Why is anyone looking for a graviton/force mediator if it's so widely accepted that that gravity is not a force, but physical curvature?

[jazamm]

The Wikipedia article on Quantum Gravity reads: "The observation that all fundamental forces except gravity have one or more known messenger particles leads researchers to believe that at least one must exist for gravity. This hypothetical particle is known as the graviton"

To which... yikes. Is this true? If so, why on earth?? Should it not instead read "the observation that gravity is a curvature and not a force leads researchers to believe that messenger particles are unlikely to be related to gravity as they are to the three forces."

Is the attempt to unify the theories really happening by just eschewing the relativistic concept of gravity and forging ahead treating it as if it were indeed a "force," and Einstein's model is just wrong?

I can't imagine anyone would do that, (although I guess the old adage "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" is possible).

Please let me know if there is any other quantum paradigm with which this is being approached, that maintains gravity is the shape of space and time, and is not a force, therefore very unlikely to be mediated by any particle. (Even if ultimately it can be modeled as such through considerable extra acrobatics).

Sorry if I seem a little incredulous, not at you folks but at the Wikipedia article and its potential for misinformation.

Please let me know what I'm misunderstanding, thanks so much in advance for your help.

 

[Nugatory]

Instead of wikipedia, you might give the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy a try: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/

 

[DaveC426913]

The very short (and very layperson's) answer is that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are mutually incompatible theories. When we try to apply them both to the same scenario, we are inundated with infinities arising from the continuous field nature of the former and the discrete particle nature of the latter. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle raises its ugly head (If it's a field, then you have can two events immeasurably close to each other, which results in energy transfers that go off-the-charts).

So, our current understanding of the compatibility of the very large with the very small has to be incomplete.

 

[PeroK]

The Wikipedia article on Quantum Gravity reads: "The observation that all fundamental forces except gravity have one or more known messenger particles leads researchers to believe that at least one must exist for gravity. This hypothetical particle is known as the graviton"

To which... yikes. Is this true? If so, why on earth?? Should it not instead read "the observation that gravity is a curvature and not a force leads researchers to believe that messenger particles are unlikely to be related to gravity as they are to the three forces."

Is the attempt to unify the theories really happening by just eschewing the relativistic concept of gravity and forging ahead treating it as if it were indeed a "force," and Einstein's model is just wrong?

I can't imagine anyone would do that, (although I guess the old adage "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" is possible).

Please let me know if there is any other quantum paradigm with which this is being approached, that maintains gravity is the shape of space and time, and is not a force, therefore very unlikely to be mediated by any particle. (Even if ultimately it can be modeled as such through considerable extra acrobatics).

Sorry if I seem a little incredulous, not at you folks but at the Wikipedia article and its potential for misinformation.

Please let me know what I'm misunderstanding, thanks so much in advance for your help.

Newton's theory of gravity gave accurate predictions for the solar system. But, it relied on instantaneous action at a distance. Newton himself was critical of his own theory in that respect. GR was a major update to Newton's theory and, although it removed action at a distance, it included no explanation of how elementary particles create spacetime curvature. GR needs an upgrade in this respect. It doesn't mean GR is wrong, just that it cannot be the whole story.

I don't believe all potential theories of quantum gravity entail gravitons. In any case, QG is proving a tough nut to crack.

 

[vela]

Sorry if I seem a little incredulous, not at you folks but at the Wikipedia article and its potential for misinformation.

Please let me know what I'm misunderstanding, thanks so much in advance for your help.

I'd say you're putting too much stock in the word force.

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2022/08/05/why-is-gravity-not-a-real-force/