I understand how a gauge boson can create a field that looks like gravity, but how can a force carrying particle explain the draggin of time frames or the dilation of time? That is, if a graviton were discovered tomorrow that explained the attraction as a force (instead of warping of spacetime), how would we explain the other effects of spacetime curvature such as time dilation and frame dragging around a spinning mass?

EDIT: I'm not asking anyone to resolve the question of Quantum Gravity. I'm asking specifically about time. How can a gauge boson explain how time at the bottom of a gravity well proceeds at a different rate than time outside a gravity well.This is a particle physics question. What property of particle physics have you discovered that changes how time flows?

EDIT 2: I've done the courtesy of reading through the posts that you've suggested. Do me the courtesy of reading mine. I have a specific question about time that none of your posts address. What property of QFT allows a particle to alter the flow of time?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Does this answer your question? Nature of gravity: gravitons, curvature of space-time or both? $\endgroup$ – PM 2Ring Apr 2 '20 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ Also, physics.stackexchange.com/q/75457/123208 and the questions linked there. $\endgroup$ – PM 2Ring Apr 2 '20 at 20:48
  • $\begingroup$ FWIW, I tend to agree with Jerry Schirmer's answer in the 2nd question I linked, but as the accepted answer to that question mentions, "it's been asked but never answered satisfactorily", and we really do need a quantum gravity theory to give an answer we can be confident of. Also, it may be a long time before we can directly detect gravitons (if they do indeed exist), we've only just started being able to detect intense gravitational waves. So we're kind of stuck, both theoretically and empirically. ;) $\endgroup$ – PM 2Ring Apr 2 '20 at 22:28
  • $\begingroup$ @PM2Ring - I'll emphasis my question here because you brought it up. Let's say, for the sake of argument, the LHC discovers a graviton tomorrow. How will you then explain Time Dilation if a force carrying particle is responsible for gravity? I'm havig a difficult time understanding this need to unify QFT and gravity when QFT will never solve the issues that GR solves. $\endgroup$ – user32023 Apr 2 '20 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not trying to give you the run-around, I just don't think you'll get a more satisfactory answer than what's already on the site. $\endgroup$ – PM 2Ring Apr 3 '20 at 0:42

What property of QFT allows a particle to alter the flow of time?

I'll paraphrase :

"What property of QFT allows a proton to alter the flow of time?"

or any particle or composite of particles ? In the mainstream model of physics, all matter is composed of standard model particles in an infinity of combinations.

The LHC will not find a graviton, because the couplings are such that in the time frame the experiments run there is an infinitesimally small probability to see with the LHC detectors the interactions of a graviton, but let us suppose it exists. Let us suppose that the effective field theories using gravitons for cosmological models prove right.

The graviton then will be one more particle in the table of the future standard model of particle physics.

Now take General Relativity , where the energy momentum tensor distorts space time according to Einstein's equations.


There is no dependence of this equation on quantum field theory, evidently.

The proton, described in the framework of genera relatity will distort space according to its energy-momentum four vector . Quantum field theory has no mathematical meaning in the general relativity equations, they are two different mathematical models of how nature behaves. There is on going research to reconcile the two frameworks by quantizing gravity, but this does not change the answer of space time distortions which are a general relativity effect: it is the fourvectors of particles that distort space time.

You seem to think that there is something special about the graviton, but , if it exists it will also have a fourvector and will distort space time according to the Einstein equations. There is nothing special to gauge bosons that general relativity can distinguish, no "property" of QFT affects space time variables.

How is it possible for a graviton to drag time frames and dilate time?

By its four vector.

Now string theories are theories at present that can model general relativity and quantum mechanical entities , and quantum field theory is expressed in these models, thus unifying mathematically the general relativity framework, and the quantum mechanical framework, but there is no definite theory that can be predictive of data. It may be that LHC can help there by finding new particles that could pick up a theory that unifies everything, but we are not there yet.

  • $\begingroup$ No! Your answer is logically absurd. If the graviton is found tomorrow, then GR is disproven. All it's implications go away. You can't say that both GR and the graviton provide the attractive force between massive bodies; it's one or the other. If the graviton provides the attractive force, then there is no theory here that distorts time unless that's some property provided by the graviton. That's the obvious implications here. $\endgroup$ – user32023 Apr 3 '20 at 11:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Quarkly you keep mixing up frameworks. The graviton was almost detected by the BICEP2 experiment, except that the effect they measured in the polarization of the gravitational waves could not be separated from the dust in the empty spaces. arxiv.org/abs/1707.06755 . During the time the astrophysics community was accepting the premises of the first publication there was absolutely no problem with general relativity. As electromagnetic waves emerge from a superposition of photons, so will gravitational waves emerge from a superposition of gravitons $\endgroup$ – anna v Apr 3 '20 at 11:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ . No problem. Forces have no meaning in general relativity. . In the phase space where galilean relativity applies , forces are emergent from the mathematics of general relativity in flat spaces. You have to learn not to mix up mathematical frameworks. $\endgroup$ – anna v Apr 3 '20 at 11:54
  • $\begingroup$ You are the one mixing the frameworks. This is an incontrovertible fact: you can't say that both GR and QFT provide the attraction between two objects with mass. Pick one. If you pick GR, then you can explain time dilation through the warping of spacetime. If you pick QFT, then you can explain the attraction, but you can't explain the time dilation. You don't have the option of saying both provide the attraction. $\endgroup$ – user32023 Apr 3 '20 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ This is the last time: mixing mathematical frameworks creates the confusion. Theorsists have the mathematics for when frameworks overlap to have consistency, otherwise one of the models is rejected. QFT is at the microcosm. GR is for large masses and velocities. In the overlap, consistency can be found, but the vocabulary of "attraction" does not belong to QFT , one uses "interactions". , "attraction belongs to the newtonian framework, which is at the limit of GR and consistent. I am not saying both I am saying each in its phasespace of variables. $\endgroup$ – anna v Apr 3 '20 at 12:14