[theCoolScientist (OP)]

If they do, then theoretically how does it interact with normal matter,how does it make normal matter react with each other?

[yor_on]

photons have no anti particle that I know of. And you can't reduce a photon into parts, at least I don't think so. Gravitons would be similar to a photon, if they existed, something 'primeval' creating 'gravity'. So they should then not be reducible. The particles that have 'anti particles' is like a puzzle, in where you by changing some parts of it, get to a opposite particle. When such particles meet they interact, annihilating each other becoming radiation. The radiation is a measurable thing, so they do not go up in smoke
=

Or maybe they do?
Go up in smoke

[Bill S]

As a photon has no charge, it seems to make little sense to talk of an antiphoton.  However, I understand it is quite legitimate to consider the photon as its own antiparticle. Why would you need to do that?  You'll need someone with more knowledge than I have to answer that one. 

[theCoolScientist (OP)]

But we cant rule out the possiblity of an antiparticle,as a particle as small,chargeless as a neutrino too has an anti particle,so wat iam tryin to say z tat due to diff spin the anti particle might produce a sort of anti gravity or rather repulsion,wat do u think?any other affect?

[jeffreyH]

Rather than anti-particles there may be two types of graviton.

[CliffordK]

As a photon has no charge, it seems to make little sense to talk of an antiphoton.  However, I understand it is quite legitimate to consider the photon as its own antiparticle.

Photons are frequently (always?) released in pairs, traveling in opposite directions.  However, there may not be any fundamental difference between the two photons in the pairs other than entanglement, but they may be considered as an photon and anti-photon.

As far as gravity, there has not been any proof of the existence of a graviton. 

One of the differences between gravity and magnetism is that magnets are always bipolar (north and south poles), whereas gravity is monopolar (always sucking towards the center.  This monopolar nature of gravity may make some kind of elusive anti-gravity less likely.

[jeffreyH]

As a photon has no charge, it seems to make little sense to talk of an antiphoton.  However, I understand it is quite legitimate to consider the photon as its own antiparticle.

Photons are frequently (always?) released in pairs, traveling in opposite directions.  However, there may not be any fundamental difference between the two photons in the pairs other than entanglement, but they may be considered as an photon and anti-photon.

As far as gravity, there has not been any proof of the existence of a graviton. 

One of the differences between gravity and magnetism is that magnets are always bipolar (north and south poles), whereas gravity is monopolar (always sucking towards the center.  This monopolar nature of gravity may make some kind of elusive anti-gravity less likely.

It may be that 'anti-gravity' would result in the degeneration of solid matter.

[Ethos_]

Rather than anti-particles there may be two types of graviton.

I agree Jeff, referring to one as being anti carries with it the notion of a neutralization which would occur upon meeting it's opposite twin. When people refer to the photon as being it's own anti-particle, I consider that statement to be very misleading. When an electron and positron meet, they annihilate and produce electromagnetic radiation, photons, and possibly neutrino and anti-neutrino pairs. While the neutrino has an anti-particle, I don't believe the photon has one because when any particle meets it's anti-particle, photons are always the result.

[CliffordK]

It may be that 'anti-gravity' would result in the degeneration of solid matter.

Planets are held together and made round by gravity.  And, of course the oceans and atmosphere are held in place with gravity.  However, solids (such as a chunk of steel) are held together with covalent, ionic, and various intermolecular bonds independent of gravity.  I doubt the two are related.

[jeffreyH]

It may be that 'anti-gravity' would result in the degeneration of solid matter.

Planets are held together and made round by gravity.  And, of course the oceans and atmosphere are held in place with gravity.  However, solids (such as a chunk of steel) are held together with covalent, ionic, and various intermolecular bonds independent of gravity.  I doubt the two are related.

This is the big question. Whilst the strong and weak forces have their limits the same can not be said of gravitation. This is something I am looking into. I am developing an equation to describe the field within solids. Not an easy thing to do. I am working on the basis of spherical geometry and internal gravitational waves. Should be interesting even if wrong. The methods may produce experimentally testable hypotheses.