Dear /sci/, If gravitons are a particle, how can they escape

they don't exist, they're a placeholder theory for snobby physicists who can't just say "I don't know", kindof like dark matter

>>8582788
"u cant gravity a graviton " - einstein
its just basic biology 101

>>8582788
>If gravitons are a particle
...they're not
/thread

op doesn't understand the difference between modelling something as a particle, and a particle small portion of matter.

>>8582788
"How does gravity escape gravity?" - OP

>>8582822
>Making the claim that they don't exist
>Accuse "snobby" scientist of the exact opposite when they would gladly admit that they are not certain.
>Not knowing how science works in the least.

kys subhuman

>>8582788
They don't. Even in the classical theory, gravitational waves are not formed inside the event horizon. They are formed outside.

>>8582822
>>8582873
>>8582886
>>8582887
stupid

>>8582788
Nobody knows. There really is no theory about gravitons that actually works. /sci/ will of course pretend it's a stupid question, but it's a good question and part of why it is so difficult to find a theory of gravitons.

>>8582975
>There really is no theory about gravitons that actually work

Many string theories work

1 graviton is a unit of measure and is the minimum amount you can curve spacetime. it is the influence that 1 photon of energy (a plank photon which is the weakest) has on the pattern of space. It is a fixed-amount fold or crinkle that propegates at causality, but does not obey the traffic signs of crumpled spacetime. it travels in a straight line as measured from outside of spacetime. this is because gravity fluctuations constantly refresh their forward speed to the maximum possible value, and it is impossible to add sideways component value, as your total speed would over-exceed. Since it goes on forever and never crosses the same space twice, space must expand or else in each moment you would find a greater and greater buildup of space crinkle from the presence of gravitons from further and further out. This is a possible explanation for dark matter since the extra gravity would cause galaxies to fall-compact themselves effectively making the voids between galaxes look like they were growing slightly faster than they were.

>>8582788
So, I think I finally came to a conclusion.

First of all you don't need gravitons for this paradox to occur, standard Einstein gravity would lead to the same thoughts.

I think your problem is that you use a result from a Gravito-static calculation to describe a Gravito-dynamic process.
The field of gravity you would experience around a real black hole does not stem from the singularity itself, but from the object it was before it became a black hole.
As the object collapses it expells a gravitational field that is ever increasing in density - for an outside observer (time gets compressed) - that also has to travel through ever expanding space. I'm not sure how to calculate this stuff, but I guess in the end all the ocurring infinities will finally cancel each other out.

In simpler words: I think you experience the "old gravity" back from the time when the object wasn't a black hole yet.

>>8583067
The smell of crackpot in the morning.

>>8583072
>I think
These questions actually have answers. Stating what you think when you haven't actually studied this is harmful.

>>8583081
you think gravitons are particles. oh to be young again.

>>8583001
He means real theories. You know, provable ones that are worth our time.

>Muh, large experimental uncertainties in the CMBR
>We wuz kangs with SUSY loops in Muon lamour precession

Get bent.

>>8583117
String theory is obviously the correct solution, it is just a matter of refining. Refining our technology to reach scales where stringy corrections would be noticeable and refining our mathematics to handle the moduli problems that give the landscape issue.

Light is a particle because E=MC2
Light is interchangeable with matter

If gravity were a particle, then it too could be transformed into matter. But transforming gravity, into something that creates even MORE gravity would create a feedback loop and violate the laws of conservation of matter.
Hence, gravity is NOT a particle.

>>8583216
you are right that gravity is not a particle, but wrong that it could never be.

being matter would just mean that it has inertia, not necessarily that it causes gravity. each graviton could say carry the attraction force value of 100 other gravity particles and itself or only 4 regular matter particles.

any group of gravity particles sitting alone would intrinsically have more force potential than are required to represent, and they could easily use a small percent of their population to represent the proper force of all of the group.