B Shouldn't quantum gravity be an interaction between mass and spacetime?

[TerranIV]

Einstein showed (via general relativity) that spacetime is curved by mass, mass moves in relation to this curvature, and that gravitation arises as secondary effect. Why then are we looking for quantum gravity as some sort of mass<->mass interaction?

Aren't the fundamental interactions better thought of as between mass and spacetime (i.e. mass<->spacetime<->mass)? Shouldn't we be looking for a quantum form of spacetime? Or maybe at least two kinds of gravitons? (A mass->spacetime graviton and a spacetime->mass graviton.)

In other words, if gravitation is no more fundamental than the centripetal force, why are we looking for a quantum form of gravity?

 

[PeroK]

GR is a theory of spacetime that has no theoretical support in terms of arising from the interactions of elementary particles. An explanation of GR and curved spacetime in terms of elementary particle interactions is what is needed in terms of quantum gravity.

 

[Demystifier]

Einstein showed (via general relativity) that spacetime is curved by mass

That's not exactly true. The Riemann curvature tensor can be non-zero even when the matter energy-momentum tensor is zero. In lay language, this means that spacetime can be curved even without mass. This indeed happens during the propagation of gravitational waves. In quantum gravity we need to quantize these gravitational waves. The quantization of gravitational waves implies the existence of gravitons.

 

[TerranIV]

Demystifier said

"In quantum gravity we need to quantize these gravitational waves. The quantization of gravitational waves implies the existence of gravitons."

Right, but my question is why are gravitions formulated as being exchanged between masses? Shouldn't gravitions be exchanging interaction between mass and spacetime (or propagating through spacetime just like photons)?

 

[PeroK]

Demystifier said

Right, but my question is why are gravitions formulated as being exchanged between masses? Shouldn't gravitions be exchanging interaction between mass and spacetime (or propagating through spacetime just like photons)?

Here is an overview of the various competing theories:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.3269.pdf

 

[TerranIV]

My question is more about why would any theory think gravitons would be exchanged between masses? I thought Einstien is pretty explicit in general relativity in saying that gravity is not a force between masses. Why would any post-General Relativity theory go back to Newton's ideas of gravity?

Does anyone know any theories that formulate gravitions as exchanging an interaction between mass and spacetime?

 

[PeroK]

My question is more about why would any theory think gravitons would be exchanged between masses? I thought Einstien is pretty explicit in general relativity in saying that gravity is not a force between masses. Why would any post-General Relativity theory go back to Newton's ideas of gravity?

This highlights how little you understand about the attempts to find a theory of QG.

Does anyone know any theories that formulate gravitions as exchanging an interaction between mass and spacetime?

You could start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

 

[PeroK]

Why would any post-General Relativity theory go back to Newton's ideas of gravity?

QM is a whole lot less Newtonian than GR! Newtonian physics is the local, low-speed, weak-field limit of GR. The proposed theories of QG are not Newtonian.

 

[TerranIV]

PeroK said:

This highlights how little you understand about the attempts to find a theory of QG.

I am asking a question on this forum to understand. Obviously if I knew the answer I wouldn't need to ask the question, right? If the answer is obvious, please answer my question, or allow someone else to answer if you don't know, instead of just telling me to read everything about QM and the graviton.

It is a simple question; why would a quantization of an interaction that GR indicates is between mass and spacetime not include spacetime in the interaction?

 

[PeroK]

I am asking a question on this forum to understand. Obviously if I knew the answer I wouldn't need to ask the question, right? If the answer is obvious, please answer my question, or allow someone else to answer if you don't know, instead of just telling me to read everything about QM and the graviton.

That's a fair point.

It is a simple question; why would a quantization of an interaction that GR indicates is between mass and spacetime not include spacetime in the interaction?

It's not a simple question. Nothing to do with QG is simple. You already got one answer today:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/745697/why-is-gravity-not-a-force

As far as I understand your question, you are asking about a fundamental non-quantum theory of gravity. Or, at least, that the interaction is not between the particles as described in the link above, but is a different type of interaction altogether. Where particles interact independently via the medium of spacetime.

I'm not sure how much research there is on that.

 

[fresh_42]

GR is a theory of spacetime that has no theoretical support in terms of arising from the interactions of elementary particles. An explanation of GR and curved spacetime in terms of elementary particle interactions is what is needed in terms of quantum gravity.

After I set the thread level to "B", haven't you just answered the titled question with a "yes" since mass is caused by elementary particle interactions?

 

[PeroK]

After I set the thread level to "B", haven't you just answered the titled question with a "yes" since mass is caused by elementary particle interactions?

It's the justification for curved spacetime that is the issue, rather than the justification that elementary particles have mass.

 

[Demystifier]

Right, but my question is why are gravitions formulated as being exchanged between masses? Shouldn't gravitions be exchanging interaction between mass and spacetime (or propagating through spacetime just like photons)?

For a start, let us use a correct language. In Feynman diagrams, virtual particles are exchanged between real particles. The particles (either real or virtual) can be matter particles (this corresponds to "mass" in your language) and gravitons (this corresponds to "spacetime" in your language). Now with the established correct language, the answer to your question is that gravitons are exchanged between both matter particles and gravitons.

 

[ohwilleke]

Here is an overview of the various competing theories:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.3269.pdf

"So far, no less than 16 major approaches to quantum gravity have been proposed in the literature. Some of them make a direct or indirect use of the action functional to develop a Lagrangian or Hamiltonian framework. They are as follows.

1. Canonical quantum gravity [16, 17, 43, 44, 32, 99, 100, 6, 54, 144].

2. Manifestly covariant quantization [116, 33, 94, 74, 7, 152, 21, 103].

3. Euclidean quantum gravity [68, 90].

4. R-squared gravity [142].

5. Supergravity [64, 148].

6. String and brane theory [162, 98, 10].

7. Renormalization group and Weinberg’s asymptotic safety [129, 106].

8. Non-commutative geometry [26, 75].

Among these 8 approaches, string theory is peculiar because it is not field theoretic, spacetime points being replaced by extended structures such as strings.

A second set of approaches relies instead upon different mathematical structures with a more substantial (but not complete) departure from conventional pictures, i.e.

9. Twistor theory [122, 123].

10. Asymptotic quantization [67, 5].

11. Lattice formulation [114, 22].

12. Loop space representation [133, 134, 136, 145, 154].

13. Quantum topology [101], motivated by Wheeler’s quantum geometrodynamics [159].

14. Simplicial quantum gravity [72, 1, 109, 2] and null-strut calculus [102].

15. Condensed-matter view: the universe in a helium droplet [155].

16. Affine quantum gravity [105].

After such a concise list of a broad range of ideas, we hereafter focus on the presentation of some very basic properties which underlie whatever treatment of classical and quantum gravity, and are therefore of interest for the general reader rather than (just) the specialist. He or she should revert to the above list only after having gone through the material in sections 2–7."

 

[TerranIV]

For a start, let us use a correct language. In Feynman diagrams, virtual particles are exchanged between real particles. The particles (either real or virtual) can be matter particles (this corresponds to "mass" in your language) and gravitons (this corresponds to "spacetime" in your language). Now with the established correct language, the answer to your question is that gravitons are exchanged between both matter particles and gravitons.

Gravitons would be exchanged between matter particles AND energy particles, which is why I used mass instead. (Another reason why it seems that any real gravitons seem more likely to be eschanging energy and information with some form of a spacetime structure or field, not another mass.)
You didn't answer my question at all. I understand why gravitons are thought to be exchanged between matter particles and gravitons (as well as photons and any other mass or energy particle).
My question is, why does this seem to ignore General Relativity which states that gravity is a secondary result of the primary interaction between mass and spacetime? Why would particle physicists seemingly ignore Einstein for 100 years and think they would get any results? It seems like it would be smarter to try a different tactic (one supported by Einstein) rather than continue to bang our heads against the wall of trying to make gravity be a mass<->mass interaction.

 

[TerranIV]

First, nice original idea! That's something good in itself, IMO. But there are problems as others already pointed out.

If gravitons would be attracting mass and spacetime to each other, this would mean an interaction between graviton and spacetime which absorbs the graviton, thus 'bending' spacetime - otherwise, the gravitational force carriers cannot transfer the force. That means we're far from an inverse square law for gravity, since the absorbed gravitons would add an exponentially decreasing factor to multiply with. This contradicts many confirmations of Newtonian dynamics and general relativity. Alas, this will not work.

But the relation between gravitons and spacetime is something I want to memorize. Since gravitational waves could leave an imprint on spacetime, and are measurable as ripples in spacetime, well... perhaps gravitons are the quantized wave packets of spacetime waves. Or maybe that's already known or defined as such in a theory; loop quantum gravity comes to mind. In any case, TerranIV had a refreshing though invalid idea.

I wouldn't think gravitons would "attract" mass and spacetime together. They would do what GR says mass does, i.e. bend spacetime or change the properties of spacetime so that momentum follows curved paths like GR says it does. While gravitation is a force, the "true" and "primary" interaction would not need to be a force per se, it would just need to be an interaction between mass and space that bends spacetime in the way that GR says it does.

I don't see how this would preclude an inverse square law, as gravitons would be traveling through space and spreading out as they travel, meaning the density distribution of gravitons would lead directly to an inverse square effect. Obviously gravitation obeys an inverse square law so any formulation of gravitons would have to include that to be valid.

I do appreciate you giving the idea some thought. I am disappointed that nobody seems to be able to point to a reason for the prevailing theories of gravity to seemingly ignore Einstein and General Relativity and try and make it into a force when the most successful theory of gravitation says it is no such thing.

My suspicion is that the nature of spacetime is so misunderstood (I mean we don't really even understand the true geometry of space! Eucledian? Hyperbolic? Ecliptic? Riemannian?) Maybe someday if we can narrow down what exactly space and time are, we will get closer to understanding how exactly mass distorts the behavior of inertia, momentum, impulse, etc to create gravity, time-dilation, non-accelerating curved motion, etc.

 

[strangerep]

I am disappointed that nobody seems to be able to point to a reason for the prevailing theories of gravity to seemingly ignore Einstein and General Relativity and try and make it into a force

Huh?? I don't bother to point to such a "reason" because I don't see anyone (who actually understands GR and QFT) trying to do what you say (i.e., "make it into a force").

My suspicion is that the nature of spacetime is so misunderstood (I mean we don't really even understand the true geometry of space! Eucledian? Hyperbolic? Ecliptic? Riemannian?)

Or maybe it's just you who doesn't understand. Our best theories and their experimental evidence supports "Riemannian" as the best model.

Maybe someday if we can narrow down what exactly space and time are, [...]

Space and time are artifacts of our imagination (see the Einstein quote in my signature block below). They are useful concepts to construct mathematical models of physical (i.e., experimentally perceived) events. What's real are the correlations exhibited by (various configurations of) correlata, i.e., quantum fields, or, in a suitable limit, classical fields+particles.

 

[TeethWhitener]

It looks like your question has been answered several times, but I think there are some basic things you’re misunderstanding, so I’ll try to keep this as B level as possible.

You’re wondering why gravitons don’t interact with spacetime, when in fact they do. You have to first understand: what is spacetime, such that gravitons would interact with it? The answer is that spacetime is just a list of numbers. At any given point in spacetime, we can figure out a list of numbers (called a metric) that tells us where/when we are, and we can figure out the local curvature. When we have a list of numbers at every given point in a space, we call this a field. Einstein’s general relativity is a field theory (a classical one), but there are other field theories, for instance electromagnetism. When we go from a classical field theory to a quantum one, we find that the fields are excited in discrete quantities. For the electromagnetic field, this discrete excitation is called the photon. For the field representing spacetime, this excitation is called the graviton.

So the graviton is spacetime, or at least a quantum excitation of the tensor field representing spacetime. So gravitons interacting with gravitons is essentially what you’re asking for.

 

[Demystifier]

My question is, why does this seem to ignore General Relativity which states that gravity is a secondary result of the primary interaction between mass and spacetime?

GR does not say that. Perhaps it's how GR is represented in popular literature, but it's not what GR really is. The primary interaction in GR is the interaction between energy-momentum tensor and spacetime metric tensor. The energy-momentum tensor may or may not be associated with mass. The reason why the mass seems essential is because the big massive bodies such as planets and stars usually have more energy-momentum than massless stuff like light. But at the fundamental level, massive electron and massless photon have comparable energies and momenta, so they are equally important in GR.

 

[Demystifier]

I am disappointed that nobody seems to be able to point to a reason for the prevailing theories of gravity to seemingly ignore Einstein and General Relativity and try and make it into a force when the most successful theory of gravitation says it is no such thing.

Maybe I can point to the reason. It's about general covariance. When GR is written in a general covariant form, then the force does not appear in the equations. But in this form, one cannot actually solve equations. To solve equations one must choose some particular coordinates, which breaks general covariance and usually the force appears in the equations. In perturbative quantum gravity, where Feynman diagrams appear, one does not know how to write the equations in a general covariant form, so forces appear naturally. In loop quantum gravity the general covariance is more explicit, forces typically do not appear in equations, but with this theory it's hard to make concrete calculations.

So it's not that GR does not have forces at all. Instead, it's that the theory can be written in two ways, general covariant and general non-covariant. In the covariant form one has mathematical elegance and no forces, but concrete calculations are hard. In the non-covariant form the mathematical elegance is lost and forces appear, but concrete calculations are easier.

The confusion may arise when people compute non-covariantly but think covariantly. I even have a metaphor for this; the non-covariant practice is like sex, the covariant ideology is like love, and confusion may arise when people don't see clearly the difference between love and sex.

 

[Maarten Havinga]

I wouldn't think gravitons would "attract" mass and spacetime together. They would do what GR says mass does

I'm afraid you lost me here. If you want to have effect on my opinions, you must write down how the interaction between mass and spacetime works mathematically. If I take your statement at face value, you're unifying GR and QM only in name, by dubbing GR an "interaction between mass and spacetime". It means nothing unless you offer background mathematics. For instance I need to know why you wouldn't have to quantize spacetime in order to get this "quantum interaction" via gravitons. I can't make any prediction or even qualitative statement about nature based on your text.

 

[weirdoguy]

energy particles

There can be no such thing. Energy is a property of things, not a thing itself.

 

[Fra]

Einstein showed (via general relativity) that spacetime is curved by mass, mass moves in relation to this curvature, and that gravitation arises as secondary effect. Why then are we looking for quantum gravity as some sort of mass<->mass interaction?

Aren't the fundamental interactions better thought of as between mass and spacetime (i.e. mass<->spacetime<->mass)? Shouldn't we be looking for a quantum form of spacetime? Or maybe at least two kinds of gravitons? (A mass->spacetime graviton and a spacetime->mass graviton.)

In other words, if gravitation is no more fundamental than the centripetal force, why are we looking for a quantum form of gravity?

Many comments already but here is another one....

The graviton concept arises from treating spacetime metric as another field and then apply the "quantization procedure" that we have good confidence in from subatomic physics. Other reasearch programs change the variablea to something else than the metric. So picking the right "variable" and then quantize is one idea.

Another idea is to question wether gravity (or some variable related to it) should be treated with standars qm at all? The problem is that qft typically needs an background spacetime wich effectively is an external observer.
But there is no such thing in gr. So what todo? Does QM itself need to deform? Noone knows.

There are many problems here and until a theory is found and mature that unifies all forces the question is open.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

In contrast in particle physics there IS an effective external observer. The whole classical laboratory, where they can prepare and repeat the same experiment over and over again. The capacity of informationa of the surrounding lab is dominant relative to the atomic scale.

This situation is very different in a comsological perapective. So it is not i think obvious that the paradgim of atomic physics makes sense for cosmological models or cases where an effective background at distance is not practical.

/Fredrik

 

[TerranIV]

Huh?? I don't bother to point to such a "reason" because I don't see anyone (who actually understands GR and QFT) trying to do what you say (i.e., "make it into a force").Or maybe it's just you who doesn't understand. Our best theories and their experimental evidence supports "Riemannian" as the best model.Space and time are artifacts of our imagination (see the Einstein quote in my signature block below). They are useful concepts to construct mathematical models of physical (i.e., experimentally perceived) events. What's real are the correlations exhibited by (various configurations of) correlata, i.e., quantum fields, or, in a suitable limit, classical fields+particles.

You must not have read the responses to the questions if you dont think that people are calling gravity a force here so far. If you had read my question you would also know that I'm not asking about it being a force or not, I'm asking about it being an interaction between masses rather than between mass and spacetime.

If you think that the debate over the nature and topology of space is settled you are ignorant to the issues involved. Eienstein used a pseudo-Riemannian manifold in GR because it was the best way to explain how GR works, but there are many other geometries which work just as well (which is why currently it is impossible to say which is correct). Overview of issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

Space and time are absolutely not "artifacts of our imagination." This is a extremely silly thing to argue for in a physics forum. A random quote of Einstein does not trump his published peer-reviewed time-tested formalized theories. The way we experience space and time are obviously limited, but there is no doubt they relate to real underlying properties of the universe.

Again, the question for this thread is why is gravitation treated as an interacting between masses, and not simply as an interaction between mass and spacetime as General Relativity presents it.

 

[weirdoguy]

If you think that the debate over the nature and topology of space is settled you are ignorant to the issues involved.

I would rather say that you are ignorant - all of the geometries that you linked to are pseudo-Riemannian.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This thread suffers from a couple of things, and maybe it can be put back on track.

I am not sure this can possibly be discussed at B-level. That's saying "I understand neither GR nor QM, except in a the most cursory manner, yet I am sure that people who do are all doing it wrong.": At a minimum, it's a tough sell.

It also suffers from the misconception that physics theories are all about words, and getting them in the right order. What does "an interaction between mass and spacetime" even mean in QM? The words all sound good, but how can you measure this? If this interaction were twice as strong or half as string, how would anybody know?

For this to make any sense at all, it needs to be quantitative. If the OP hasn't studied enough QM and GR to do that, that's a pity, but it's a necessary prerequisite to having any sort of useful discussion.

 

[mitchell porter]

why does this seem to ignore General Relativity which states that gravity is a secondary result of the primary interaction between mass and spacetime?

In GR, matter interacts with the metrical properties of space-time. In quantum gravity, matter interacts with gravitons; but a graviton is made out of the metric. A graviton is a quantum perturbation of the metric of space-time. It's the particle-field duality of quantum mechanics, applied to the metric field.

 

[PeterDonis]

Einstein showed (via general relativity) that spacetime is curved by mass, mass moves in relation to this curvature, and that gravitation arises as secondary effect.

No. Gravitation is spacetime curvature in GR. It's not a "secondary effect" of spacetime curvature.

Why then are we looking for quantum gravity as some sort of mass<->mass interaction?

Who said we were? Do you have any references that show this?

 

[PeterDonis]

why are gravitions formulated as being exchanged between masses?

The graviton theory (which is not considered a full quantum gravity theory but only an effective theory which might be valid in certain regimes--but we have no way of experimentally testing this now or in the foreseeable future) contains both graviton-mass vertices and graviton-graviton vertices. The latter arise because the QFT of a massless, spin-two particle (the graviton) is nonlinear.

 

[PeterDonis]

why would any theory think gravitons would be exchanged between masses?

Because gravitons are exchanged between anything that has energy.

 

[PeterDonis]

why would a quantization of an interaction that GR indicates is between mass and spacetime not include spacetime in the interaction?

It does. See post #32.

 

[PeterDonis]

In any case, TerranIV had a refreshing though invalid idea.

Please do not encourage personal speculation, which is off limits here at PF.

 

[PeterDonis]

why does this seem to ignore General Relativity which states that gravity is a secondary result of the primary interaction between mass and spacetime?

GR doesn't state that. See post #29.

Why would particle physicists seemingly ignore Einstein for 100 years and think they would get any results?

They aren't. See above.

 

[malawi_glenn]

I am disappointed that nobody seems to be able to point to a reason for the prevailing theories of gravity to seemingly ignore Einstein and General Relativity and try and make it into a force when the most successful theory of gravitation says it is no such thing.

Well first off, some quantum gravity theories start with the Einstein-Hilbert action.

Secondly, what is meant by "force" in say particle physics is different from the concept of force in Newtonian physics.

 

[TerranIV]

GR does not say that. Perhaps it's how GR is represented in popular literature, but it's not what GR really is. The primary interaction in GR is the interaction between energy-momentum tensor and spacetime metric tensor. The energy-momentum tensor may or may not be associated with mass. The reason why the mass seems essential is because the big massive bodies such as planets and stars usually have more energy-momentum than massless stuff like light. But at the fundamental level, massive electron and massless photon have comparable energies and momenta, so they are equally important in GR.

You are missing my point that gravity is SECONDARY. I think the issue is that people are confused what "gravity" means. It is not "a distortion of spacetime", it is not the primary interactions in GR, it is "an attractive force between masses (and equivalent energy)." The spacetime distortions that GR is about (which I consider primary interactions) are not "gravity." Gravity does not accelerate anything, it curves spacetime which changes how momentum is transfered (as well as how time flows locally). GR describes what is "actually" going on, which is a curvature in spacetime (which appear straight in a local frame). As you state, it is momentum that is changing, not some "force at a distance" that needs to be propagated with a graviton.

I'm just confused why anyone thinks that "gravity" would have a boson or a field to parameterize when GR expressly states that gravity is not a real force, and is not why masses (and energy) move through spacetime.

 

[TerranIV]

This thread suffers from a couple of things, and maybe it can be put back on track.

I am not sure this can possibly be discussed at B-level. That's saying "I understand neither GR nor QM, except in a the most cursory manner, yet I am sure that people who do are all doing it wrong.": At a minimum, it's a tough sell.

It also suffers from the misconception that physics theories are all about words, and getting them in the right order. What does "an interaction between mass and spacetime" even mean in QM? The words all sound good, but how can you measure this? If this interaction were twice as strong or half as string, how would anybody know?

For this to make any sense at all, it needs to be quantitative. If the OP hasn't studied enough QM and GR to do that, that's a pity, but it's a necessary prerequisite to having any sort of useful discussion.

I don't know that it is "putting it back on track" to call the OP completely ignorant on GR and QM as you have no idea who I am.

I am absolutely not saying that people are "doing it all wrong" I'm saying that GR states that gravity is not a force between masses (can we agree on this part?) and yet it seems that many quantum gravity theories (specifically those involving gravitons) are focused on a mass<->mass interaction (please correct me if I am wrong on this front - but please note that a correction is not "You are an idiot").

I strongly disagree with a "this has to be quantative to make any sense." If you cannot describe the generalities of a theory without simply re-printing an equation then you really don't understand it. (Just because Ptolemy could predict the motions of the planets better than Copernicus doesn't mean he was a fool to put forward a heli-centric theory until Kepler could work out the rest of the details. --Einstein would be Copernicus in this analogy, btw.)

Gravity was first nailed down as a force by Newton. If gravity was a force in that way we would all feel similar inertial forces in freefall as we do when accelerated by a car or train. While gravity does direct our momentum, and increase our velocity, it does this by curving and distorting space and time (spacetime), NOT by putting a force on our mass (or energy-mass equivalent).

It seems (this is where my question lies) a mass-to-mass boson, like a graviton, would impart a force on us which should result in inertial forces through a massive body, which are not present in nature.

Can someone explain to me why a mass-to-mass (for example a Earth's mass to a free-falling human body) exchange would not experience inertial drag like we would when in a rocket?

 

[PeterDonis]

You are missing my point that gravity is SECONDARY.

No, it isn't. See post #29.

I think the issue is that people are confused what "gravity" means. It is not "a distortion of spacetime"

Yes, it is. It's spacetime curvature. See post #29. Any GR textbook will tell you that.

The spacetime distortions that GR is about (which I consider primary interactions) are not "gravity."

Yes, they are. You need to learn GR.

Gravity does not accelerate anything, it curves spacetime

No, gravity is spacetime curvature. It is correct that spacetime curvature, by itself, does not accelerate anything--in the sense that it does not give anything proper acceleration. Objects moving solely under the influence of the geometry of spacetime are in free fall, with zero proper acceleration.

which changes how momentum is transfered (as well as how time flows locally)

Neither of these claims are true.

I'm just confused why anyone thinks that "gravity" would have a boson or a field to parameterize when GR expressly states that gravity is not a real force

"Not a real force" is vague ordinary language. In classical (non-quantum) GR, it just means what I said above, that objects moving solely under the influence of spacetime geometry are in free fall, with zero proper acceleration. That means they feel no force.

When you try to quantize GR, however, you come face to face with the fact that, first, the relationship between spacetime curvature and the presence of matter and energy, which in classical GR is given by the Einstein Field Equation, now has to be due to some kind of quantum interaction, whose classical limit is the Einstein Field Equation. (I say "interaction" rather than "force" because many quantum interactions do not result in the simplistic kind of Newtonian forces that many people imagine when they use the word "force".) The quantum field theory of the massless spin-2 field, which is what the term "graviton" refers to and which was developed by many physicists in the 1960s and early 1970s, includes, as I said in an earlier post, both graviton-mass vertices (interactions) and graviton-graviton vertices (interactions), the latter arising because the field is nonlinear. And the classical limit of this QFT is known to be the Einstein Field Equation. The main reason this QFT is not considered a final solution to the question of how to quantize gravity is that it is not renormalizable. But it is generally considered to be a valid (although, as I said before, not experimentally testable now or in the foreseeable future) effective field theory of the relationship bewteen spacetime and matter in the appropriate regime.

You would be well advised to become familiar with this body of work, as well as with classical GR. You can't criticize what you don't know.

I don't know that it is "putting it back on track" to call the OP completely ignorant on GR and QM as you have no idea who I am.

He's basing his criticisms on what you have posted in this thread. His criticisms look valid to me.

It seems (this is where my question lies) a mass-to-mass boson, like a graviton, would impart a force on us which should result in inertial forces through a massive body, which are not present in nature.

It might seem this way to you, but that is because you don't know what the theory you refer to, namely the QFT of a massless, spin-2 field that I described above, actually says. What it actually says is that all of the predictions of classical GR are perfectly valid in the classical regime, including the prediction that objects moving solely under the influence of spacetime geometry feel no force and are in free fall.

As for how that arises from the underlying quantum field interaction, the simplest way to view it is the same way classical GR views it: that the interaction in question (whether you call it spacetime geometry or a spin-2 field) acts on all matter the same way and imparts the same motion to all matter. So matter acted on solely by this means will feel no force since all of the matter is moving exactly the same. One can view this as a manifestation of the equivalence principle.

 

[Maarten Havinga]

Please do not encourage personal speculation, which is off limits here at PF.

OK if the speculation is clearly disconnected from reality.

 

[PeterDonis]

OK if the speculation is clearly disconnected from reality.

There is no such provision in the PF rules. Personal speculations, personal theories, personal research are off limits period.

 

[PeterDonis]

The OP question has been answered. Thread closed.