Idea about Gravitons

[Deadmeat]

I have a theory about gravitons.

 

According to everything, if a body has more mass, it has more gravitational force. Why? It doesn't matter if it's 20 million tons of Hydrogenium or 20 million tons of Ferrum, they would both have the same gravitational force.

 

Well, I made up a theory that each and every atom (no matter what kind) has the same amount of gravitons, the little mysterious thingys that I know almost nothing about. For what I read, gravitons carry the weakest form of fundamental forces - gravity. If so, that means that gravitons are practically gravity. no matter what kind of atom, it carrys a certain amount of gravitons.

 

It's dumb, I know, but it's all I could come up with.

[Sayonara]

I have a theory about gravitons.

The "Do you have a new theory?" thread is NOT a thread for dumping speculations in.

 

In future, before you reply to a thread please actually read the opening post, not just its title.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Sayonara³

[insane_alien]

might want to move this to its own thread then sayo,

 

so, deadmeat, according to your hypothesis(it is nowhere near a theory) the hydrogen (not hydrogenium) should have more gravity than the iron(not ferrum) since it has more atoms and hence, more gravitons.

 

you also haven't explained why it should be an equal amount per atom, or whether they have a finite amount or just a set rate.

[ajb]

According to everything, if a body has more mass, it has more gravitational force. Why? It doesn't matter if it's 20 million tons of Hydrogenium or 20 million tons of Ferrum, they would both have the same gravitational force.

 

Indeed, if you look at Newton's law of gravity it does not care what the stuff is made of just it's mass.

 

In a relativistic theory the energy-momentum is the important thing. This again, does not care too much about the exact make-up of the materials.

 

 

Well, I made up a theory that each and every atom (no matter what kind) has the same amount of gravitons, the little mysterious thingys that I know almost nothing about.

 

The number of atoms in a material is a red herring here as far as gravity is concerned. It is the total mass that is important.

 

If so, that means that gravitons are practically gravity.

 

As gravitons are at this stage hypothetical one can only talk about them in the context of a physical theory. So, in quantum general relativity a graviton is the quanta associated with a linearised perturbation of a given metric. Much like a photon is associated with an electromagnetic wave a graviton is is associated with a gravitational wave.

 

However, the tools developed for quantum electrodynamics fail when applied to general relativity. The theory suffers from infinities that cannot be removed using standard methods of quantum field theory. What you can do is consider quantum general relativity as an effective theory and not worry too much about the infinities. You can calculate some things in this way.

 

Even more interesting is the idea that quantum general relativity (+ maybe other terms) is not a theory of gravitons after all. I have said something about this on other threads. Have a quick search.

[liarliarpof]

Gravitational waves are solutions of GR equations typical of a field theory. The concept of the graviton is a reasonable proposition in the attempt to quantize the field, given successes in other field theories. Thus far, the graviton remains an unobserved strategem, so as ajb points out, they may not be needed for a QGR theory.

[ajb]

Thus far, the graviton remains an unobserved strategem, so as ajb points out, they may not be needed for a QGR theory.

 

They may not be possible in a quantum gravity theory as perturbation theory looks unfounded, at least when we look at the Hilbert-Einstein action and similar. The only finite perturbative theory of gravity I know of are superstrings.