Hi everyone,

I'm Kulraj Singh Dhillon, 14 years old, and I’ve recently published a draft theory on graviton formation — not as a final answer, but as an original proposal open for feedback.I used ChatGPT as a tool to guide me and formalise my maths and paper as i did it without any formal training,but just pure creativity.

The core idea:

Gravitons may originate from collapsed photon energy at Planck-level densities. When photon energy exceeds a critical threshold, it forms gravitons, which then drive spacetime curvature and black hole formation.

I’ve built mathematical conditions for:

• Graviton energy and mass (based on Planck energy)

• Spacetime warping from graviton density

• A black hole formation condition derived from graviton clustering

• A new concept called PoRes — Propagation-Resilient Empty Space — regions where graviton fields cancel or fail to propagate

This theory isn’t polished or perfect — but I’m trying to build a bridge between photons, gravitons, and quantum gravity. It’s all documented here:

🔗 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15789199

Would really appreciate critical, honest feedback — especially regarding:

• If the collapse condition seems plausible

• If the black hole equation from graviton density makes sense

• If the PoRes idea feels coherent or nonsense

Thanks to anyone who takes the time to read.

40 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Graviton energy and mass (based on Planck energy)

Gravitons, provided they exist, should not have mass. Interaction carriers having mass would violate gauge symmetry.

Gravitons, provided they exist, should be sourced by anything having local energy density, not particularly hyper-dense sources.

Gravitons, provided they exist, should not undergo any appreciable clustering themselves.

You should be able to produce a convincing reasoning without people having to click any links, as per forums rules.

Welcome and good luck.

2 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I’ve recently published a draft theory on graviton formation — not as a final answer, but as an original proposal open for feedback.I used ChatGPT as a tool to guide me and formalise my maths and paper

Moderator Note

We don’t allow such AI material to be the basis of discussion. We’re happy to discuss what you have come up with, and you are free to ask questions and learn.

Also, material for discussion must be posted here. Not via links or uploads.

You might benefit from reviewing our speculations guidelines

https://scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Gravitons, provided they exist, should not have mass. Interaction carriers having mass would violate gauge symmetry.

Gravitons, provided they exist, should be sourced by anything having local energy density, not particularly hyper-dense sources.

Gravitons, provided they exist, should not undergo any appreciable clustering themselves.

You should be able to produce a convincing reasoning without people having to click any links, as per forums rules.

Welcome and good luck.

Thank you for the feedback — I understand your points and appreciate the clarity. I’d like to respond from the perspective of a developing alternative model that explores graviton behavior under extreme energy conditions.

1. On mass and gauge symmetry:
   In standard quantum gravity, yes — massless spin-2 particles preserve gauge symmetry. However, my model is exploring whether gravitons gain effective mass temporarily during high-energy photon collapse events (e.g. near Planck density). This would not be a traditional "rest mass" but an emergent property in a non-linear quantum-gravitational environment — somewhat like massive gauge bosons in electroweak theory via symmetry breaking.

2. On sourcing by local energy:
   I agree that gravity universally couples to all energy density. My theory does not deny that — rather, it focuses on extreme environments (like photon collapse near Planck density) as the origin point of quantized gravity (gravitons), which then spread and mediate gravity more generally.

3. On clustering:
   Good point — standard gravitons should not cluster. My model proposes that in the earliest stages of the universe or during extreme astrophysical events (like neutron star collapse), the local energy density of gravitons may become high enough to warp spacetime significantly. This leads to black hole formation from graviton density thresholds, not clustering per se in the usual sense.

4. About formatting posts:
   Got it — I’ll start summarizing key ideas directly in the post and use external links only as a secondary reference. Thanks for the tip.

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Moderator Note

We don’t allow such AI material to be the basis of discussion. We’re happy to discuss what you have come up with, and you are free to ask questions and learn.

Also, material for discussion must be posted here. Not via links or uploads.

You might benefit from reviewing our speculations guidelines

https://scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

Sir thanks for instructions.I am new here so,i didnt know about it,and about the AI material thing i used AI as tool to overcome my weakness and problems.No one should have any problem from me using a advanced tool to simplify work as its my vision,my work.The AI material can be reffered to work which is solely created by AI.I deny todays limitations and created it from scracth,but it doesnt deny existing work atleast not completely,Pheraps It can be used in more advanced conditions if refined properly. As a student in 10th grade i didnt have enough time for now but i will try to refine it.

8 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

On mass and gauge symmetry:
In standard quantum gravity, yes — massless spin-2 particles preserve gauge symmetry. However, my model is exploring whether gravitons gain effective mass temporarily during high-energy photon collapse events (e.g. near Planck density). This would not be a traditional "rest mass" but an emergent property in a non-linear quantum-gravitational environment — somewhat like massive gauge bosons in electroweak theory via symmetry breaking.

For gauge bosons to acquire mass (like gluons) the gauge theory must be non Abelian. If that's the case, we should have diferent colours of gravitons, resulting in things like confinement and assymptotic freedom. That doesn't sound like gravity.

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

For gauge bosons to acquire mass (like gluons) the gauge theory must be non Abelian. If that's the case, we should have diferent colours of gravitons, resulting in things like confinement and assymptotic freedom. That doesn't sound like gravity.

Thank you — that’s a very important point. I admit I’m still learning the details of gauge theory and non-Abelian fields, so I really appreciate the clarification. My intention wasn’t to suggest that gravitons have a permanent rest mass or arise from a gauge structure like gluons.

What I meant to explore is whether, under extreme energy conditions — such as photon collapse at or near the Planck scale — gravitons might behave as if they have mass temporarily. Not through gauge symmetry breaking, but possibly through nonlinear spacetime interactions. So this would be a local effect, not a property of free gravitons in vacuum.

Just to add some context:
I'm 14 years old and currently in 10th grade. As you probably know, the Indian education system is very mark-focused and leaves little room for deep independent exploration. I posted this theory hoping someone more experienced could refine or challenge it — and maybe, in some small way, I could contribute a new perspective. This is just Version 1, and I know there’s a long way to go.

I'll read more into this area and be more careful with terms like “mass” in the future. Thanks again for pointing that out — I truly appreciate the feedback.

+1 for an excellent attitude.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

+1 for an excellent attitude.

Thanks Sir.Even those few words are enough to give me motivation for work.

47 minutes ago, studiot said:

+1 for an excellent attitude.

Indeed.

1 hour ago, Dhillon1724X said:

As a student in 10th grade

How much math and physics have you studied, as a student in 10th grade?

This first version contains significant known flaws — particularly in the treatment of graviton mass, the absence of a gauge-theoretic framework, and the lack of context behind certain derivations. I acknowledge these issues openly, and they will be addressed in future versions.Thats why i also changed the Title of Preprint and added ¨The beginning in it.

This theory is not a finished structure — it is a base, a pillar. If it proves strong, it may support the weight of greater understanding in the future. But if it breaks under pressure, then let it break — and let its dust seed the foundations of something better. That, too, would fulfill its purpose.

Keep in mind that Gravitons ( and other quantum particles ) arise from quantizing field theories, as in QED and QCD.
So far, Gravity has firmly resisted all attempts to quantize anything that could be interpreted as its field ( such as LQG quantizing space-time geometry ).

If gravity cannot be quantized, there is no requirement for Gravitons, in the model or in 'reality'.

If it 'breaks under pressure', this idea is not wasted time, as it improves your research skills and your critical thinking.

8 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

My intention wasn’t to suggest that gravitons have a permanent rest mass or arise from a gauge structure like gluons.

But my point didn't hit the target then. Gluons don't have a mass of their own. They're fundamentally massless. They acquire mass because they do a dance of three colours (and their anti-colours) that we call chromodynamics. They exchange other gluons with each other. In doing so, they "dress" themselves with self-energy, like electrons do in QED. Photons don't do that. Photons do not attract or repel each other. They go past each other like there were nothing there. Gluons do what they do because they are sources of chromodynamic field, besides being messengers. Photons are pure messengers, without sourcing any field.

When a gluon "sees" another gluon, it says "huh, there's another coloured thing out there" and spits a further gluon. The other gluon follows suit.

A photon simply does not "see" another photon.

That's why gluons get dressed with (dynamical) mass even though they do not have mass at all.

I know it's a lot to take. You have to study some quantum field theory first. Before that, you must study quantum mechanics, to see where the "quantum" comes from. In order to do that, you must study "mechanics", to see... And so on.

My advice is: Trust in the time-honoured system of studying from the ground up, and don't put too much stock in what AI tells you. It's sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. And in order to tell one from the other you need a magic word: criterion. You have to develop criterion. I know no better way than what everybody else has done from time immemorial.

Edited July 2Jul 2 by joigus
minor correction

3 hours ago, joigus said:

But my point didn't hit the target then. Gluons don't have a mass of their own. They're fundamentally massless. They acquire mass because they do a dance of three colours (and their anti-colours) that we call chromodynamics. They exchange other gluons with each other. In doing so, they "dress" themselves with self-energy, like electrons do in QED. Photons don't do that. Photons do not attract or repel each other. They go past each other like there were nothing there. Gluons do what they do because they are sources of chromodynamic field, besides being messengers. Photons are pure messengers, without sourcing any field.

When a gluon "sees" another gluon, it says "huh, there's another coloured thing out there" and spits a further gluon. The other gluon follows suit.

A photon simply does not "see" another photon.

That's why gluons get dressed with (dynamical) mass even though they do not have mass at all.

I know it's a lot to take. You have to study some quantum field theory first. Before that, you must study quantum mechanics, to see where the "quantum" comes from. In order to do that, you must study "mechanics", to see... And so on.

My advice is: Trust in the time-honoured system of studying from the ground up, and don't put too much stock in what AI tells you. It's sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. And in order to tell one from the other you need a magic word: criterion. You have to develop criterion. I know no better way than what everybody else has done from time immemorial.

It is not often that joigus graces his replies with this much detail of really well structured explanation and advice. +1

It is sound advicest I suggest you take it.

Edited July 3Jul 3 by studiot

Hi everyone — just an update on the graviton theory I shared earlier.

I’ve spent the last day carefully going through all the critiques, especially the ones about gauge symmetry, spin formation, and redshift behavior. I realized most of the earlier issues weren’t in the idea itself, but in how I explained or scaled certain things.

✅ I’ve now corrected the energy evolution (redshift)
✅ Added proper spin-2 formation via photon-photon interaction
✅ Ensured it respects diffeomorphism symmetry (gauge invariance)
✅ Confirmed the present-day graviton energy fits observational limits
✅ Clarified the difference between rest mass and energy-equivalent mass

So the core idea — that gravitons may emerge from high-energy photon collapse — is now more solid and compatible with QFT and GR foundations.

I welcome any fresh critiques.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

How much math and physics have you studied, as a student in 10th grade?

I’m a 10th-grade student, and I’ve only studied basic physics from NCERT so far — Newton’s laws, gravitation, sound, and motion. I haven’t reached the chapters on light or electricity yet. In math, I’ve done algebra, geometry, and some trigonometry — but honestly, I struggle with math in school and I haven’t learned calculus or advanced symbolic math at all.

I didn’t read research papers or take any courses. I just picked up bits of science from social media posts, YouTube clips, science memes, and random things people said — and I got really curious. That led me to start thinking on my own and slowly build this theory.

I know it has flaws — especially in the mass calculation, missing gauge theory, and weak math context — but I didn’t write it to prove I’m a genius. I wrote it because I love trying to understand the universe. And I’m here to improve it by learning from better minds.

On 7/2/2025 at 3:52 PM, studiot said:

+1 for an excellent attitude.

Seconded.

Hlo everyone,

I am focusing on solving all the problems and trying to find flaws.

I will be very thankful to anyone who write critiques and write words of hyperlink removed by moderator

hyperlink removed by moderator will also help me to prove myself to school so I can focus on my work hyperlink removed by moderator

hyperlink removed by moderator

About the flaws which were pointed out by respective seniors,I found out that it’s because of lack of Ablity to explain and due to shortage of time.I admit that I made mistake and it’s mine mistake.Its my first research paper so I would try to improve in next ones.

At the end,

Thankyou everyone for supporting(even if a bit) this foolish kid

Edited July 4Jul 4 by Phi for All
Stop hyperlinking

10 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Hlo everyone,

I am focusing on solving all the problems and trying to find flaws.

I will be very thankful to anyone who write critiques and write words of hyperlink removed by moderator

hyperlink removed by moderator will also help me to prove myself to school so I can focus on my work hyperlink removed by moderator

hyperlink removed by moderator

About the flaws which were pointed out by respective seniors,I found out that it’s because of lack of Ablity to explain and due to shortage of time.I admit that I made mistake and it’s mine mistake.Its my first research paper so I would try to improve in next ones.

At the end,

Thankyou everyone for supporting(even if a bit) this foolish kid

Sorry for hyperlinks it was a mistake.

here's complete message-
Hlo everyone,

I am focusing on solving all the problems and trying to find flaws.

I will be very thankful to anyone who write critiques and write words of appreciation.

It will also help me to prove myself to school so I can focus on my work with support from teachers too.

If any professor or a phd,degree holder can write just a letter stating that its not a child's scribble but some work with potential.

As i said earlier i have found out the fixation which are needed to make it more solid and i have also have found solution or we can say i have clarified the problems related with QED,Mass and known physics.Now V2 fully aligns with current physics and may extend it.But i need time to format paper and publish which only can be achieved by showing my potential to school and parents too.Its hard to explain directly to school teachers and parents.

i am tagging u all to request for help @studiot @joigus @MigL as u guys are the one i know.

About the flaws which were pointed out by respective seniors,I found out that it’s because of lack of Ability to explain and due to shortage of time.I admit that I made mistake and it’s mine mistake.Its my first research paper so I would try to improve in next ones.

At the end,

Thankyou everyone for supporting(even if a bit) this foolish kid

i have pointed a mistake or i can say its extra.Its structure formation and blackhole formation.I will like everyone to overlook it for now as i forgot to mark it hypothetical.

Good news!

Now i dont need to say AI assisted anymore as i made my graviton origination Lagrangian and formating v2 on my own.I didnt need to say it in V1 too but i did.
and i have restricted viewing on zenodo.I will be back soon.

Edited July 4Jul 4 by Dhillon1724X
Clarification

Hlo Everyone,
Update!

One bad or it might be good news as i derived Lagrangian but with help of AI.

At the end i had to use AI as a tool again.But it can be proof that AI can be used as science tool

Edited July 5Jul 5 by Dhillon1724X

22 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Hlo Everyone,
Update!

One bad or it might be good news as i derived Lagrangian but with help of AI.

At the end i had to use AI as a tool again.But it can be proof that AI can be used as science tool

But how do you know it is not rubbish? When Large Language Model AI tries to do maths it usually screws up, because it is a language model, not a mathematical model.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

But how do you know it is not rubbish? When Large Language Model AI tries to do maths it usually screws up, because it is a language model, not a mathematical model.

Sir thats the point which distinguish AI generated work from AI assisted.I use it as tool to gather knowledge,do some advance maths which i tell it to.

It cant do a thing on its own.I have learnt enough basics to check if its rubbish or not.I have some methods too.I check everything number of times.If i dont know then i research and learn,and i have senior members like you from whom i can ask for help.The Lagrangian it derived was represenation of my words and symbols.I learnt basics today as much as i can from internet in limited time(I have school assignments to complete) and gave basic structure,it is not advanced but atleast good for my age.

If i make a mistake then i will happily admit it as it will be mine mistake but i will improve it.
At the end i am a kid who refuses to stay in cage

Thanks for giving your precious time.

2 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Sir thats the point which distinguish AI generated work from AI assisted.I use it as tool to gather knowledge,do some advance maths which i tell it to.

It cant do a thing on its own.I have learnt enough basics to check if its rubbish or not.I have some methods too.I check everything number of times.If i dont know then i research and learn,and i have senior members like you from whom i can ask for help.The Lagrangian it derived was represenation of my words and symbols.I learnt basics today as much as i can from internet in limited time(I have school assignments to complete) and gave basic structure,it is not advanced but atleast good for my age.

If i make a mistake then i will happily admit it as it will be mine mistake but i will improve it.
At the end i am a kid who refuses to stay in cage

Thanks for giving your precious time.

Good luck, then. So long as you are aware of the pitfalls of AI and use it wisely. 👍

Edited July 5Jul 5 by exchemist

9 hours ago, exchemist said:

Good luck, then. So long as you are aware of the pitfalls of AI and use it wisely. 👍

If you know to use a needle,

you can unlock the strongest locks with it 🔒

5 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

If you know to use a needle,

you can unlock the strongest locks with it 🔒

Metaphors won't get you where you want to go.

Do you realise you're trying to use gravity to explain quantum gravity via photons? That's what your LLM of choice is suggesting you to do. Doesn't that sound ill-conceived?

Remember the most useful tool for a theoretical physicist is actually the wastepaper basket.