/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12298799

385KiB, 1024x830, Goobers.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Explain me GRAVITONS

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 12:28:59 2020 No.12298799 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12298821 >>12298854 >>12298893 >>12299302

Ok, so, if the curvature of space time already accounts for gravity,
then what would gravitons even do?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 12:41:38 No.12298821 Report

Quoted By: >>12298828 >>12298846 >>12299426 >>12299431

>>12298799
It's just a cope for retards who can't conceive reality without particles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 12:44:47 No.12298828 Report

Quoted By: >>12298846

>>12298821
pretty much

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO drain sponge.jpg, 51KiB, 568x540

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 12:54:13 No.12298846 Report

Quoted By: >>12298961

>>12298821
>>12298828
String theory predicts gravitons.
What does a graviton actually do in string theory if the curvature of spacetime is already responsible for gravity?
Is it like a "wave and a particle" type thing where they're just two ways of looking at the same thing?
I don't think the answer to that last question could be yes, because correct me if I'm wrong, but even if you explained a gravitational interaction with gravitons, spacetime would STILL be curved, and then what is it doing, double gravity???

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 12:56:57 No.12298854 Report

Quoted By: >>12298892

>>12298799

theorical mediator for gravity, no evidence for them until now.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO a7xq7v6rkb841.png, 277KiB, 750x618

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 13:11:33 No.12298892 Report

Quoted By: >>12298900

>>12298854
Yes, obviously.
I didn't come to /sci/ to be told that a graviton is a force carrying particle in a fancy way.
Please explain how it makes sense for there to be a particle for gravity when there's already GR.
Are there actually 2 different gravities, one quantum and one relativistic?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 13:11:43 No.12298893 Report

Quoted By: >>12298904

>>12298799
>If the electromagnetic field accounts for electromagnetism, then what do photons do?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 13:14:25 No.12298900 Report

Quoted By: >>12298909

>>12298892

the issue is that the standard model and GR cannot be reconciled at the current moment, if we were to find gravitons that would help but at the moment we're stumped.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 13:16:13 No.12298904 Report

Quoted By: >>12298928 >>12299921

>>12298893
Photons ARE the EM field.
Are gravitons the same thing as the curvature of spacetime?
If yes, how so? It makes no sense to me at the moment.
Are gravitons actually *causing* spacetime to curve?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 13:17:21 No.12298909 Report

Quoted By: >>12298913

>>12298900
Ok yes but what do they DO??? How do they WORK??? Give me specifics, please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 13:20:28 No.12298913 Report

Quoted By: >>12298929

>>12298909

gravitons are the theorical carriers for the gravitation, they are the analog of gluons for strong and photons for EM, what's to understand?

thing is we have "found" gluons, photons and those other weird ass things for the weak field but no gravitons, so that's it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 13:25:44 No.12298928 Report

Quoted By: >>12298942

>>12298904
>Are gravitons actually *causing* spacetime to curve?
Yes. Other particles' trajectories are affected by interacting with graviton field. That's the curving.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 13:25:44 No.12298929 Report

Quoted By: >>12298937

>>12298913
Ok but it's just a bit weird cause in this case, the field of the force we're talking about is the curvature of spacetime.
Would it be accurate to say this:
If gravitational waves are "coherent superpositions of gravitons" (from internet), then a graviton exists as a quantum of curvature in spacetime?
If not, then of what is a graviton a quantum?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 13:29:17 No.12298937 Report

Quoted By: >>12298946

>>12298929

as I said before, I can't answer to you because to do that there's should be an integration of the standard model and GR and that is not true.

also, there's no "curving" caused by gravity, the apparent "deviation" in the path of an object from and external point of view is what we call gravity itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 13:32:31 No.12298942 Report

Quoted By:

>>12298928
So if spacetime were a fuzzy 2D manifold, would gravitons be like the corners of a component polygonal mesh of it where each corner has a certain identical amount of "curvature"? (Non essential question, I'm just trying to see if I can visualize it.)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 13:35:37 No.12298946 Report

Quoted By: >>12298963

>>12298937
Is it fair to say that gravitons are the curvature of spacetime?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 13:44:53 No.12298961 Report

Quoted By: >>12298993

>>12298846
Particles are just a phenomenon that comes about from waves and wave interaction, anon. Photons don't actually exist, just like phonons (sound particles) don't actually exist, but can be treated as if they do for the sake of physical models. Gravitons would likely be the same thing, an imaginary particle that can be used to express the actions and movements of gravity as a waveform

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 13:45:08 No.12298963 Report

Quoted By: >>12298993

>>12298946

no

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 14:04:01 No.12298993 Report

Quoted By: >>12299033

>>12298961
They don't exist physically but they do exist conceptually, they still need a definition.
>>12298963
Why not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 14:29:24 No.12299033 Report

Quoted By: >>12299082 >>12299155

>>12298993

>Why not?

because carrier particles do not "cause" the phenomena.

spacetime curvature, if we can call it that, is represented by the stress energy tensor.

you keep asking about the relation between gravitons and spacetime, there's no formalism which reconciles the general relativity and the standard model, every question you pose in this direction is pointless.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 119338492_771861226716835_655002 (...).jpg, 83KiB, 819x817

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 14:44:55 No.12299082 Report

Quoted By: >>12299113

>>12299033
>stress energy tensor
Thank you for pointing me towards something specific I can learn about!
>there's no formalism which reconciles the general relativity and the standard model
And thank you for actually explaining why I'm wrong/misguided!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 14:53:04 No.12299113 Report

Quoted By: >>12299294

>>12299082

you're welcome.

but you can't go just hop in and learn how a stress.energy tensor works or what is it, you need to have the proper mathematical and physical background and if you're not a physics student or a physicist I guess you're looking at at least 1-2 years of serious studying.

if you were sarcastic my bad, I am bad with sarcasm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 15:08:18 No.12299155 Report

Quoted By: >>12299161

>>12299033
Wouldn't a graviton just be the smallest amount of possible curvature in spacetime? Kinda how we had an idea about interactions in a Higg's Field, but we didn't really know that the field really existed until we found the associated boson confirming it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 15:10:16 No.12299161 Report

Quoted By: >>12299171

>>12299155

no, you're mixing up the higgs boson, the higgs mechanism and the higgs field.

also we had no other proposed mechanism for what the higgs field does, while the general relativity does a pretty good job and we have nothing else which does it better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 15:13:48 No.12299171 Report

Quoted By: >>12299175

>>12299161
I was under the impression the Higg's boson itself didn't do much, but it provided a proof of concept that the field existed. Am I wrong in this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 15:14:56 No.12299175 Report

Quoted By: >>12299191

>>12299171

yes, sadly that is incorrect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 15:20:59 No.12299191 Report

Quoted By: >>12299226

>>12299175
So what's wrong about it? Doesn't the Higg's mechanism basically give gauge bosons mass through their interactions via the Higg's Field? So there was speculation that if there existed a Higg's Field, there must be a relevant boson to go with it. And then later they found the Higg's Boson. What is inaccurate about this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 15:35:34 No.12299226 Report

Quoted By:

>>12299191

I was referring to the "the higgs boson doesn't do much", which is incorrect.

the rest is correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 15:53:51 No.12299294 Report

Quoted By:

>>12299113
I wasn't being sarcastic. Well I have a vague idea of what a tensor is so I could probably figure it out in a week or so. I glad to just know what it is I need to learn.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1604260636890.jpg, 28KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 15:57:39 No.12299302 Report

Quoted By: >>12299309 >>12299346

>>12298799
>Ok, so, if the maxwell's equations already account for electromagnetism,
then what would photons even do?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 16:00:16 No.12299309 Report

Quoted By:

>>12299302
Protip: photons isnt real

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 16:17:53 No.12299346 Report

Quoted By: >>12299745 >>12299928

>>12299302
Photons are quanta of the electromagnetic field.
Are gravitons the same just for gravity?
Then what is the gravitational field?
The problem is that gravity is unique in basically not even being a force, it's just confusing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 16:40:47 No.12299426 Report

Quoted By: >>12299431

>>12298821
Based

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 16:43:05 No.12299431 Report

Quoted By:

>>12299426
Not based
>>12298821
More like you're coping cause you don't know how to explain what a graviton is but you want to seem smart.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 18:14:16 No.12299745 Report

Quoted By:

>>12299346
Consider space and time as emergent properties, not fundamental properties, and maybe you might be able to get somewhere from there. What could gravity as a concept represent in a system without space and time?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 19:08:51 No.12299921 Report

Quoted By:

>>12298904
No. Photons are excitations of the EM field. The EM field can exist without photons, as in static electric or magnetic fields for instance.
"Virtual photons" are completely distinct from actual photons, and have at best a very dubious physical reality. They are used to model the anharmonicities of the EM field, whereas photons are harmonic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Nov 2020 19:11:44 No.12299928 Report

Quoted By:

>>12299346
Even without gravity being a "force" per se, there is still a curvature field associated with spacetime, and to fit with quantum field theory, that field must be quantized.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches