Curved Space VS Gravitons

Just finished reading Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' and one thing confused me. He explains gravity as not really a force, more of a the movement of matter in the curvature of space-time. He then mentions the theory of 'Gravitons' and how they are virtual particles that cause mass to be attractive to itself. Which one is it? Is gravity created by the effect of mass curving space, or is it an attraction cause by Gravitons? Maybe I miss understood, can someone please 'enlighten' me?

Tanks Heaps

some people view them as seperate theories (like me), and some think that gravitons are a part of string theory in that gravitons can be construed as the force particles evidencing a diffferent dimension acting through our universe.

it's complicated.

It is tricky. In essence general relativity does not require the existence of gravitons, curved spacetime is the origin of the gravitational force. However particle physics tells us that all forces are carried by particles. So in order for gravity to work at a distance, logically it should have a particle to carry the information.
Personally I tend to think of the curvature of space-time to be analgous to the graviton flux in space, thus they are equivalent.

Maybe this will help....

No one has ever detected a graviton. Relativity HAS made many successful predictions. Basically, gravitons are the byproduct of particle physics....

Particles Physics/Quantum and Relativity have always had issues getting along.

M-theory is an alternative to both and handles gravitons just fine.

Your question stems from the fact that basically you are reading theory...nothing is agreed upon enough to be considered fact. Gravitons are a THEORY, they have never been detected.

Hypothesis is a better word than theory. A theory implies there's experimental, mathematical, and observational evidence. Nothing is a fact