Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, so Einstein explains gravity in terms of mass warping spacetime; this I get. Where does this leave Gravitons?? Are they something to do with Quantum Gravity???

In the standard model of particle physics all of the known forces other than gravity (strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic) have force carrying bosons (gluons, W/Z bosons and photons respectively) which suggests that gravity also has a force carrying boson that we call the graviton.

It's best to not think about relativity much when you go down to the particle/quantum scale.

EDIT: Couldn't you have just googled this though?

I was under the impression that they aren't quite sure if gravitons even exist.

Monster Rain wrote:I was under the impression that they aren't quite sure if gravitons even exist.

Its a model we use to demonstrate a principle. Fun fact about gravitons, they would have to move faster then light as gravity works instantaneously across large distances, which means that it transmits information faster then the speed of light which is theoretically impossible.

oooh, don't you bring up Bosons, you all know I hate Bosons. 'specially that Higgs-Boson nonsense. Pshaw!

Yay quantum physics! The subject where you're supposed to go: 'wait, WTF IS THIS!??!' when you're first exposed to it.

youbedead wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I was under the impression that they aren't quite sure if gravitons even exist.

Its a model we use to demonstrate a principle. Fun fact about gravitons, they would have to move faster then light as gravity works instantaneously across large distances, which means that it transmits information faster then the speed of light which is theoretically impossible.

However this problem can be nicely dodged with quantum entanglement.

Yes, I could have googled it, but in my experience, there's nothing better than actually asking someone..So, gravitons are part of the standard model??? Ahhh..So we have a quandry; reletivistic and quantum mechanic views of gravity can't be made to agree. I mean, the warping of Spacetime just needs mass, right? How can particles be involved in that?
Maybe thereis an interaction between Gravitons and Higg bosons? That way, we can resolve the idea that mass(ie Higgs field et al) produces gravity (gravitons) by warping spacetime...

I read somewhere, ages ago, that the "speed" of gravity was the speed of light...Is that no longer true then??

ChrisWWII wrote:Yay quantum physics! The subject where you're supposed to go: 'wait, WTF IS THIS!??!' when you're first exposed to it.

And then comes string theory.

Son_Of _Deddog wrote:Yes, I could have googled it, but in my experience, there's nothing better than actually asking someone..So, gravitons are part of the standard model??? Ahhh..So we have a quandry; reletivistic and quantum mechanic views of gravity can't be made to agree. I mean, the warping of Spacetime just needs mass, right? How can particles be involved in that?
Maybe thereis an interaction between Gravitons and Higg bosons? That way, we can resolve the idea that mass(ie Higgs field et al) produces gravity (gravitons) by warping spacetime...

I read somewhere, ages ago, that the "speed" of gravity was the speed of light...Is that no longer true then??

Gravity is based on an inverse square and thus has infinite range, this means that it has reached places even light hasn't got to yet.

youbedead wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I was under the impression that they aren't quite sure if gravitons even exist.

Its a model we use to demonstrate a principle. Fun fact about gravitons, they would have to move faster then light as gravity works instantaneously across large distances, which means that it transmits information faster then the speed of light which is theoretically impossible.

Gravity does NOT travel faster than light. Physicists are fairly certain of this, and there are experiments underway trying to detect gravity waves to prove this.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

The graviton itself would travel at the speed of light, not faster than light.

The only thing that can travel faster than light is a tachyon. But, they've never been observed, and many physicists dismiss them as evidence in a flaw in a theory. Although, there are some that do believe they exist.

And, keep in mind, if science has taught us anything, it's that the majority opinion is not always right.

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Yay quantum physics! The subject where you're supposed to go: 'wait, WTF IS THIS!??!' when you're first exposed to it.

And then comes string theory.

I'm still trying to get my head around momentum,

dogma wrote:And then comes string theory.

Yep, after reading some books on the subject, I think I kinda sorta mildly see what the most basic concepts/theories of quantum physics are. I in no way understand the math, but I kinda get what the theories are saying.

String theory I just look at and wonder what the hell they're saying.

CorpsesAreFun wrote:Gravity is based on an inverse square and thus has infinite range, this means that it has reached places even light hasn't got to yet.

Which in standard relativistivity physics should be impossible, but as you pointed out, quantum entanglement does solve that nicely. Though, at this point we're into areas of physics wher we have never observed the particle we're arguing about.

ChrisWWII wrote:
String theory I just look at and wonder what the hell they're saying.

The problem most people have with string theory is that the models don't readily lend themselves to mental imagery. To paraphrase Leonard Suskind: if someone tells you they understadn string theory, they're lying.

There's also the fact that its probably all crap, but pay that no heed.

There's also the fact that its probably all crap, but pay that no heed.

This (and not just string theory).

Grakmar wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I was under the impression that they aren't quite sure if gravitons even exist.

Its a model we use to demonstrate a principle. Fun fact about gravitons, they would have to move faster then light as gravity works instantaneously across large distances, which means that it transmits information faster then the speed of light which is theoretically impossible.

Gravity does NOT travel faster than light. Physicists are fairly certain of this, and there are experiments underway trying to detect gravity waves to prove this.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

The graviton itself would travel at the speed of light, not faster than light.

The only thing that can travel faster than light is a tachyon. But, they've never been observed, and many physicists dismiss them as evidence in a flaw in a theory. Although, there are some that do believe they exist.

And, keep in mind, if science has taught us anything, it's that the majority opinion is not always right.

If gravity could not travel faster then the speed of light then the universe would have been unable to form as the very first moments of the expansion of the universe were done at FTL speeds. Up until the force became distinct and gravities attractive force slowed the growth to sub light speed levels.

dogma wrote:The problem most people have with string theory is that the models don't readily lend themselves to mental imagery. To paraphrase Leonard Suskind: if someone tells you they understadn string theory, they're lying.

Well, the idea itself is relatively easy to visualize, but you're right, the implications beyond the idea become hard to think of.



This is the limit of understanding I have of string theory, beyond that I scratch my head, and find something easier to read.

There's also the fact that its probably all crap, but pay that no heed.

Hell, isn't that true with everything?

What about the graviolies from Futurama? Where do they fit in?

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Yay quantum physics! The subject where you're supposed to go: 'wait, WTF IS THIS!??!' when you're first exposed to it.

And then comes string theory.

Then of course there is silly string theory!

Andrew1975 wrote:

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Yay quantum physics! The subject where you're supposed to go: 'wait, WTF IS THIS!??!' when you're first exposed to it.

And then comes string theory.

Then of course there is silly string theory!

And lastly its L.M.T.S.U theory. That stands for lets make gak up theory

Least thats how it feels when I hear/read/watch things on similar subjects

KingCracker wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Yay quantum physics! The subject where you're supposed to go: 'wait, WTF IS THIS!??!' when you're first exposed to it.

And then comes string theory.

Then of course there is silly string theory!

And lastly its L.M.T.S.U theory. That stands for lets make gak up theory

Least thats how it feels when I hear/read/watch things on similar subjects

Well your not far off, Many theories are just best assumptions based on collected data. Many are patches, as in they know things don't really work that way, but it provides a credible workaround so that we can move onto another problem. Here we are talking about Gravity, a very fundamental theory, we know it works, we are just still not very sure exactly how or why.

ChrisWWII wrote:

dogma wrote:The problem most people have with string theory is that the models don't readily lend themselves to mental imagery. To paraphrase Leonard Suskind: if someone tells you they understadn string theory, they're lying.

Well, the idea itself is relatively easy to visualize, but you're right, the implications beyond the idea become hard to think of.



This is the limit of understanding I have of string theory, beyond that I scratch my head, and find something easier to read.

There's also the fact that its probably all crap, but pay that no heed.

Hell, isn't that true with everything?

Wait so all diamonds break down to molocules, then atoms, then those animal bands?

corpsesarefun wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I was under the impression that they aren't quite sure if gravitons even exist.

Its a model we use to demonstrate a principle. Fun fact about gravitons, they would have to move faster then light as gravity works instantaneously across large distances, which means that it transmits information faster then the speed of light which is theoretically impossible.

However this problem can be nicely dodged with quantum entanglement.

I didn't think they actually knew the speed of gravity.

As far as I can tell, the basic idea behind string theory is that the fundamental building blocks of everything are not smaller particles, but in fact tiny vibrating strings. So in the picture...

1) Diamond (Macroscopic)
2) Molecules
3) Atoms
4) Electrons
5) Quarks
6) Strings

Andrew1975 wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Yay quantum physics! The subject where you're supposed to go: 'wait, WTF IS THIS!??!' when you're first exposed to it.

And then comes string theory.

Then of course there is silly string theory!

And lastly its L.M.T.S.U theory. That stands for lets make gak up theory

Least thats how it feels when I hear/read/watch things on similar subjects

Well your not far off, Many theories are just best assumptions based on collected data. Many are patches, as in they know things don't really work that way, but it provides a credible workaround so that we can move onto another problem. Here we are talking about Gravity, a very fundamental theory, we know it works, we are just still not very sure exactly how or why.

I have to say, your example actually makes sense. Nice way of putting it