How do "Gravitons" interact with Space ?

Have you read the Wiki article on "gravitons" ? It suggests the problem with gravitons as an explanatory device is that the "standard model" from which they arise and Einstein's relativity are incompatible.

Well gravity is pretty much the left out force preventing a fully unified theoretic explanation on how the universe works in M Theory...so far gravitons are believed to be leaking out of higher dimensions thus explaining why gravity is such a week force when compared with any of the other three in our 3 dimensional realm...aside that I was looking for any potential explanation on how these (never observed) gravitons would account for the bending of space which so far sensor data from astronomic measurement devices seams to confirm without much doubt...I mean gravity really distorts space...just popping into my mind the classical illusion of mirror projection on the observable light coming from a distant Galaxy doubled for the bending of space under the effect of extreme gravitational distortions caused by other heavy clusters of stars aligned in the way...given that seams accurate, how would any theory of a "graviton" fit in the picture ? How would such a particle interact with space itself ? How would brane theoreticians go about it ?

Looks like they wouldn't. The situation could be similar to the historical complementarity problem for electrons where wave theorists failed to explain particle properties. "How" questions tend to require some analogy with "mechanistic causality" but the assumptions about time and space which underpin such causality have been superseded. Now, the "elegance" of the mathematics reigns even though this may be counter-intuitive.

In trying to "describe" gravitons, tachyons, or even photons, you destroy their beauty - what Pythagoras called "music of the spheres". They just are:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZeroRestMassEquation.html

Well said.

For all that I care, you may well treat it as bits and Information...I very much was wondering about the description of a graviton algorithmic relation with Space...call it X and Y if you prefer..."Space" in this regard is yet another functional section of info (a simulation) operating with other sections as background...and time yet another function emerging from this relation between "Space" and "Things"...all bits of Info !...

Whatever have you been smoking, Fil Albuquerque? I want some!

...I guess you re not up to date...do some reading and you will find similar ideas coming from several specialists in the field.
Even M Brane Theoreticians often hypothesise on simulated Reality´s...I just take it a step further...

It's just that you seem to have the grasp that a 13 year kid who has read a couple of science comics, coupled with the command of English of an 8 year old recently arrived Mongolian.

...another naive ignorant troll wondering around the place in search of attention...

That is exactly the relation I linked on my previous post on this page. It answers your question with precision, so I'm not clear why you keep asking:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZeroRestMassEquation.html

Indeed, though I don't know why elegance was placed in quotes, or why it's called "counter-intuitive" when human intuition doesn't even extend to any dimensions above 4; anyone working with even elementary econometrics has to work with orthogonal dimensions higher than 4 and that bothers nobody that I know of. The OP's question has a mathematical answer and that seems to be the end of that unless and until some physical representation can be derived from an actual experiment. The most productive approach may be the one used by the late Dick Feynman - a great experimental physicist - who noted that electromagnetism is scale-invariant while gravity acts in "rococo" (love that term, so apt in this context!) ways as one approaches Planck scales.

fresco's already answered the question. The curvature of space-time is a prediction of relativity and the cause of gravitational attraction. The graviton - the exchange particle which directly mediates the interaction between two massive bodies - is a prediction of the (quantum mechanical) standard model. The two theories are competing and incompatible. If you take a relativistic view, there is no graviton. If you take certain quantum mechanical views (string theory, m-theory) there is no space-time curvature (due to mass at least). Space is merely a parameter of quantum-mechanical description of matter, and cannot do anything itself.

That much a new already...I was wondering how does Brane Theory accounts for space distortions then, the "lens effect" that Astronomers experience in their deep Space observations ? I mean Brane theory, must have something to explain in this field since it seams accurate there are in fact space distortions...
...if it is n´t a given parameter like the "graviton" or gravity itself to cause them, which it seams, what else can they attribute to the cause of such distortions ? What are the thesis on that regard, since it is curious they always match the presence of mass ?

Given I am not a mathematician, (unfortunately) although there are deducible mathematical problems at hand, and all that I want is a comprehensive model that mechanically can work out the process, I would very much require an explanation put into words with as much detail as possible to prevent missing some important step...besides such explanations should be made comprehensive to a vast majority which is curious on this regard and that otherwise would be left out...

Above it should read instead :
"...That much I knew already..."
(Multitasking is not for men... )

Since you were the one closer to provide me an insight I would very much like to ear your opinion on this...

We don't appear to share a common language so I attribute your kind comment to mathematical references (yours and mine) here, which - as you say (and is evident), show you have no mathematical background - you seem to have understood after putting in some effort. It took me also some effort (due to your English, as addressed by Contrex) to get past your careless usage of mathematical terms (like calling graviton a ...parameter (sic) which it can't possibly be in any conceivable mathematical construct) and try to guess what you really had in mind when you wrote. As of right now I'm on EST time zone packing to go overseas and so write in a hurry but as I believe you to be of good faith, and know you to have made a serious effort to understand what other posters and I tried to explain to you here, I'll make one more effort to answer you. I'll have to do this in stages and I'll begin at the beginning with Maxwell's equations:

This is Stage I


Maxwell believed in the ether. There is no such thing, but his equations work perfectly even after his hypothetical transmission medium disappears.

Think of it this way: scaffolding for constructing a tall structure is used; when well-designed and -built structures are finished, the scaffolding is taken away - it's no longer needed. Mathematical constructs work like physical constructs - if they're sound, they work with or without artificial supports.

With me so far?

On to Stage II:

This is the view of the entire visible universe in every wavelength from ultra-short to very long frequencies as mapped by the ESA's new Planck satellite:
http://www.chromoscope.net/
You can change your "view" by sliding the wavelength selector on top right of the page. This is only one view of our visible sky:


Next, and last: Stage III

Planck has no problems with what you call "lens effect". It also, being a satellite, has no prior prejudices such as assuming the existence of branes, never mind hypothesizing M- or whatever other related theories. But, if it keeps working between now and 2013, it will confirm - not necessarily the existence of Minkowsky space, that was just another mathematical construct I was using as a shorthand for relativity's spacetime continuum with "c" being an absolute limiting velocity for data transmission - but the existence of left-handedness of gravitons if, IFF (if and only if) it's really there: and this brings me to the end of this explanation on which I'm sorry I can't improve until I'm back and can log in here again. Hope that was all clear and wish you a good day. Goodbye.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928024.100-gravitys-bias-for-left-may-be-writ-in-the-sky.html

1 - I honestly appreciate your effort to explain the maths involved in a more tangible way, nevertheless, nothing was mentioned concerning the curvature of space in the presence of enormous quantity´s of mass who can create for instance a double projection of a distant galaxy to an observer aligned with it...the so mentioned "lens effect"...how does Brane Theory accounts for such effects ?

2 - As I previously mention I am well aware on the existent incompatibility´s between Quantum Mechanics or even String n´Brane Theory with General Relativity as they have completely different approaches into the problem, they speak different languages. Even if so, such phenomena as space curvature and their respective effects on observation, must have some kind of "translation" when jumping from one theory to another in order to be properly explained away...that was my initial aim when wondering about the role of the graviton with space itself...when asked about it, it seams obvious in would be theory´s of everything with or without "background" (space) that something must be said on that regard...

3 - Considering gravitons constitute part of a set of interacting variables in a theory which aims to explain something, I can´t see why they can´t be portrait as parameters, or common elements in a sequence of data strings, towards a driven goal or phenomena...perhaps you can clarify this also...

4 - Contrex in is more then clumsy aim to call for attention did n´t present any substantial argument either in favour or against anything in so far...on top of that, Mongolians need not be insulted in such a parochial and diminishing way...allors, n´importe quoi !
...again, (needs not much explaining) my nationality is Portuguese not USA nor English...I speak around four languages with a more then fair competence...I wonder how many languages he actually manages ? I would attend him in any, if he´s willing to show more then trolling ability to derail a thread...

Once more I thank you for your insights !
Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE