Gravitons: a Closer Look at Gravity

In this remake / slightly in depth remake of the last video on gravitons, we take a look at one of the most fundemtnal forces of nature on a microscopic level . I also hope you enjoy this conclusion for season 3 and be sure to stay tuned for season 4

Be sure to let me know if you want to learn more about astronomy or quantum mechanics

Sources:

[madvulcan]

If we discover the existence of gravitons what exactly would that mean, more specifically what can we do/accomplish with that knowledge? Would it mean we’ll know how to manipulate gravity and be able to build antigravity machines?

[MGDrzyzga]

Huh. Never occurred to me before - wouldn't a graviton exerting influence at the speed of light be an issue for black holes? You know, trapping gravitons as much as light? I'm outside what I understand - just pondering if a black hole's gravitational lensing would be different via gravitons.

[luisfelipe]

Could any particle be considered a gráviton?
What if any particle that enters a non observable state due to high energy uptake enough to potentially surpass the speed of light be considered an entropy carrier or speed-energy modifier of space be considered a gráviton, there would not be a specific particle with that property, so for other particles in a certain state of energy that allows this particle to Interact in a away to steal energy from particles or their speed be modified to an extent of potential energy that makes them vanish from the characterisctics that they usually presente, ther fore not be observed as they were waited to show up.Gravitons in this sense would not be a particle itself but a state of energetic characteristic of a particle that makes it not participate in the equilibirum just adding up to the entropic state that steal stability of a system.

[mockingbbirdkilla]

We'll never find Gravitons. Dark energy? Probably already have.

[johntakolander]

Actually Isaac Newton wrote in his "Opticks" that he tought that gravity was caused by particles, which resided in the empty reaches of space. From there these particles bombarded everything, and thus create gravity. Read the book 3, Qu 21!

[patrickfrawley]

Maybe be so called gravitons don't exist. Maybe the gravity wave they detected recently where exactly that, waves in the Dirac sea / Casimir effect . Where by the two suns in a close binary fast spinning situation set off the waves to ripple out across Diracs sea. Just like dropping a stone on a still pond, the ripples progress across the water. Mass curves space, so there must be something there to curve and maybe that something is Diracs sea / infinite particles popping in and out of existence. Maybe that's what gravity is, a reaction between Diracs sea and bigger the mass the stronger the reaction or stronger the curve of space. In other words the stronger the force of gravity.

[Xeno_Bardock]

Gravity is not a particle phenomenon nor it has anything to do with space-time somehow curving. Gravity is nothing more than a byproduct of electric charge stored within planets. Planets are highly electrically charged bodies. Dielectric field of a planet attracts and accelerates aether towards the ground producing gravity as you observe. Gravity is electrical in nature, not inherent property of mass, and aether is the medium for all electromagnetic waves and light. There is no such thing as empty space, space devoid of all matter is still full of aether. You can think of planets being submerged in this sea of aether like a ball submerged in a water exerting omnidirectional gravitational pressure on the surface of planet producing gravity similar to how water will exert pressure on the surface of a ball submerged in a water. Dielectric field + Charged mass + Aether = Gravity.

[Matthew]

Good video, but your outro ends too suddenly, just a tip, you should draw it out with some tunes for a few more seconds and let it fade out, makes it a more pleasant ending. :D

Good content, but just wanted to give a tip. :)

[johnklekotka]

The inability of physicists to find gravitons is just one more reason gravity sucks! 😂

[CGMushrom]

Thought experiment time: what if the gravitons we are looking for are just infused with all the mass we see? Hence gravity is just based on mass density

[ChoobChoob]

What if Gravitons are the friends we made along the way?

[LuisAldamiz]

Nice explanation but very much dated since string theory is pretty much dead and for sure it has been measured (via gravitational waves) already that extra dimensions travelled by "gravitons" do not exist (or at least that gravity does not leak to them).

The question I always ask is: how gravitons escape gravity when photons can't? Nobody ever answers.

[barryzeeberg]

3:41 - "easy to pick up an apple" - this is an unfairly selected misleading example. You could have used the example of trying to pick up a car, but then you would not make the point you are trying for (ie, how weak gravity is). Gravity may be weak, but you cannot prove that by choosing a self-serving example.

[barryzeeberg]

The problem with the graviton theory is that it trying to account for gravitational attraction between any two particles, let us say between 2 quarks. Well, that means that each quark has a mechanism to emit gravitons, as well as simultaneously having the ability to detect gravitons. But a quark is supposedly NOT composed of parts - a quark cannot be further subdivided. But it would need to be able to store an infinite number of gravitons, as it is constantly emitting them in 3 dimensions of physical space.

When I think of something that can detect an external signal AND that can then respond to detecting that signal, I think of something like the retina (which is part of the brain) and its connections in the brain. But the retina is infinitely more complex than a quark, having many components. How can a quark carry out the detection and response like a retina would do?

Also, what is true for the quark is also true for every one of the dozens of fundamental particles. How can each of these vastly different objects all have exactly the same mechanisms for graviton emission and graviton detection?

Then too, the quark would need to tell the difference between a graviton that it produced (and NOT react to that graviton) and a graviton that came from the other quark (and react to that one). The quark would need to have little flagellae to propel itself along the graviton gradient that is the resultant of possibly a gigantic number of other quarks, photons, etc.

[adarshpatil]

Can u make a video on tachyon partials!?

[jerryvelders]

I, for one, don't think gravity is a 'force', and therefore don't think there is a graviton lurking around unseen. I don't understand the need to quantize spacetime. It's simply the canvas on which the universe is painted. My $.02

[ExtraterrestrialIntelligence]

If gravity curves spacetime how would a theoretical particle be an explanation for this phenomenon?

[akinnon]

Could it be possible that the ellusive Graviton actually be the membrane (Brane) ? That would explain why we cant find it, and explain both the infinite range and the fact we can feel gravity from dark matter on the other side of (the mirror?... the sheet of reality?). There would only be one graviton. Maybe also explain why its like 10 000 weaker than electromagnetism ?

[hullabaloo]

This stuff confuses me. If according to General Relativity gravity is the product of the presence of a mass that is distorting spacetime. Then does gravity not then cease to be a force at all? If so, why are force carrying particles (gravitons) even required?

[politicstoday]

2:09 but they are just as fast as the speed of light and how do we know if multiverses exist. Also why don't they interact with matter?