Graviton/Higgs Boson vs. Curved Spacetime?

Graviton Higgs Boson

The energy of interaction of particles with the Higgs field is only one of the sources of gravity. Energy density, momentum, pressure, and stress are the other sources of gravity in Einstein's general relativity. There is nothing unique about the Higgs field and gravity.

The idea that gravity curves space - so what is being curved - doesn't introduce any further conceptual problems than we had with our previous view of space-time as flat with Euclidean geometry. Curved space-time constrains things to follow a curved geodesic, flat space-time constrains things to follow a straight geodesic. For instance, if I had a curved object and a flat object made out of the same material, I wouldn't just ask the question about what the curved object was made of, I would also ask the question about what the flat object was made of. Conceptually the same.

I know that doesn't answer the question, but we do know that perfectly empty space really isn't empty. Because of the energy-time version of the uncertainty principle, the energy of space-time fluctuates around it's ground state. And there is no reason to assume that the ground state is zero - in fact evidence would support that it's not (read up on false vacuums for further info). It may be that gravitons (IF they exist) interact with the energy of the vacuum in such a way as to constrain the geometry of space-time.

They're two somewhat different models, both of which work really well at describing what they do, but can't agree on a few issues, apparently irreconcilably so. For instance, quantum physics and general relativity give completely different descriptions of what goes on in a black hole.

Anyway, as mentioned, they're both models, not necessarily direct representations of what's going on. They are just another case of the "particle-vs-field" difference, as I call it. For instance, we can think of light as an oscillating electromagnetic field (the wave model) or we can think of it as a beam of particles called photons (the particle model). Both those models work, and are accurate, even though they are, conceptually, completely different. The same thing is true for gravity.

The main aim of a theory of everything would be to reconcile the differences and develop some kind of model which would explain all possible physical interactions. There are believed to be four forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force). We have a fairly good idea how they interact, except for gravity.

The best way to think of it is probably in the way my lecturer once explained: he said that light isn't a particle or a wave. Light is light; particles and waves are just models we use to describe it. The same thing is true here.

I have always been concerned about the "curvature of space time" argument in that it seems to be an effective description of what happens rather than an analysis of why or how it happens.

Gravity, whatever it is, causes a curvature of space time which can be used to predict what happens in the vicinity.

But the question... Is gravity the RESULT of a curvature of space-time or the CAUSE of it?

So back to you.

If gravity causes something it doesn't answer what things might cause gravity.

Perhaps gravitons are involved. But I doubt that there will be anything conclusive in my lifetime.

I'm confused.

Please cite your source for your claim that "gravitation is created by the Higgs field".

While no expert in the field, not even close, I can read.

Higgs field is responsible for mass. (rest mass)

There are no "g"s in mass. (no r,v,i,t,o, nor n either)