How does this charge interact, repel and attract?
\Specifically - I know that the electromagnetic field quantised to the Rules of Quantum Mechanics exibits a bose-einstien field of photons. But apparently these photons have no charge or mass.

Also a charge seems to be a function of a force carrying particle and somehow must be correllated with energy. I mean, could you just has a charge coming from a charged particle exist forever. This charge (vitual photon), what are its properties, how does it have no mass yet is affected by gravity and how is their and positive and negative?

Im assuming a picture where a particle (say electron) travels through space at a constant momentum, thus it is not under any external force - such as gravity, and it is emmiting a charge, i.e it is emmiting a EM force - this is what can be felt by other charged particles. Just because another charged particle is not there does not mean it is not exterting a charge, or a force for that matter. This must be somehow a product of work - therefore a product of energy. If so, then energy is conserved and so must charge be conserved - but how. How doe these particles move inside prositive and negative situations?

If a fermion source were given to gravity - since it is classified as a boson then this source could very well be mass - or energy. But since there is only 1 type of gravity this cannot be. Classically - through analysing it with electromagnetism - it does not seem to correspond to the picture of gravity today.
 
Last edited:

Related to Gravity Quantized (~GRAVITON~ )

1. What is gravity quantized?

Gravity quantized is the theory that gravity can be explained by the existence of particles called gravitons. These particles are thought to be responsible for the force of gravity, similar to how photons are responsible for the electromagnetic force.

2. How does the concept of gravity quantized differ from traditional theories of gravity?

Traditional theories of gravity, such as Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's theory of general relativity, view gravity as a continuous force. In contrast, gravity quantized suggests that gravity is made up of discrete particles that interact with matter to create the force of gravity.

3. Is there any evidence to support the existence of gravitons?

Currently, there is no direct evidence for the existence of gravitons. However, many scientists believe that the concept of gravity quantized is a promising avenue for further research and could potentially lead to new discoveries and a better understanding of gravity.

4. How does gravity quantized relate to other theories in physics, such as quantum mechanics?

Gravity quantized attempts to unify the theories of gravity and quantum mechanics, which have traditionally been viewed as incompatible. It suggests that gravity can be explained using the principles of quantum mechanics, similar to how other fundamental forces are explained.

5. What are some potential implications of gravity quantized?

If gravity quantized is proven to be true, it could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe. It could potentially lead to a more complete theory of physics and could also have practical applications, such as advancements in technology and space exploration.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
916
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
407
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
911
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
954
Back
Top