Searching for the Graviton

[ScS]

I was hoping someone could shed some light on my thinking as far as why they would be looking for a particle that would be the carrier force for gravity? My thinking is this -

1. Gravity, so far, has been proven to be the warping of spacetime by mass or high concentrations of energy.

 

2. A body of mass is attracted to another body of mass through this warping of spacetime.

 

Would not the carrier force of gravity then be spacetime itself? Instead of a graviton particle - why not a "spacetron" or a "timetron"? Or the combination of a "spacetimetron"? Of course the idea and names behind this are a farce, but my thought is that we already know the carrier force of gravity however we do not understand the full meaning of spacetime. If time slows in the presence of a deep gravitational field - then would time not also run slower in certain parts of the history of the universe? (when the universe was more dense early on).

[timo]

How would your spacetron or timetron differ from a graviton except for the name?

[ScS]

The point I was trying to ask was in fact that exact statement you make (I should also say carrier particle rather than carrier force - sorry) except taken one step farther.

 

When you use those examples, say a timetron (I am not proposing their existence nor trying to put a new theory or anything out there) it seems that you are looking for a particle of that carries the effect of time. Can time be broken down to a particle?

 

Particles exist in time and they exist in space. A mass of particles exerts force on another mass of particles through their warping of time and space - but does that mean a carrier particle is always responsible for that attraction between the 2 masses?

 

I have a granite ball in my hand. It exists in spacetime.

Space and time are effectively the same thing according to Einstein.

 

If you could remove time - you remove the space (so my granite ball would be joined with all other matter in the universe back in state just prior to the Big Bang). Same result if you remove the "space" that the granite ball exists in - no space means all matter is touching back at the beginning.

 

So my question is this - why are we looking for a graviton? Would that not be equivalent of looking for a carrier particle of time? Or space?

[ajb]

Gravitons are the quanta associated with ripples in the local geometry of space-time.

 

There for I don't see what you are trying to add by trying to define timetrons.

[ScS]

"Gravitons are the quanta associated with ripples in the local geometry of space-time."

 

Quanta acting as carrier particles of other fundamental forces within spacetime yes.

 

A quanta that is produced from spacetime and acts as a carrier particle for spacetime does not make sense to me and that is my question. How can you have a quanta of spacetime? The pojnt I was trying to make (my communication skills are lacking must be) was that looking for a graviton would be like looking for a physical manifestation of a second....

 

Can you measure one second? Yes - through other quanta (an atomic clock and its workings) however you cannot measure a second by holding it in your hand (or detecting it in a collider) as a particle.

[ajb]

I don't think of it as quanta of space-time, but quanta of (local) geometry. That is fluctuations in the metric tensor. Though this is a rather perturbatative quantum field theory notion. It may not be so suited to gravity. Do a forum search as we have talked about this may times before.

[illinglsu]

The whole reason everyone is looking for a graviton is because every other force has been explained in quantum physics by an elementary particle. Therefore, it makes sense through deductive logic to assume and search for a particle that constitutes the force of gravity.