Talk:Graviton

How does it escape a black hole?

Does it travel faster than light? Nothing traveling under the speed of light can escape a black hole and if it doesn't leave a black hole the hole will not attract other objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.199.45 (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Planting a flag here on ideas for the hypothetical graviton and a different narrative consistent with experimental observation. Imagine that there are two fundamental particles, the electrino and positrino, which are -/+ 1/3 charge. Black holes are like compost piles - the more matter and energy added, the hotter the core gets, until it ignites and the ingested matter-energy is decomposed into electrinos and positrinos and form a plasma. An electrino/positrino pair in the plasma could be called a graviton. Gravitons are emitted/jetted via the polar jets of sufficiently energetic SMBH. The gravitons in the plasma can decay in energy and at sufficiently low energy they can emerge from the plasma as standard matter particles. For example, a free graviton (electrino/positrino pair) is a neutrino. An electron is a triplet of electrinos. A positron is a triplet of positrinos. It's easy to reverse engineer the standard model chart. This is a new hypothetical narrative, so I am only planting a flag here, not suggesting article changes at this time. J Mark Morris (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a dead comment for certain but I would like to clarify for future readers: the graviton is massless and therefore doesn’t experience any gravitational force. A theory of quantum gravity will be needed to explain how it escapes the screwed-up spacetime behind the event horizon, but the graviton has no issue escaping a gravitational field. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Last section / difficulties

The description of the last section is redundant. It talks about gravity being non renormalisable, but in a language that ignores the notion of effective field theory. It is not a problem per se for a theory to be non-renormalisable. Once you have done a few measurements you can even _use_ this EFT. For instance the Fermi theory, you need to measure the four fermion interaction and then you can use this EFT to some higher energy scale. Same for gravity. This should be written more clearly. Pitorki (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Too difficult? Are there sources which give simpler explanations?

@Schwabeditor you added a tag to the article claiming it was too technical. Obviously the article is not too mathematical. What is it that you think is too technical? Do you know of source which give simpler explanations? How can we improve and remove the tag? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that the concept of “graviton” is already highly technical. Just like articles on advanced Ricci calculus shouldn’t require too-technical tags because they are, by definition, very technical, this article shouldn’t either.

If a plain-English definition must be given, simply say that the graviton is to gravity as the photon is to electromagnetism. Unfortunately it doesn’t get much simpler than that. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Gravitons in speculative theories

I deleted a subsection of history named "Gravitons in speculative theories". Gravitons are speculative already. These works were not in any way "history". Only one could be considered possibility notable by citation count but there are many many "theories" of gravitation. Picking any without using a review reference is not fair. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)