What's Wrong with Gravitons

Why This Staple of the Standard Model is Rubbish

Graviton Theory is an aspect of Quantum Theory created by the minds of humans to plug a hole in the Standard Model. In short, they are the supposed particles that transmit gravitational force between massive bodies, very much like photons transmit electromagnetic information.

Though many would argue that just because Gravitons have not yet been detected, it doesn't mean they don't exist (and, in fact, many would argue that since they are a critical part of String Theory, they must exist - because, Lord knows, Sting Theory is infallible), one must point out the
 obvious error in this optimism: Gravitons cannot exist in reality, because they would represent a paradox, and violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.

First, saying that a thing might exist simply because we aren't yet certain it doesn't is not valid science. The same could be said of the Tooth Fairy. Go ahead - prove there's no Tooth Fairy. Unlike Gravitons, there is evidence for a Tooth Fairy; all those quarters!

More importantly, though, Gravitons just don't work. Consider a Black Hole. If Graviton Theory is correct, then the Black Hole, like everything else in the universe, must be emitting an infinite amount of energy via Gravitons in order to maintain its gravitational influence on the cosmos.

Ironically, one of the main reasons Quantum Theory exists at all today is because of an identical problem with infinite energy emission. In the old days, before 'quanta', from which Quantum Theory takes its name, light was believed to be emitted in infinite amounts. Max Plank, Einstein, and others found the notion absurd, and rightly so - only a body with an infinite temperature could emit an infinite amount of electromagnetic energy (light). Likewise, only a body of infinite gravity can possibly emit an infinite amount of Gravitons, and infinite gravity requires infinite mass.

From the tiny Electron to the super-massive Black Holes at the hearts of galaxies, no single thing in this universe has an infinite mass. That small paradox is just one minor part of the larger picture, however.

 
Comments 1 - 10 of 12 Next >>
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

The problem I see here is in verifying if 'non-feeding' holes actually do emit in the radio spectrum; if they aren't feeding, how the heck can we find one to confirm? Picking up a non-luminous radio source wouldn't be enough - a slowly collapsing dust cloud, for example, can do that.

Posted on 12/10/2008 at 12:12:27 PM

My brother just posed to me an interesting idea that I still have to verify, but I'd like your thoughts. He suggests that even 'non-feeding' black holes are active in the radio spectrum. If that's the case, it may be possible that all of our speculation is moot: if em radiation really is escaping, then it would seem to indicate that a hole does not, in actuality, have the ability to prevent 'light' from escaping. Instead, perhaps it is simply gravitationally shifting the radiation to such a high degree that even the shortest wavelengths, where the singularity's spectrum should peak, end up in the radio band.

Posted on 12/10/2008 at 7:12:51 AM

Actually, the rate of 'evaporation' that Hawking lays out is just about on par for a normal star of similar mass. Yes, the mass loss is "slow", but, if you recall, our own Sun's 'evaporation' rate is also rather slow, yet it's photon emission rates and frequencies are well into the detectable range. In essence, using Hawking radiation, a black hole should behave just like a star of the same mass, save that the photons would all be "emitted" from the surface of the event horizon, rather than the actual surface.

Posted on 12/10/2008 at 7:12:11 AM

I also agree that GR isn't the "perfect" model (though I'm inclined to put more stock in it than in 'scaled up' QT). I think you'll find that ZST is a much better match (since it works on both subatomic and cosmic scales and fits observations the best of any model yet established), but even that isn't "perfect". In a way, you might even call ZST a geometric model, since one of the underlying concepts involves "space" being a charge-neutral "surface" and both energy and matter representing disruptions in that surface.

Posted on 12/09/2008 at 7:12:14 AM

I am ecstatic that you mentioned virtual photons - I'm kicking myself for not having thought of that before. If Hawking Radiation (and virtual particles) were real, we should expect every elementary particle to participate. We should see *photons* being emitted from black holes by that mechanism. Basically, the "black" part of a black hole should be nullified, something that we don't see in observation. Therefore, Hawking Radiation is a bust, and virtual particles are in serious trouble. That's why I love debate; it helps me see my 'blind spots'.

Posted on 12/09/2008 at 7:12:59 AM

I concur; only mass matters when dealing with gravity. The infinite energy problem arises when one considers gravity as a form of emission (gravitons): since gravity binds every massive body in the universe to every other, their either must be an infinite radiation of gravitons being emitted from any given body or the gravitons must be intelligent, already "knowing" where every other mass in the universe is, organizing themselves into "teams", and moving with deliberate intent toward those bodies. Obviously, neither option makes any sense.

Posted on 12/09/2008 at 7:12:44 AM

The gravity exerted by a black hole, outside the horizon, is totally independent (if the black hole is not spinning) of the fact what spherically symmetric object is causing it. Only the mass is important, which is finite. IE if our sun would become a black hole (I know, just for the sake of argument), gravitationally we would notice nothing.

Posted on 12/08/2008 at 11:12:37 AM

Most of all, the entire concept of graviton-based 'force' is redundant: having curved space as a result of mass is sufficient, and fits both observations and equations better than any emitted pseudo-particle. For example, curved space even works better for redshift -photons moving from space of high compression to low compression fully explains the phenomenon; graviton coupling is a murky explanation at best. And, to be precise, photons have a mass of 0, not "no" mass - the distinction is important. That said, thanks for the debate: I haven't had a good physics workout in months!

Posted on 12/07/2008 at 1:12:26 PM

...which just doesn't make any sense, unless you subscribe to ZST, which rules out gravitons anyway. And then you've got the generation problem: if gravitons can be 'generated' anywhere in the universe at random, instead of emitted by massive bodies, then you end up with a negation of the effects of massive bodies, which undermines the entire concept of gravity. Virtual particles is a stretch for the emission of matter from a black hole, but it is totally unworkable as an ad-hoc fix for gravitons. How would the anti-gravitons get pulled back into the hole? Gravity?

Posted on 12/07/2008 at 1:12:31 PM

First, you are generally correct about the structure of a black hole, but even you must see that it is ridiculous to propose that a black hole has infinite gravity; if any massive body's gravitation were infinite (not to be confused with 'a very large number'), the entire universe would be pulled inside! Second, QT was indeed born out of efforts to understand radiation in a rational way; that's where the term "photon" comes from: a photon is literally a 'quanta' (one unit) of energy. By conceptualizing that energy can only be emitted in certain quanta-ties (pun) that are stable, we were able to figure out how energy emission can take place without the need for infinite radiation. The same principle should - nay, MUST - apply to gravitation (if it were a form of radiation, which it isn't). Finally, a virtual particle fix doesn't work for gravitons - first, you need 'anti-gravitons' (con't)

Posted on 12/07/2008 at 12:12:11 PM

Comments 1 - 10 of 12 Next >>