Photons. gluons, and if they exist gravitons, are quantized solutions of partial differential equations that describe the behavior of fields. Several basic fields exist. All fields obey the same differential calculus. They differ in their start and "boundary" conditions these conditions correspond to the effects of artifacts that cause discontinuities. These artifacts can be point-like, such as elementary particles or they can cover regions such as black holes.

Dear Steve and Hans, The question: ‘What different quantum states should we expect for a graviton?’ is a thoughtful question. It is due in particular, since suggestions about gravitons are strictly based on the hypothesis that gravity, as one of the energies in the Universe, and must be quantified. All assumptions are based on the fallacy that gravity is separated from mass and energy. It is believed that gravitons are spin 2 particles according to quantum field theory. The graviton was never detected and thus its properties were never measured. The same is true for gravity waves.  

  ‘Energy’ is not just a fuzzy undefined thing in the Universe. Continuously, mass is converted to energy in the form of photons (e.g. the Sun, Stars, and Galaxies). Gravity of these entities leaves them at the same rate as the photons. It is logic to assume that photons and gravity will form a combined entity. The photon-graviton entities will assemble to the same entity as the pre-big-bang energy-singularity.  

Einstein and his followers missed the connection that photons and gravitons may be the same and form a duality. Thus, the photon-graviton combination was known, was not recognized, and was never before used for modeling. The properties that have been detected for the photon must be applied also to its graviton. These are the quantization of energy and gravity, and both must have a single spin as determined for photons.

I have followed up on these facts and have modeled the quantization of gravity. I suggested laboratory experiments to prove the connection between photons and gravitons. The experiments are simple enough that they might be done in about any University physical laboratory without much investment and using existing equipment.

Conclusion: Gravitons have the same properties as determined for photons, and they are forming photon-graviton entities. The gravity connection with mass/energy is the consequence of the formation of mass from the pre-Big-Bang energy singularity and consequently emanates from mass. This is the same as was assumed by Newton. Einstein’s postulate that gravity is the result of bending of space by mass is still believed by most physicists and astro-physicists. I am presently following up on Einstein’s original ideas, and I am hoping to publish my results soon.

References:

Formation of the Universe as a Crystallization Process and the Evolution of Gravity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264339506_Formation_of_the_Universe_as_a_Crystallization_Process_and_the_Evolution_of_Gravity?ev=prf_pub

2.     Photon-Graviton Duality, Gravity-Quantization, and Relativistic-Gravity-doubling. (A new History of the Universe)

       https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265931214_Photon_Graviton_Duality_and_Relativistic_Gravity_Doubling_3._A_new_History_of_the_Universe               

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3366.5121

3.        Leubner, I. H.; Gravity Experiments in the Laboratory - Using Photon-Graviton Duality

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280319285_Gravity_Experiments_in_the_Laboratory_-_Using_Photon-Graviton_Duality

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3184.3684

Leubner, I. H.; Reaction-Kinetic Expansion, Decay, Re-Formation, and the Hubble Constant of the Universe

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278029036_Reaction-Kinetic_Expansion_Decay_Re-Formation_and_the_Hubble_Constant_of_the_Universe_-Update2?ev=prf_pub                                                                                                                                                                                

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3355.6645  

Article Formation of the Universe as a Crystallization Process and t...

Article Photon-Graviton Duality and Relativistic Gravity Doubling 3....

Research Gravity Experiments in the Laboratory - Using Photon-Graviton Duality

Research Reaction-Kinetic Expansion, Decay, Re-Formation, and the Hub...

Thank you Hans and Ingo.  The reason I ask this question is so I might be able to recognise an eigenvalue equation if it could be a candidate for representing gravitons, and discount others, should they not be possible canditiates.  So the kind of thing I would like to know is: Does spin 2 mean that eigenvalues I am looking for should be +2h and -2h?  The other question that arises is: Should we expect just + & - 2h, or might there be 4 or 8 such states?  Might we have some identical eigenvalues produced from different eigenvectors?  I think we call this degeneracy?

I seem to remember from reading Feynman some years ago that spin 2 is predicted because gravity is always attractive -- there is no positive and negative charge.  Is this your understanding of why gravity is expected to be spin 2?

Thanks Steve. 

If you study the available sets of differential equations then two sets are particularly interesting. One is the set of Maxwell equations and the other is the set of quaternionic differential equations that define quaternionic differential calculus. The latter contains two second order partial differential equations of which one is a wave equation, (The homogeneous versions has solutions that are waves) Both equations have solutions to their homogeneous form that are shape keeping fronts. These are not  waves and occur only at odd numbers of participating dimensions. To my opinion photons are constructed of strings of such one dimensional solutions. Radio waves are solutions of the wave equation.

http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0111

http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0074

That a particle has spin 2 means that any preparation of the particle cannot be distinguised from the same preparation plus a rotation by 90 degrees.

Ah! Thank you Peter.  Just so I can be sure of understanding what you say, if I were to make the spin half comparison, would I be correct to say that for spin half, any preparation could not be distinguishable from the same prepearation plus 180 degrees?  

Steve.

Ah! Thank you Peter.  Just so I can be sure of understanding what you say, if I were to make the spin half comparison, would I be correct to say that for spin half, any preparation could not be distinguishable from the same prepearation plus 180 degrees?  

Steve.

Spin n/2 mean that any preparation could not be distinguishable from the same prepearation plus 360/n degrees. For instance an electron may be prepared with a magnetization in a certain direction in space. An electron has spin 1/2 and it requires a rotation of 360 degrees to recover the original state. A photon may be polarized in a certain direction. The photon has spin 1=2/2 and one cannot distinguish the preparation from the same preparation rotated 180 degrees (around the direction in which the photon is moving). Rotating a polarization filter 180 degrees makes no difference.

Dear Prof. Faulkner,

                                   If by Graviton you mean particles that can bend information when they originate from waves (environment) then I can suggest some stochastic differential equations which I have developed in my Research and verified by experiments to a considerable extent using stock market experiments at various locations i.e. coordinates in time and space and these Cartesian Systems Can give rise to Boolean Algebra systems of computer physics (internet physics also) by using Natural Learning Systems (please refer to my papers on Haag Theorem and Political Environment both using String theory and especially D-Branes String coupling, on my RG page). These Learning Laws of Econophysics along with the Learning or Information Fields can bend Information by Econophysical Actions and can be verified even by Natural Management & Engineering type experiments in Stock Market Systems. I guess I am trying to suggest that this Learning Theory along with the D-Branes String coupling Theory can explain Graviton Spins (not very precisely at least not as yet) by bending the SpaceXTime in curls in the vector fields and used for controls just like a satellite can be controlled as to its orbit by controlling the distance or angle of inclination of it from Earth's Gravity Field (Newtonian Gravity).. Earl SKM QC PhD EPS Fellow (Indirect) MES MRES MAICTE

According to theory as i understand it, a graviton is a massless particle that propagates at the speed of light. It has no charge and no electromagnetic field associated with it as the photon has. So, it would seem that it could only interact with other particles via the strong or (more likely) the weak force. Photons have an infinite number of quantum states as they are field quasiparticles. I would assume the same would be true of gravitons. The only bound states i'm aware of for photons are the orbital states around a black hole. I have not heard whether these states are quantized or not, but i would suspect they are. However, gravitons would be part of the gravitational field, so i don't know if gravitationally bound states of gravitons would exist. I doubt it.

Francis Redfern you said a graviton is a massless particle that propagates at the speed of light.

General relativity, LQG, String theory, Quantum gravity theories are wrong theories because are limited to the speed of light and do not explain the Gravitation.

“I am the first who Understood and Explained the Gravitation with high speed gravitons v = 1.001762 × 10^17 m/s, with Negative Impulse, Negative Mass and Negative Energy”                                                       Adrian Ferent

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287331589_Ferent_Gravitation_theory

Peter> Spin n/2 mean that any preparation could not be distinguishable from the same prepearation plus 360/n degrees.

So the earth, for which n is about 1075, looks exactly the same almost how little you rotate it!?! You must be talking about a different kind of spin. Perhaps the kind manipulated by spin doctors (educated at business schools?).

Regarding physical spin, the quantum states ("wave functions") of objects with half-integer spin must be rotated by 720 degrees to return exactly to itself. And only the expected 360 degrees when the object has integer spin. (Half-integer or integer when measured in units of (the reduced) Planck constant).

That is for the quantum states; what can be observed physically is another matter. But I vaguely remember a talk by Sakurai some 40 years ago, where he discussed some way of observing the 720 degree rotation effect through interference effects in a system composed of two or more objects (to be rotated relative to each other).

> Kåre 

The Earth is not a quantum particle. Or to be more precise, the Earth does not display an irreducible representation of the rotation group. Therefore one cannot assign a single spin quantum number to the Earth because the quantum numbers are labels of the different irreducible representations. 

Rotations of more than one turn (like 7200) are only relevant for quantum systems consisting of several particles. I was talking about a single particle system. In this case one may rotate one part of the system without rotating the other part of the system. One may also consider the more exotic anyon systems where the particles are confined to a plane and the representation theory becomes different. 

My main point was that your statement about the general rotation behavior of spin-n particles was completely wrong! It is good you corrected your post on this.

Dear Steve,

your question about gravitons cannot have an answer inside the usual quantum field theory (QFT). In fact, as has been previously said by Hans, gravitons should interpret quantum particles corresponding to quantum metric field. But inside QFT does not exist a quantum gravity field ! Instead in my quantum gravity theory you can recognize quantum graviton fields (namely quantum metrics) and quantum graviton particles. These are extended quantum particles without mass and charge and with quantum spin 2.

The difficulty to experimentally detect quantum graviton particles, is related to the very high energy level necessary to recognize quantum gravity phenomena.

I also proposed some ideal experiments where one can identify massive graviton particles inside protons

Interested user can be look the following papers.

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1468121812000491.

[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856.

My best regards,

Agostino

My simple conclusion: neutrinos and neutrino type radiation could carry the information of gravity changes. A neutrino structure seems to fit as longitudial waves for the gravity waves. Besides, em-waves can be the part of the whole: a photon can be modelled built from two neutrinos with opposite helicities forming a coherent transverse wave  carrying em-quantum as a phase difference in longitudial pair of neutrinos. The gravity field would be a longitudial neutrino type standing wave field in this scenario.

Thank you Agostino.

I am interested to know whether you are using a geometric theory.  By that I mean: are you a matrix represention to embody the metric?

Steve

Yes Steve !

But please consider that my geometric framework is non-commutative. The category of such manifolds is that I called quantum (super)manifolds. These are modeled on non-commutative quantum (super) spaces, built starting from some quantum (super) algebra in the sense that I introduced.

Dear Esa,

Your suspect is right ! Really you emphasized the role of neutrinos in the photons and gravitons understanding structures . In fact I proved that there exists a quantum particle, (quantum chimera) that could produce all other quantum particles as bound states of a suitable number of quantum chimeras. Between the actual known particles of the Standard Model, the ones that can be identified with quantum chimeras are just neutrinos, considered as mass-free particles, namely just as considered in the SM.

Interested users can look the following paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856.

Any elementary object must obey the differential calculus of the field in which that object resides. Localizable elementary objects are artifacts that represent vibrations or local discontinuities of that field. The gravitation field is a smoothed version of the actual field. The actual field shows much more fine detail at the quantum scale. Any graviton must be a solution of the partial differential equations that the actual field obeys. Especially the second order partial differential equations are of interest. These differential equations are purely mathematical equations that all basic fields must obey. The difference between the basic fields is caused by their start and boundary conditions. So you must first find these conditions for the actual field that carries the gravitons. A well selected mathematical test model can help. I suggest to take a look at the application of the generalized Stokes theorem onto a quaternionic manifold.

http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0340

Dear Hans,

I share the meaning of your last post, but quaternionic manifolds are not enough to encode quantum world. With this respect it is necessary to work with quantum (super) manifolds as I introduced.

My best regards,

Agostino