Could the graviton be a particle that is given off from a particle with 'mass' and...?

Question

travels through the particles, attracting as it approaches, and repelling as it leaves from the other side?

farwallr..: positive and negative charges will do that

why the hell do we even exist,!! I would love to know the answer. How do 'we' have a sense of self?

Answer 1

If the question is:
"How does gravity draw two objects together?", and you want to use the graviton to explain it, you still have the same problem.
How does the graviton "attract(ing) as it approaches"?

Answer 2

That's the theory. The graviton has yet to be found, however.

Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of our universe; the other three are electro-magnetic, and strong and weak atomic. String/M theory (which is not testable; so it's not really a theory at all) posits the graviton as the messenger particle for gravity. Photons, for example, are the messenger particles for EM forces. Mesons and gluons are the atomic forces messengers.

One of the major drivers for string/M theory is to unify the four forces under one set of equations (the string/M equations). [See source.] Mathematically, string/M theory can do this. But, as none of this theory has been validated by experiment, all this remains just a hypothesis at best.

There is no repeling force of gravity. Repel means to 1. To ward off or keep away; drive back: [See source.]

Gravitons do emerge from their source mass. Even so, that does not imply repulsion any more than photons flying out from a light bulb implies photon repulsion. These emerging gravitons establish a gravitational field whose area density diminishes as the inverse of the square of the distance between the source mass (M) and the attracted mass (m). This is why we can write F = GmM/R^2; where the R^2 is that inverse square relationship of the force F of gravity.

Unlike electrical and magnetic force fields, the gravitational force field is strictly attractive. Gravitons do not drive back or repel mass. They attract or pull forward only. That is, the gravitons making up the field always pull at whatever mass they encounter.

On the other hand, experiments do show that gravitons (more precisely the force of gravity) emerge from a source and pass through the nearest mass they are attracting. That is, a second mass farther away on the far side of the nearest mass will also feel the effects of gravity from the source. In a very real sense, the second mass feels the attractive forces of both the source and the nearest mass to the source.

So you are absolutely right about the gravitons passing on through and emerging from the "other" side of the attracted mass (away from the source mass). But you are incorrect that the gravitons become replusive in nature by passing through the attracted mass.

Answer 3

To the person above me:
Actually, there are many particles without mass, most notably the photon. Things behave VERY differently at the subatomic level so it is also not safe to assume that just because some particle has "mass," it exerts gravity. Although you are right about the graviton must being massless, I'm trying to point out where your argument is flawed.

To the question:
I may be misunderstanding your statement here, but gravitons can't be repelling because gravity does not repel. And your theory about it being given off a particle with "mass" is kind of redundant. If gravitons do exist, then they must have some relationship with objects/particles with "mass."

Answer 4

There are two ways of considering gravity.
The first is General Relativity, which is based on the idea that gravity is not properly a "force" but is caused by massive objects warping spacetime in such a way that it is *almost* consistent with Newton's equations. However, general relativity predicts all sorts of new and interesting effects not predictable by Newton's equations - for example, that light is affected by gravitational fields and that black holes can exist. General relativity does not require gravitons to explain it.

The second is quantum gravity. In quantum gravity there is a particle called the graviton. The first thing to understand is that the bosons which carry forces do not in fact attract and repel other particles - they are merely "messengers" which serve to indicate that the field exists at a given point, which is obvious from the following: the photons given off by positively charged and negatively charged bodies are the same, so when they arrive at other charged bodies, how do they "know" whether to be attracted or repelled by the field?
In any case, it is still useful to model gravity through the exchange of gravitons. However, gravitons are themselves affected by gravity and must emit gravitons too, which in turn emit gravitons... this leads to infinities which scientists do not currently have the mathematical tools to deal with. This is why quantum mechanics cannot, at present, be unified with general relativity.

The graviton is massless and its spin (intrinsic angular momentum) is twice that of the photon, so it is known as a "tensor boson". Since string theories predict the existence of gravitons, some believe that the final theory describing all events in the universe will be a string theory, or a modified version of a string theory.

Answer 5

gravity is not a particle. if it was, gravity itself would have mass, and therefor gravity. (dilemma huh?)

gravvity is merely an effect that comes from the presence of mass distorting spacetime (bending warping whatever you want to call it)

Answer 6

Too heavy for us mere mortals.