Gravitons, what do you think?

[Stylesjl]

I'm writing science fiction, and my ideas touch on the ideas of using gravitons to manipulate gravity so that mass and energy can be moved around without regard to distance or mass

How plausible in current science are gravitons? Is it a good theroy, just total bunk or somewhere in between?

Please enlighten me on this interesting bit of physics

[Blob]

Hum,
gravitons are just a theorised model,
And most people would view them as being like a space time `fabric` (the Higgs field), that interacts with particles and gives them mass and inertia etc

More info:
www.newscientist.com/blah/blah (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19325934.600?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19325934.600)

www.wikipedia.org/blah/blah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field)

Three article that need to be perused:

Title: The Higgs field can be expressed through the lepton and quark fields
Authors: Ruslan Sharipov

The Higgs field is a central point of the Standard Model supplying masses to other fields through the symmetry breaking mechanism. However, it is associated with an elementary particle which is not yet discovered experimentally. In this short note I suggest a way for expressing the Higgs field through other fields of the Standard Model. If this is the case, being not an independent field, the Higgs field does not require an elementary particle to be associated with it.

Read more (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0703/0703001.pdf) (6kb, PDF)


Title: On Origin of Mass and Supersymmetry
Authors: Kazunari Shima, Motomu Tsuda

We show that the nonlinear supersymmetric general relativity gives new insights into the origin of mass and elucidates the mysterious relations between the cosmology and the (low energy) particle physics.

Read more (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0611/0611072.pdf) (8kb, PDF)


Title: A New Dimension Hidden in the Shadow of a Wall
Authors: Nemanja Kaloper

We propose a new way to hide the fifth dimension, and to modify gravity in the far infra-red. A gravitating tensional membrane in five dimensions folds the transverse space into a truncated cone, stoppered by the membrane. For near-critical tension, the conical opening is tiny, and the space becomes a very narrow conical sliver. A very long section, of length comparable to the membrane radius divided by the remaining conical angle, of this sliver is well approximated by a narrow cylinder ending on the membrane. Inside this cylindrical throat we can reduce the theory on the circle. At distances between the circle radius and the length of the cylinder, the theory looks 4D, with a Brans-Dicke-like gravity, and a preferred direction, while at larger distances the cone opens up and the theory turns 5D. The gravitational light scalar in the throat can get an effective local mass term from the interplay of matter interactions and quantum effective potentials on the cone.

Read more (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0702/0702206.pdf) (191kb, PDF)

All stranger than friction.

[trinitree88]

Hum,
gravitons are just a theorised model,
And most people would view them as being like a space time `fabric` (the Higgs field), that interacts with particles and gives them mass and inertia etc
.............SNIPPET
All stranger than friction.

Blob. Not all theories of gravitons are stranger than fiction. The musings of George Gamow in the early sixties led him to suggest the neutrino/antineutrino pair as a possible graviton. Such a pair may arise in the course of neutino interactions. The three principle interactions , or branches, are the W+, the W-, and the Z0...originally called the W0. It is the latter that can be a graviton, in that .the Z is always a particle/ antiparticle.
At high energy...> 1.022 Mev, the Z may be electron/positron, or if higher, any of the .massive particle/antiparticle pairs. Less than 1.022 Mev, the Z may only be photon/anti-photon (it is it's own antiparticle), or neutrino./antineutrino(where masslessness will allow it to travel at c like gravity, and distinguish particle from anti-particle in SR)..
This conceptualization enables the Z as graviton in this mode to appear on the diagonal of the .SU(5) symmetry, interacting universally with all identifiable members.This is consistent with the precepts of GR which sees curved space affecting all that travel there, but relates asymmetrical neutrino fluxes to the curvature of the manifold
.Presently the SNO, Sudbury Neutrino Observatory is monitoring the solar neutrino flux, and determining the cross-sections over a wider range of energies than previous experiments. Knowledge of the low-energy neutrino spectrum has hampered theoretical underpinnings here, and allowed only qualitative predictions of physical effects. A number of these have been discussed at length .elsewhere in the forums. Some of these effects have been seen, have been reported, have been published. Strange, yes, fiction, no, we leave that to Hollywood, Matt, Ben, and their distinguished colleagues. ;) Pete.

[Peter Wilson]

How plausible in current science are gravitons?

As plausible as worm-holes, string-theory, branes & time-travel.

In other words, science-fiction... :)

[jami cat]

Isn't a gravitron a yet to be seen quark thingy?

[Blob]

“Somebody wake up Higgs” - Apone.

[torque of the town]

Yep, Gravitons and SF are reasonable bedfellows.

[satori]

trinitree 88,
i can make no sense whatsoever of your piece
the ( as yet hypothetical ) graviton must be massless

and Blob, Higgs is famously scalar and the graviton is supposed to be spin 2

and finaly Stylesjl,
Grow up! Don't take the stupid masses seriously! Feed them junk! They deserve no better!

[trinitree88]

[QUOTE=satori;949009]trinitree 88,
i can make no sense whatsoever of your piece
the ( as yet hypothetical ) graviton must be massless

satori. The Z0 is an even spin particle.
Below 1.022 Mev (the minimum energy to create a positron/electron pair)...the Z may only be neutrino/antineutrino or photon pair. As neutrino/antineutrino it can penetrate any object, and so act not only on the object, but through the object....it's statistical in nature. It is massless when a neutrino/antineutrino pair, not massive. It is generated by a "normal" neutrino, or antineutrino, taking momentum and energy away as it forms. Pete

[satori]

neutrinos do have mass, we know that now, don't we
an ever so slight mass of the graviton should cause tangible corrections to celestial mechanics