/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9766590]

Why isn't the graviton listed among the fundamental particles?
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.9766604]

Because we don't have a working theory of quantum gravity. We don't have a consistent theory that uses gravitons, and there is no observational evidence that they exist. They might exist, but we really don't know. There is currently no sufficient reason to say they are real, unlike the case was with the Higgs.

Basically all we know is that if the graviton exists, it will be a massless spin-2 particle.

[Anonymous No.9766609]

>t. brainlet
yeah, we can tell

[Anonymous No.9766613]

>>9766604
this

[Anonymous No.9766621]

>>9766590
Because the standard model doesn't include gravity
>>9766604
Dumbass

[Anonymous No.9766654]

>>9766621
>Dumbass
Feel free to correct whatever I was wrong about.

[Anonymous No.9766680]

>>9766590
because we have no idea what gravity is

we can measure and predict it, but we don't actually know what it is

[Anonymous No.9766695]

>>9766654
It didn't answer the question OP asked so it's "not even wrong"; arguably worse than being wrong.
Fundamentally speaking force-mediating particles are excitations in the gauge fields, which are connection 1-forms of a principal G-bundle. I can write down whatever the fuck I want for the gauge bundle (e.g. G is the diffeomorphism group of the Riemannian manifold in the case if gravity) and call the excitations of its connection 1-form the particles that mediates some random force and that has absolutely nothing to do with the unrenormalizability of the quantum theory.
In short, you have no idea wtf you're talking about and instead tried to flaunt your Wikipedia knowledge.

[Anonymous No.9766700]

>>9766695

Your autism aside, it answered OP perfectly

[Anonymous No.9766707]

>>9766695
So you basically reiterated "we don't have a working (gauge) theory of quantum gravity" with more jargon. Which is what I said earlier.

[Anonymous No.9766711]

>>9766700
Wrong.
>it has nothing to do with the unrenormalizability of the quantum theory
Directly contradicts the first sentence. Stop digging this hole, retard.

[Anonymous No.9766716]

>>9766707
So you don't know how to read. See >>9766711.
The point was that "including a fundamental particle into a model" has absolutely nothing to do with whether that model is quantizable.

[Anonymous No.9766717]

>>9766711
Your autism aside, it answered OP perfectly

[Anonymous No.9766721]

>>9766717
>something that has nothing to do with OP's question answered it perfectly
So this is the absolute state of /sci/. Only 4chan can produce this level of Dunning-Kruger

[Anonymous No.9766756]

>>9766721
>is red really red???

[Anonymous No.9766765]

>>9766716
I understand what you mean, and you're correct in the fact that the Standard Model does not include gravity. But OP was asking why the graviton was not included in what they perceived as "a list of all fundamental particles". Which is the question I answered.

[Anonymous No.9766855]

>>9766765
>in what they perceived as "a list of all fundamental particles".
Which is the standard model; why else would he post a picture of it (unless he's also a Wikipedia-skimming retard like this >>9766756 idiot)?

[Anonymous No.9767415]

>>9766590
We recently discovered gravity waves though, so the arguement for a graviton does have some merit

[Anonymous No.9767426]

>>9767415
Remains to be seen if those waves can be quantized though, or if they're actually classical waves.

Or, you know, something even deeper than quantum stuff

[Anonymous No.9767433]

>>9767415
That's completely unrelated outside of the obvious, general fact that we have 1 more piece of evidence that gravity 1) exists and 2) makes accurate predictions in the classical field approximation.
Our arguments for the existence of the graviton, assuming gravity is in fact real, is exactly the same as it was before GWs. That is to say, it is fairly likely. >>9766604 doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, our reasons for believing gravitons are part of the quantum theory of gravity (whatever that may be) are just as justified as was for the Higgs.

[Anonymous No.9767447]

>>9766590
Not "proven" to exist yet. It exists though. we just haven't proven it.

[Anonymous No.9767818]

>>9766855
>anime
Get. The. Fuck. Out.

[Anonymous No.9767833]

>>9766590

AN ALIEN WROTE THIS

THIS EXPLAINS HOW GRAVITY AND UFOS WORK

ENJOY

[Anonymous No.9767836]

[Anonymous No.9767837]

[Anonymous No.9767839]

[Anonymous No.9767842]

[Anonymous No.9767853]

>>9767818
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.9767874]

>>9766590
No quantum theory of gravity. Only known properties are massless (infinite range force) no electric or color charge, and even integer spin (only attractive force, never repulsive like electricity) spin 2 preferable over spin 0.

We know less about quantum gravity than we do about dark matter.

[Anonymous No.9767882]

>>9766590
BTW, in a proper listing, the neutrinos are listed above the election, muon, and tau due to isospin. Please choose the appropriate table in the future if you want to be more consistent.

[Anonymous No.9768213]

>>9766695
>Fundamentally speaking force-mediating particles are excitations in the gauge fields, which are connection 1-forms of a principal G-bundle.
>I can write down whatever the fuck I want for the gauge bundle (e.g. G is the diffeomorphism group of the Riemannian manifold in the case if gravity) and call the excitations of its connection 1-form the particles that mediates some random force and that has absolutely nothing to do with the unrenormalizability of the quantum theory.
That isn't true, the connection in GR is given by the Christoffel symbols, [math] \Gamma^{\mu}_{\beta\alpha}[/math], not the [math]A^{a}_{\mu}[/math] gauge field of Yang-Mills theory. The metric has symmetric indices, not anti-symmetric (i.e form field) indices.
One can formulate GR as a sort of gauge theory using the vierbein formalism, but the gauge group is NOT Diff(M), and this formulation is very different to Yang-Mills theory (or whatever G-bundle with gauge covariant derivatives and so on theory).

[Anonymous No.9768231]

>>9768213
And to answer OP's question, the standard model is our theory of non-gravitational fields. One can go beyond the standard model and develop theories with gravitons, such as supergravity and its completion, string theory.

[Anonymous No.9768401]

>>9768231
>string theory.

NO. Just NO.

Quantitizedgeometrodynamics is where its at. Polymetric Tensors.

[Anonymous No.9768445]

>>9766604
How do we know what it’s spin would be? The hell is spin?

[The Lord No.9768475]

>why no graviton
I give a decent treatment, in simple terms, around pp205-206 in my book
>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

[The Lord No.9768509]

>>9768445
When you develop particles in QFT, spin-0 and spin-1 particles can either decrease or increase in energy as they come nearer to each other. It's not until you get to the spin-2 particle that the energy always decreases as the particles get closer together. This is required for a force that is always attractive. On the other hand, the spin-1 particle of the EM field allows increases or decreases in energy as the distance between them changes. This means that the field can be attractive or repulsive, and that is why EM has positive and negative charges, but gravity only has mass. There might be a better explanation, but I think this is a good one. Zee derives all this in the first chapter of his QFT book.

However, one of ten million problems that never gets talked about is that the coefficients for the always attractive graviton are different that what Einstein's equation would give. I forget the details, but in addition to no one ever finding a graviton, no one ever finding quantum gravity
>except me
>Quantum Gravity
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1506.0055
even the theoretical description of a theoretical graviton is not consistent with general relativity. However, "gravitons" are quite consistent with scarce federal funds, and I think it is likely that such contributes to their prominence.

Consider this: if we threw out the Newtonian gravitational field for the Einstein description, then why would one look for the force carrier of the Newtonian field when general relativity says the gravity is not a field at all?

[Anonymous No.9768608]

>>9768213
You have an extremely basic understanding of what Yang-Mills is, and this seems to stem from the fact that you don't know any theory of principal G-bundles.
In the context of a principal [math]G[/math]-bundle [math]P \rightarrow M[/math], the "gauge group" is the group of fibre-preserving endomorphisms of [math]P[/math]. This in general forms a differential algebra [math]\mathcal{A}[/math] on [math]M[/math] and the gauge field [math]A[/math] is defined as the element in [math]\Omega^1\otimes \mathfrak{g}[/math] that corresponds to the unique connection [math]\theta\in\mathcal{A}^1[/math] under the Cartan homomorphism. Certain vector bundles (e.g. the associated vector bundle) leads to the Cartan homomorphism identifying [math]\mathcal{A}^1[/math] with the affine space [math]\Omega^1_{DR}\otimes \mathfrak{g}[/math] of Lie algebra-valued de Rham 1-forms, which is what your amateurish notion of what a "gauge field" comes from.
>Christoffel symbols
That's literally just curved spacetime. Actual quantum gravity also introduces the spinor bundle on top of this, and the connection is the spinor connection which IS an element of [math]\operatorname{Diff}(M)\otimes \operatorname{Cliff}^N[/math]. The central extension of [math]\operatorname{Diff}(M)[/math] by [math]\mathbb{C}^*[/math] literally gives rise to the gauge group in the Kostant's construction of loop quantization, which is a geometric quantization scheme for gravitational QM.
Read nLab before you post next time before you embarrass yourself.

[Anonymous No.9768614]

Brainlet here. Is there good reason you guys even think gravity is a force and not just the nature of space that's formed mass?