Is the graviton a particle?

[Growl]

Could it be that it is a point source of gravitation, no spin, no dimension, no charge... etc.?

[mistermack]

What sort of particle could there be, that is itself unaffected by gravity? (or in this case, other gravitons)

[Growl]

could the graviton be a primal entity? Every particle, field and force produced by graviton configurations? For example, could mass be an extrinsic property resulting from a universe of graviton influence... something of a cosmic gelatin? Could the photon be a very high frequency gravitational wave packet?

[joigus]

No. It must have spin 2 if quantum field theory is to work for everything else. It's been tried with spin 0, 1/2, and so on. It doesn't work. It was understood in the '60s.

And calling it a primal entity doesn't make it better, unfortunately.

Quote

While the matter particles of the Standard Model are spin 1/2 and the Standard Model force-carrying particles have a spin of 1, gravitons must have a spin of 2. (This proceeds from the fact that gravity stems from the distribution of energy and momentum in the universe.Oct 19, 2012

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2012/today12-10-19_NutshellReadMore.html#:~:text=While the matter particles of,and momentum in the universe.

[Growl]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

No. It must have spin 2 if quantum field theory is to work for everything else. It's been tried with spin 0, 1/2, and so on. It doesn't work. It was understood in the '60s.

And calling it a primal entity doesn't make it better, unfortunately.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2012/today12-10-19_NutshellReadMore.html#:~:text=While the matter particles of,and momentum in the universe.

A fine article… a particle with spin 0 is a different animal than a non-particle with no spin however.

[joigus]

26 minutes ago, Growl said:

A fine article… a particle with spin 0 is a different animal than a non-particle with no spin however.

Absolutely not. A particle with no spin is a non-thing. Like a cloud with no water vapour.

[Genady]

I prefer to look at it the other way around. A microscopic world does whatever it does, while the gravitation is a macroscopic consequence of it. 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Genady

[Growl]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

No. It must have spin 2 if quantum field theory is to work for everything else. It's been tried with spin 0, 1/2, and so on. It doesn't work. It was understood in the '60s.

And calling it a primal entity doesn't make it better, unfortunately.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2012/today12-10-19_NutshellReadMore.html#:~:text=While the matter particles of,and momentum in the universe.

Perhaps the entity is not a member of the standard model.

 Alone this point source, spinless, dimensionless, massless etc. entity is nothing, but it resides on the edge of existence… with the addition of another such entity, we have dimension, spin, polarity. With the addition of an infinitum of such we have mass, as an extrinsic property a result of the gravitational field. I have even found that configurations of these entities can produce electromagnetism, my apologies however… I am currently working on schematic demonstrations of this. I have developed a system of measurement units that can be used until a connection can be made between these configurations and the members of the standard model.

[joigus]

3 minutes ago, Growl said:

Alone this point source, spinless, dimensionless, massless etc. entity is nothing, but it resides on the edge of existence…

It sounds so similar to something that doesn't exist at all that only an expert on barely existing things would barely be able to tell the difference.  

Things physical must either have definite properties under rotations (therefore have some spin), or not behave properly under rotations (in technical parlance we say they must carry a representation of the rotation group).

A thing that looks like an arrow carries a spin-1 representation of the rotation group. Its projections on the x, y, z axes do.

A thing that looks like a perfectly symmetrical sphere, naturally is assigned a spin zero. It doesn't change when you rotate it by any angle in any direction.

What does the quasi-thing you talk about do when you rotate it? It must either do something that all observers can agree upon (and therefore have spin) or violate so-called the principle of general covariance and do stranger things that different observers wouldn't be able to agree upon.

That's spin.

[Growl]

26 minutes ago, joigus said:

It sounds so similar to something that doesn't exist at all that only an expert on barely existing things would barely be able to tell the difference.  

Things physical must either have definite properties under rotations (therefore have some spin), or not behave properly under rotations (in technical parlance we say they must carry a representation of the rotation group).

A thing that looks like an arrow carries a spin-1 representation of the rotation group. Its projections on the x, y, z axes do.

A thing that looks like a perfectly symmetrical sphere, naturally is assigned a spin zero. It doesn't change when you rotate it by any angle in any direction.

What does the quasi-thing you talk about do when you rotate it? It must either do something that all observers can agree upon (and therefore have spin) or violate so-called the principle of general covariance and do stranger things that different observers wouldn't be able to agree upon.

That's spin.

Alone, it cannot have spin, it has no dimension. 

[joigus]

I cannot find a smidgen of physics or logic, or maths, in anything you say here.

You don't know any physics, and you don't want to know any physics.

"The edge of existence" is a meaningless pretentious nothing term.

I'm out.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Growl said:

Perhaps the entity is not a member of the standard model.

It’s not.

1 hour ago, Growl said:

 Alone this point source, spinless, dimensionless, massless etc. entity is nothing, but it resides on the edge of existence… with the addition of another such entity, we have dimension, spin, polarity. With the addition of an infinitum of such we have mass, as an extrinsic property a result of the gravitational field. I have even found that configurations of these entities can produce electromagnetism, my apologies however… I am currently working on schematic demonstrations of this. I have developed a system of measurement units that can be used until a connection can be made between these configurations and the members of the standard model.

Well, then share the system, in the appropriate place (speculations). Just mentioning it is inappropriate; this area is for mainstream physics. Not pet theories, and not poetry.