well this is a good perspective with which one could move forward and explain it for us lay people here? :)

**Lubos Motl**:

The graviton is, on the contrary, an example of a correct derivation from semiclassical gravity - a legitimate approximate unification of GR and QM. Its existence follows from the theories we have, even given some degree of ignorance of quantum gravity at higher energies, and at the semiclassical level, it is absolutely analogous to the photon.

The only difference is the value of the spin, the geometric interpretation of the graviton, and ultraviolet divergences from loops.

I might have had wrong ideas here about what the graviton as a force carrier "proposed?" To exemplified what gravity is...as a further extension of the theory of general relativity? Lubos sets it straight then on such joinings.

This is the crucial difference between the dark energy and modified gravity hypothesis, since, by the former, no observable deviation is predicted at short distances," Dvali says. "Virtual gravitons exploit every possible route between the objects, and the leakage opens up a huge number of multidimensional detours, which bring about a change in the law of gravity."

Dvali adds that the impact of modified gravity is able to be tested by experiments other than the large distance cosmological observations. One example is the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment that monitors the lunar orbit with an extraordinary precision by shooting the lasers to the moon and detecting the reflected beam. The beam is reflected by retro-reflecting mirrors originally placed on the lunar surface by the astronauts of the Apollo 11 mission.

I myself might find it nice to have the origins of how this graviton came about. How one might be mistaken to have seen the bulk as a teaming with them(blackholes?), and such congregations telling, about places stronger then, while others are weaker.

How telling is the photon as it travels through these spaces? What was the initial trigger that set things free as Hawking radiation? Some analogies there to consider as well:)

So it would be nice then if one could find analogies that would sit well and sink deep. You know that the general public likes to think easy, and not finding relevant all the dressings of mathematical explanations. Or do they?

Is it wrong to move so far ahead theoretically to be called a charlatan, by those who recognized the limitiations of experimentally proving it?