I know I am probably wrong but I want to share it in speculation thread. Basically I have heard and read about gravitons quantum particles which cause gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

This concept of graviton is now theoretical.

But I wonder if gravitons are real then maybe they are causing bend in space time curvature by energy of these quantum particles and in this way relativity and quantum can maybe combine.

I know I am wrong but still I want to learn more that's why I posted

Edited July 7Jul 7 by Phi for All
Title "A Speculation Theory" was too vague, changed to reflect OP

IF gravitons exist, they have an energy density and momentum, both of which gravitate, or bend/curve space-time.
These quantum particles are the requirement of quantum field theories, such as QED and QCD.
Unless we have a quantum field theory of gravity, we don't have gravitons.

Just a small clarification on MigL’s point.

Gravitons are not part of QED or QCD — those are quantum field theories for the electromagnetic and strong forces, with photons and gluons as their respective mediators.Gravitons are hypothetical spin-2 bosons that would mediate gravity in a quantum field theory of gravity, which we don’t yet fully have. But even without a complete theory, gravitons can still be described in linearized general relativity, similar to how photons arise from linearized Maxwell’s equations.

So while a full QFT of gravity remains unfinished, the graviton concept itself is well-defined — just not part of QED or QCD.

Edited July 9Jul 9 by Dhillon1724X

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

So while a full QFT of gravity remains unfinished, the graviton concept itself is well-defined — just not part of QED or QCD.

But nobody said they were part of quantum electrodynamics or quantum chromodynamics.

Do you understand the point behind quantum field theories ?

Just now, studiot said:

But nobody said they were part of quantum electrodynamics or quantum chromodynamics.

Do you understand the point behind quantum field theories ?

Sorry for misunderstanding.I just clarified to him as he is a kid too(as much as i know)
I respect his curosity.

Edited July 9Jul 9 by Dhillon1724X

MiGL is a respected physicist, now retired, as are several of those responding to your posts.

But this did not answer my question as the connection between quantisation and fields is fundamental.

Any new theory must acknowledge this fact and take it into full account.

But I don't think any AI understands it.

By the way, is English your first language ? - It helps us to know and make allowance for those who are communicating via translators.

Just as I am thankful for those who have to put up with my typinglexia.

Edited July 9Jul 9 by studiot

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

By the way, is English your first language

No sir,It is not my first language.But i can understand and write it pretty well as i am learning it since childhood.All my subjects are in english and i mostly write in english too,but i mostly speak my first language or mother tongue,Punjabi.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

No sir,It is not my first language.But i can understand and write it pretty well as i am learning it since childhood.All my subjects are in english and i mostly write in english too,but i mostly speak my first language or mother tongue,Punjabi.

Thank you. I, at least will bear that in mind.

But you still haven't answered my question about the role of fields in any quantisation theory.

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

But I don't think any AI understands it.

Sir, you're absolutely right, and I’d like to clarify something honestly — I’m fully aware that AI doesn’t truly know anything. It doesn’t think or make decisions like a human. Sometimes it just reflects back what you want to hear, whether right or wrong.

The truth is, this idea I’m working on came from my own curiosity. I had a strange thought, and instead of ignoring it, I started researching everything on my own. I’ve spent countless hours diving deep into physics, theories, and concepts to build something original.

However, I’ll admit my biggest weakness: mathematics.

It’s not that I don’t understand the concepts I’m applying — I actually do and if i dont then i first understand it. The problem is, I don’t yet know how to use mathematics like a professional physicist. I struggle with school math problems sometimes, and I’m not afraid to admit that. But I’m learning every day, and trying to connect the math to the deeper ideas I’m exploring.

I may not be perfect in calculations yet, but I believe real understanding starts with a strong idea — and I’m committed to improving my math so I can express those ideas fully and accurately.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

But you still haven't answered my question about the role of fields in any quantisation theory.

sorry sir i was writing other reply and then i had to go.
The answer-
I’m still learning, but yes, I do understand the basic idea. In quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, particles aren’t just standalone objects — they’re connected to fields. Every particle has its own field spread across space. For example, photons come have the electromagnetic field.

So instead of just thinking of particles as points, QFT treats them as excitations or vibrations in these fields. I’m still working on the deeper math, but this core idea makes sense to me.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

The truth is, this idea I’m working on came from my own curiosity. I had a strange thought, and instead of ignoring it, I started researching everything on my own. I’ve spent countless hours diving deep into physics, theories, and concepts to build something original.

However, I’ll admit my biggest weakness: mathematics.

If you have done all that in the few years your stated age has allowed, I am not suprised you have not had time for both physics and maths and even other sciences.

However Einstein once said something like - I can't remember the exact quote - Get the Physics right and the Maths will follow.

And the Physics here refers to principles not maths.

What do you understand are the conditions for quantisation to occur of anything ?

I am pushing you, because you may have worked this out for yourself. If so I want to give you credit for it.

If not I will help with an explanation.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

If you have done all that in the few years your stated age has allow

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

If you have done all that in the few years your stated age has allowed

Sir, I’ve always been interested in different things — but the common thread has always been logic and usefulness. Ever since I was young, I had access to the internet, and that allowed me to explore science deeply. Whenever I had a question, I could search for answers, and every answer led me to something new. That curiosity kept growing.

This theory started just a month ago, when I was thinking deeply about how the universe might have begun. What started as a simple question quickly became something bigger. I began learning advanced physics concepts in parallel — not just for the theory, but because I genuinely wanted to understand the foundations.

All the work I’ve done — the research, writing, and building the logic — happened within a month, but it’s built on years of curiosity. At first, it was just a personal project. But as it developed, I started to wonder: Could this actually contribute to something larger in science?

Now, I’m working to make sure it’s not just an idea, but a consistent and well-structured theory. I know it’s still evolving, and I’m open to every correction — because I’m not here to defend something blindly. I’m here to learn, improve, and maybe — just maybe — add something meaningful to the field.

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

However Einstein once said something like - I can't remember the exact quote - Get the Physics right and the Maths will follow.

And the Physics here refers to principles not maths.

Sir, to be precise — sometimes symbols, equations, or patterns just pop into my mind without warning. I don’t always understand them fully at first, but I write them down and try to decode their meaning based on the physics I’m studying. It's like my brain is forming its own language before I can even explain it properly.

While working on this theory, I developed a symbolic system within a week that felt surprisingly self-consistent. It was connected to the concept of infinity and something more deeper.I even created a new symbol. Unfortunately, I didn’t have enough time to develop it fully while building this theory as i have to go to school too , so I’ve kept it on hold for now.

Interestingly, just a few minutes ago, a new equation came to me — something that seems to fit directly with my theory. I don’t know yet if it’s mathematically correct or physically meaningful, but I feel there’s something deep behind it, and I’m going to work on it further.

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

What do you understand are the conditions for quantisation to occur of anything ?

Thank you for pushing me — I honestly take that as a real compliment. I've been thinking about this while developing my theory, and I’ll try to explain what I’ve understood about quantisation. Also, to be honest, I usually learn things when they're needed. That helps me focus precisely on what's important, like in this case.

From what I understand, quantisation occurs when a system is restricted in certain ways — such as:

Boundaries: Like a wave trapped in a box, only specific wavelengths (and therefore energy levels) are allowed.

Conservation laws and symmetries: These can force certain physical quantities (like angular momentum) to come in discrete units.
etc.

I just learnt it better as you asked,so i cant give reply in unformal-childish language

44 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

symbolic system

I will tell more but i cant tell here as it will be called hijacking

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

Thank you for pushing me — I honestly take that as a real compliment. I've been thinking about this while developing my theory, and I’ll try to explain what I’ve understood about quantisation. Also, to be honest, I usually learn things when they're needed. That helps me focus precisely on what's important, like in this case.

From what I understand, quantisation occurs when a system is restricted in certain ways — such as:

Boundaries: Like a wave trapped in a box, only specific wavelengths (and therefore energy levels) are allowed.

Conservation laws and symmetries: These can force certain physical quantities (like angular momentum) to come in discrete units.
etc.

I just learnt it better as you asked,so i cant give reply in unformal-childish language

Well yes, but those are results, not the conditions themselves.

So

First we start with an object that has properties. (neutrinos for instance are vey difficult to work with because they have next to no properties)

Then we place it in a Field (do you know what a Field is in Physics ?)

It is important to realise that the Field is not quantised.

At least one of the properties of the object must be capable of interacting with the Field.

So we can consider the consequenses of that interaction.

This is where mathematics starts to come in.

Normally energy is considered.

Note we do not consider the object itself directly.

So the object has energy by virtue of its interaction with the field (via some property)

So we invent a dependent variable and write a general equation connecting this variable with the variables of the Field.

We have been very successful with the Schrodinger equation.

Here the Field is an electric field. The invented dependent variable is called the wave function, because the Schrodinger equation is an equation connecting space and time in a manner that admits motion, including wave motion.

So if we place an object, say an electron, in such a field, say the field of the nucleus, we can solve that equation.

When we solve such an equation, as you rightly say, there are boundary conditions.

In this case we are looking for places where the wave function is zero.

In other cases we may be looking for places where the function is a maximum or minimum

For example Nuclear Magentic Resonance, Where the Field is now a magnetic field.

This is where quantisation occurs, as these refer to places of stability, where a body may hold a certain energy.

Going back to your gravitons, the basic problem is finding a suitable equation and property for the gravitational field.

Newton's Law does not have such convenient pair. And General Relativity, which ony plays a small part in electric quantisation, plays a very large part inmore advance mechanical dynamics.

Sorry this is a bit rambling, but it is difficult to summarise without the maths.

However do ask questions.

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well yes, but those are results, not the conditions themselves.

So

First we start with an object that has properties. (neutrinos for instance are vey difficult to work with because they have next to no properties)

Then we place it in a Field (do you know what a Field is in Physics ?)

It is important to realise that the Field is not quantised.

At least one of the properties of the object must be capable of interacting with the Field.

So we can consider the consequenses of that interaction.

This is where mathematics starts to come in.

Normally energy is considered.

Note we do not consider the object itself directly.

So the object has energy by virtue of its interaction with the field (via some property)

So we invent a dependent variable and write a general equation connecting this variable with the variables of the Field.

We have been very successful with the Schrodinger equation.

Here the Field is an electric field. The invented dependent variable is called the wave function, because the Schrodinger equation is an equation connecting space and time in a manner that admits motion, including wave motion.

So if we place an object, say an electron, in such a field, say the field of the nucleus, we can solve that equation.

When we solve such an equation, as you rightly say, there are boundary conditions.

In this case we are looking for places where the wave function is zero.

In other cases we may be looking for places where the function is a maximum or minimum

For example Nuclear Magentic Resonance, Where the Field is now a magnetic field.

This is where quantisation occurs, as these refer to places of stability, where a body may hold a certain energy.

Going back to your gravitons, the basic problem is finding a suitable equation and property for the gravitational field.

Newton's Law does not have such convenient pair. And General Relativity, which ony plays a small part in electric quantisation, plays a very large part inmore advance mechanical dynamics.

Sorry this is a bit rambling, but it is difficult to summarise without the maths.

However do ask questions.

Thank you for that detailed explanation — it helped solidify some gaps I was working on. I believe my GraviGenesis V2 paper addresses several of the points you outlined.

In the model, the gravitational field is described through a quantized spin-2 excitation (the graviton), whose energy density arises from photon collapse at Planck-scale thresholds. I've included a Fierz–Pauli Lagrangian to describe the graviton field and derived a collapse condition based on redshifted graviton energy matching observed gravitational behavior.

It's still a work in progress, but I’m aiming for a fully quantized curvature theory that reduces to classical general relativity in the low-energy limit.

Note: the word “collapse” in my model has context-dependent meaning in different sections and When I refer to “Planck-scale thresholds,” I’m using them as mathematical expressions of energy and when i say density I’m really talking about a concentration of quantum energy or something similar.(The V2 got a new addition or we can say it will complete it)

If you all are giving critiques based on V1 then i have solved most of problems and moved to more advanced phase.

Thanks again for explaining the logic so clearly — it helped me re-express and re-check some of my core assumptions.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

Thank you for that detailed explanation — it helped solidify some gaps I was working on. I believe my GraviGenesis V2 paper addresses several of the points you outlined.

In the model, the gravitational field is described through a quantized spin-2 excitation (the graviton), whose energy density arises from photon collapse at Planck-scale thresholds. I've included a Fierz–Pauli Lagrangian to describe the graviton field and derived a collapse condition based on redshifted graviton energy matching observed gravitational behavior.

It's still a work in progress, but I’m aiming for a fully quantized curvature theory that reduces to classical general relativity in the low-energy limit.

Note: the word “collapse” in my model has context-dependent meaning in different sections and When I refer to “Planck-scale thresholds,” I’m using them as mathematical expressions of energy and when i say density I’m really talking about a concentration of quantum energy or something similar.(The V2 got a new addition or we can say it will complete it)

If you all are giving critiques based on V1 then i have solved most of problems and moved to more advanced phase.

Thanks again for explaining the logic so clearly — it helped me re-express and re-check some of my core assumptions.

IF ANY MOD IS GOING TO CALL IT HIJACKING-i have just answered to question and didnt advertise.I am just clarifying and it falls under topic of this post too.

21 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I believe my GraviGenesis V2 paper addresses several of the points you outlined.

Moderator Note

But we’re not discussing that here. That is to be discussed in the thread you opened on that topic.

IF ANY MOD IS GOING TO CALL IT HIJACKING-i have just answered to question and didnt advertise.I am just clarifying and it falls under topic of this post too.

You could/should have stopped after “Thank you for that detailed explanation”

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Moderator Note

But we’re not discussing that here. That is to be discussed in the thread you opened on that topic.

Sir i used it as a reference so i dont have to explain whole thing again and we are simply just discussing quantum mechanics and a theory which might solve the question or doubt this post has.I will try not to do it again.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

In the model, the gravitational field is described through a quantized spin-2 excitation (the graviton), whose energy density arises from photon collapse at Planck-scale thresholds. I've included a Fierz–Pauli Lagrangian to describe the graviton field and derived a collapse condition based on redshifted graviton energy matching observed gravitational behavior.

This goes totally against what I said.

The Fie;ld that gives rise to quantum phenomena is not quantised.

You cannot have quantisation without such a field.

The quantum phenomena occur not only because the field is there but also because of the interaction with something else.

That something else is not quantised either.

It is only the interaction which is quantised.

3 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I may not be perfect in calculations yet, but I believe real understanding starts with a strong idea — and I’m committed to improving my math so I can express those ideas fully and accurately.

Real understanding doesn't come from strong ideas. Strong ideas are born out of real understanding.

Very common mistake.

Learn mechanics, electricity, thermodynamics, gravity, optics, quantum mechanics. Understand why all this gives rise to chemistry, biology, and the almost unending variety of the world.

Keep going up the ladder to the great unifying principles: Symmetries, the principle of least action, entropy, etc. As you do this you will lose focus of many details, but you will gain the ability to synthesize.

Learn your maths: Calculus, complex numbers and functions, complex calculus (really a revelation!), geometry, algebra. You don't have to be Ramanujan, just understand it and know how to use it.

As to the main point of OP, I will make comments ASAP, because I do believe I can say something significant after having read all the relevant comments. I'm sorry I got sidetracked by our very enthusiastic but somewhat naive friend.

A word about Mathematics.

I don't know what maths courses are like in your part of the world but in my day they started to introduce what is probably the most useful technique you will encounter.

Curve sketching.

That is the ability to take a formula and visualise sketch the shape and layout of the curve it plots on a graph.

I say this because I am trying to find a suitable Morse curve for you to further explain QM.

I may have to draw my own.

It is not enough to expect coputer programs to draw them for you.

I say this for two reasons.

Firstly the experience of doing it.

Secondly most formulae have constants, and other expressions that you may not have values for so the program will not actually be able to plot your graph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_sketching

In geometry, curve sketching (or curve tracing) are techniques for producing a rough idea of overall shape of a plane curve given its equation, without computing the large numbers of points required for a detailed plot. It is an application of the theory of curves to find their main features.

Note Newton popping up again.

That fellow really did get around.

Edited July 9Jul 9 by studiot

1 hour ago, studiot said:

This goes totally against what I said.

The Fie;ld that gives rise to quantum phenomena is not quantised.

You cannot have quantisation without such a field.

The quantum phenomena occur not only because the field is there but also because of the interaction with something else.

That something else is not quantised either.

It is only the interaction which is quantised.

You're absolutely right — in standard quantum field theory, the field itself isn't necessarily quantized, and quantum effects arise from the interaction. I agree with that framework.

But my reply was based on something deeper I'm currently developing. It’s not part of standard QFT, and I haven’t fully revealed that part of the model yet — partly because I’m still refining it and want to be careful before making bold claims.

Still, that addition has made my theory significantly deeper, and I appreciate your critique — it helps me see where the boundary lies between what’s standard and where I’m diverging.

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

A word about Mathematics.

I don't know what maths courses are like in your part of the world but in my day they started to introduce what is probably the most useful technique you will encounter.

Curve sketching.

That is the ability to take a formula and visualise sketch the shape and layout of the curve it plots on a graph.

I say this because I am trying to find a suitable Morse curve for you to further explain QM.

I may have to draw my own.

It is not enough to expect coputer programs to draw them for you.

I say this for two reasons.

Firstly the experience of doing it.

Secondly most formulae have constants, and other expressions that you may not have values for so the program will not actually be able to plot your graph.

Note Newton popping up again.

That fellow really did get around.

Thank you — that’s really helpful.

I agree, being able to sketch curves by hand and understand their shape intuitively is a powerful skill, especially in quantum mechanics. I’ll definitely look more into Morse curves and practice visualizing the relationships in my own equations.

Your explanation reminds me that building real understanding is more than just calculating — it’s about seeing what the math is really saying.

I appreciate you taking the time to share this. It gives me another tool to refine what I’m working on.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

You don't have to be Ramanujan

I am who i am.I dont need to be someone.If u are saying this because i said that equation thing,then yes it happens when i just try to make random patterns in my mind,i write down one which seems logical,sometime this happens without even trying,its not magic.

On 7/9/2025 at 7:22 AM, studiot said:

MiGL is a respected physicist, now retired

Not a Physicist Studiot, although I did get an undergraduate degree on Physics over 40 years ago, and have kept an interest.
I have been working in the Chemical field for about 40 years; not very interesting, but it pays the bills.
And I'm not retired yet; that will happen next April 30th.

But thank you for the 'respected' comment 🙂.