Do theoretical physics suggest that gravity is the exchange of gravitons or deformation/bending of spacetime?
$begingroup$
Throughout my life, I have always been taught that gravity is a simple force, however now I struggle to see that being strictly true.
Hence I wanted to ask what modern theoretical physics suggests about this: is gravity the exchange of the theoretical particle graviton or rather a 'bend' in space due to the presence of matter?
I don't need a concrete answer, but rather which side the modern physics and research is leaning to.
Thank You
gravity spacetime curvature quantum-gravity carrier-particles
New contributor
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Throughout my life, I have always been taught that gravity is a simple force, however now I struggle to see that being strictly true.
Hence I wanted to ask what modern theoretical physics suggests about this: is gravity the exchange of the theoretical particle graviton or rather a 'bend' in space due to the presence of matter?
I don't need a concrete answer, but rather which side the modern physics and research is leaning to.
Thank You
gravity spacetime curvature quantum-gravity carrier-particles
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I think that whichever model suits your need the best should get the job done. But then again I am not a Physicist.
$endgroup$
– harshit54
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well, even if you are not a physicist this is still a good point, so thank you.
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@steve_jyst_steve: I was struggling to understand what was being asked here, so I took a moment to correct the grammar and phrasing. If you’re not happy with that, please just roll-back.
$endgroup$
– Mozibur Ullah
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MoziburUllah Hello, and thank you very much for doing that, definitely sound better now!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
An article in the New Yorker about looking at the same "thing" using different stances: A Different Kind of Theory of Everything (via Peter Woit's blog)
$endgroup$
– David Tonhofer
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Throughout my life, I have always been taught that gravity is a simple force, however now I struggle to see that being strictly true.
Hence I wanted to ask what modern theoretical physics suggests about this: is gravity the exchange of the theoretical particle graviton or rather a 'bend' in space due to the presence of matter?
I don't need a concrete answer, but rather which side the modern physics and research is leaning to.
Thank You
gravity spacetime curvature quantum-gravity carrier-particles
New contributor
$endgroup$
Throughout my life, I have always been taught that gravity is a simple force, however now I struggle to see that being strictly true.
Hence I wanted to ask what modern theoretical physics suggests about this: is gravity the exchange of the theoretical particle graviton or rather a 'bend' in space due to the presence of matter?
I don't need a concrete answer, but rather which side the modern physics and research is leaning to.
Thank You
gravity spacetime curvature quantum-gravity carrier-particles
gravity spacetime curvature quantum-gravity carrier-particles
New contributor
New contributor
edited 9 hours ago
Mozibur Ullah
4,97432252
4,97432252
New contributor
asked 14 hours ago
steve_just_stevesteve_just_steve
637
637
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
I think that whichever model suits your need the best should get the job done. But then again I am not a Physicist.
$endgroup$
– harshit54
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well, even if you are not a physicist this is still a good point, so thank you.
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@steve_jyst_steve: I was struggling to understand what was being asked here, so I took a moment to correct the grammar and phrasing. If you’re not happy with that, please just roll-back.
$endgroup$
– Mozibur Ullah
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MoziburUllah Hello, and thank you very much for doing that, definitely sound better now!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
An article in the New Yorker about looking at the same "thing" using different stances: A Different Kind of Theory of Everything (via Peter Woit's blog)
$endgroup$
– David Tonhofer
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
I think that whichever model suits your need the best should get the job done. But then again I am not a Physicist.
$endgroup$
– harshit54
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well, even if you are not a physicist this is still a good point, so thank you.
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@steve_jyst_steve: I was struggling to understand what was being asked here, so I took a moment to correct the grammar and phrasing. If you’re not happy with that, please just roll-back.
$endgroup$
– Mozibur Ullah
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MoziburUllah Hello, and thank you very much for doing that, definitely sound better now!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
An article in the New Yorker about looking at the same "thing" using different stances: A Different Kind of Theory of Everything (via Peter Woit's blog)
$endgroup$
– David Tonhofer
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I think that whichever model suits your need the best should get the job done. But then again I am not a Physicist.
$endgroup$
– harshit54
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think that whichever model suits your need the best should get the job done. But then again I am not a Physicist.
$endgroup$
– harshit54
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well, even if you are not a physicist this is still a good point, so thank you.
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well, even if you are not a physicist this is still a good point, so thank you.
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@steve_jyst_steve: I was struggling to understand what was being asked here, so I took a moment to correct the grammar and phrasing. If you’re not happy with that, please just roll-back.
$endgroup$
– Mozibur Ullah
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@steve_jyst_steve: I was struggling to understand what was being asked here, so I took a moment to correct the grammar and phrasing. If you’re not happy with that, please just roll-back.
$endgroup$
– Mozibur Ullah
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MoziburUllah Hello, and thank you very much for doing that, definitely sound better now!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MoziburUllah Hello, and thank you very much for doing that, definitely sound better now!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
An article in the New Yorker about looking at the same "thing" using different stances: A Different Kind of Theory of Everything (via Peter Woit's blog)
$endgroup$
– David Tonhofer
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
An article in the New Yorker about looking at the same "thing" using different stances: A Different Kind of Theory of Everything (via Peter Woit's blog)
$endgroup$
– David Tonhofer
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Both.
General relativity describes gravity as curvature of spacetime, and general relativity is an extremely successful theory. Its correct predictions about gravitational waves, as verified directly by LIGO, are especially severe tests.
Gravity also has to be quantum-mechanical, because all the other forces of nature are quantum-mechanical, and when you try to couple a classical (i.e., non-quantum-mechanical) system to a quantum-mechanical one, it doesn't work. See Carlip and Adelman for a discussion of this.
So we know that gravity has to be described both as curvature of spacetime and as the exchange of gravitons. That's not inherently a contradiction. We do similar things with the other forces. We just haven't been able to make it work for gravity.
Carlip, "Is Quantum Gravity Necessary?," http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3456
Adelman, "The Necessity of Quantizing Gravity," http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.07195
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Hey man, the links you sent are very useful and this really helped clear up certain misconceptions I had about gravity, so it can and in fact is very likely to be both. Thank you very much :-) !!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
11 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
This is probably a naive question, but wouldn't gravitons also produce gravitational waves, since the other forces do, e.g. EM waves?
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@gardenhead physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215173/… This suggests that gravitons are to gravitational waves as photons are to electromagnetic waves. So if my understanding is correct (don't bet on it, I mostly know classical physics), it is more like saying the graviton is the carrier on the quantum level for the gravatational waves.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@JMac Your understanding is correct indeed.
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
" We do similar things with the other forces..." though it is clear what you mean (namely that force carriers particles naturally arise from gauge theories) this sentence is per sé slightly incorrect. The other forces live on a fixed (local) geometry at most coupling to it; they have the natural units to be (perturbatively) renormalisable - which is arguably not the case for the gravitational field (so in this respect it is indeed different from the pack).
$endgroup$
– gented
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gravity is as simple a force as all the others, which means that its simple when not looked at too closely, and far more sophisticated when it is. Given that it’s generally supposed all forces are merely low energy relics of a single high energy one, we might suppose that all the forces are as complicated as each other when looked at closely.
Popularly, Gravity is seen as different from the other forces in that its geometric. It turns out that the other forces are also geometric. Nevertheless, the main difference is that in gravity, the metric tensor, which tells us how to measure distances, times and angles is directly implicated in a way that it isn’t in the other forces. For example, there are two equations in EM, one of which does not involve the metric and hence seen as topological, and the other, which does (via the Hodge star) and hence, is coupled with gravity. The other two forces, the weak and strong force are modelled as gauge theories of the Yang-Mills type and hence directly generalising the EM equations. So similarly, they also have a topological and metric aspect, and the latter means it couples to gravity.
Now, whilst gravity hasn’t yet been quantised with several ongoing major projects that attempt this there are several partial semi-classical results which are used to help orientate research into this. One such result is that the quanta of gravity, the graviton, is a massless spin-2 particle. This is understood by looking at a linearisation of gravity which is used in the theory of gravitational radiation, and then by quantising this to show we have a massless spin-2 particle, aka the graviton.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your answer! Linearisation of gravity is definitely something to look into for me :-)!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
steve_just_steve is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f463327%2fdo-theoretical-physics-suggest-that-gravity-is-the-exchange-of-gravitons-or-defo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Both.
General relativity describes gravity as curvature of spacetime, and general relativity is an extremely successful theory. Its correct predictions about gravitational waves, as verified directly by LIGO, are especially severe tests.
Gravity also has to be quantum-mechanical, because all the other forces of nature are quantum-mechanical, and when you try to couple a classical (i.e., non-quantum-mechanical) system to a quantum-mechanical one, it doesn't work. See Carlip and Adelman for a discussion of this.
So we know that gravity has to be described both as curvature of spacetime and as the exchange of gravitons. That's not inherently a contradiction. We do similar things with the other forces. We just haven't been able to make it work for gravity.
Carlip, "Is Quantum Gravity Necessary?," http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3456
Adelman, "The Necessity of Quantizing Gravity," http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.07195
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Hey man, the links you sent are very useful and this really helped clear up certain misconceptions I had about gravity, so it can and in fact is very likely to be both. Thank you very much :-) !!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
11 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
This is probably a naive question, but wouldn't gravitons also produce gravitational waves, since the other forces do, e.g. EM waves?
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@gardenhead physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215173/… This suggests that gravitons are to gravitational waves as photons are to electromagnetic waves. So if my understanding is correct (don't bet on it, I mostly know classical physics), it is more like saying the graviton is the carrier on the quantum level for the gravatational waves.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@JMac Your understanding is correct indeed.
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
" We do similar things with the other forces..." though it is clear what you mean (namely that force carriers particles naturally arise from gauge theories) this sentence is per sé slightly incorrect. The other forces live on a fixed (local) geometry at most coupling to it; they have the natural units to be (perturbatively) renormalisable - which is arguably not the case for the gravitational field (so in this respect it is indeed different from the pack).
$endgroup$
– gented
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Both.
General relativity describes gravity as curvature of spacetime, and general relativity is an extremely successful theory. Its correct predictions about gravitational waves, as verified directly by LIGO, are especially severe tests.
Gravity also has to be quantum-mechanical, because all the other forces of nature are quantum-mechanical, and when you try to couple a classical (i.e., non-quantum-mechanical) system to a quantum-mechanical one, it doesn't work. See Carlip and Adelman for a discussion of this.
So we know that gravity has to be described both as curvature of spacetime and as the exchange of gravitons. That's not inherently a contradiction. We do similar things with the other forces. We just haven't been able to make it work for gravity.
Carlip, "Is Quantum Gravity Necessary?," http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3456
Adelman, "The Necessity of Quantizing Gravity," http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.07195
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Hey man, the links you sent are very useful and this really helped clear up certain misconceptions I had about gravity, so it can and in fact is very likely to be both. Thank you very much :-) !!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
11 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
This is probably a naive question, but wouldn't gravitons also produce gravitational waves, since the other forces do, e.g. EM waves?
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@gardenhead physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215173/… This suggests that gravitons are to gravitational waves as photons are to electromagnetic waves. So if my understanding is correct (don't bet on it, I mostly know classical physics), it is more like saying the graviton is the carrier on the quantum level for the gravatational waves.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@JMac Your understanding is correct indeed.
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
" We do similar things with the other forces..." though it is clear what you mean (namely that force carriers particles naturally arise from gauge theories) this sentence is per sé slightly incorrect. The other forces live on a fixed (local) geometry at most coupling to it; they have the natural units to be (perturbatively) renormalisable - which is arguably not the case for the gravitational field (so in this respect it is indeed different from the pack).
$endgroup$
– gented
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Both.
General relativity describes gravity as curvature of spacetime, and general relativity is an extremely successful theory. Its correct predictions about gravitational waves, as verified directly by LIGO, are especially severe tests.
Gravity also has to be quantum-mechanical, because all the other forces of nature are quantum-mechanical, and when you try to couple a classical (i.e., non-quantum-mechanical) system to a quantum-mechanical one, it doesn't work. See Carlip and Adelman for a discussion of this.
So we know that gravity has to be described both as curvature of spacetime and as the exchange of gravitons. That's not inherently a contradiction. We do similar things with the other forces. We just haven't been able to make it work for gravity.
Carlip, "Is Quantum Gravity Necessary?," http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3456
Adelman, "The Necessity of Quantizing Gravity," http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.07195
$endgroup$
Both.
General relativity describes gravity as curvature of spacetime, and general relativity is an extremely successful theory. Its correct predictions about gravitational waves, as verified directly by LIGO, are especially severe tests.
Gravity also has to be quantum-mechanical, because all the other forces of nature are quantum-mechanical, and when you try to couple a classical (i.e., non-quantum-mechanical) system to a quantum-mechanical one, it doesn't work. See Carlip and Adelman for a discussion of this.
So we know that gravity has to be described both as curvature of spacetime and as the exchange of gravitons. That's not inherently a contradiction. We do similar things with the other forces. We just haven't been able to make it work for gravity.
Carlip, "Is Quantum Gravity Necessary?," http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3456
Adelman, "The Necessity of Quantizing Gravity," http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.07195
answered 12 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
51.7k6157304
51.7k6157304
$begingroup$
Hey man, the links you sent are very useful and this really helped clear up certain misconceptions I had about gravity, so it can and in fact is very likely to be both. Thank you very much :-) !!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
11 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
This is probably a naive question, but wouldn't gravitons also produce gravitational waves, since the other forces do, e.g. EM waves?
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@gardenhead physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215173/… This suggests that gravitons are to gravitational waves as photons are to electromagnetic waves. So if my understanding is correct (don't bet on it, I mostly know classical physics), it is more like saying the graviton is the carrier on the quantum level for the gravatational waves.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@JMac Your understanding is correct indeed.
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
" We do similar things with the other forces..." though it is clear what you mean (namely that force carriers particles naturally arise from gauge theories) this sentence is per sé slightly incorrect. The other forces live on a fixed (local) geometry at most coupling to it; they have the natural units to be (perturbatively) renormalisable - which is arguably not the case for the gravitational field (so in this respect it is indeed different from the pack).
$endgroup$
– gented
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hey man, the links you sent are very useful and this really helped clear up certain misconceptions I had about gravity, so it can and in fact is very likely to be both. Thank you very much :-) !!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
11 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
This is probably a naive question, but wouldn't gravitons also produce gravitational waves, since the other forces do, e.g. EM waves?
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@gardenhead physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215173/… This suggests that gravitons are to gravitational waves as photons are to electromagnetic waves. So if my understanding is correct (don't bet on it, I mostly know classical physics), it is more like saying the graviton is the carrier on the quantum level for the gravatational waves.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@JMac Your understanding is correct indeed.
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
" We do similar things with the other forces..." though it is clear what you mean (namely that force carriers particles naturally arise from gauge theories) this sentence is per sé slightly incorrect. The other forces live on a fixed (local) geometry at most coupling to it; they have the natural units to be (perturbatively) renormalisable - which is arguably not the case for the gravitational field (so in this respect it is indeed different from the pack).
$endgroup$
– gented
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hey man, the links you sent are very useful and this really helped clear up certain misconceptions I had about gravity, so it can and in fact is very likely to be both. Thank you very much :-) !!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hey man, the links you sent are very useful and this really helped clear up certain misconceptions I had about gravity, so it can and in fact is very likely to be both. Thank you very much :-) !!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
11 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
This is probably a naive question, but wouldn't gravitons also produce gravitational waves, since the other forces do, e.g. EM waves?
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is probably a naive question, but wouldn't gravitons also produce gravitational waves, since the other forces do, e.g. EM waves?
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@gardenhead physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215173/… This suggests that gravitons are to gravitational waves as photons are to electromagnetic waves. So if my understanding is correct (don't bet on it, I mostly know classical physics), it is more like saying the graviton is the carrier on the quantum level for the gravatational waves.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@gardenhead physics.stackexchange.com/questions/215173/… This suggests that gravitons are to gravitational waves as photons are to electromagnetic waves. So if my understanding is correct (don't bet on it, I mostly know classical physics), it is more like saying the graviton is the carrier on the quantum level for the gravatational waves.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@JMac Your understanding is correct indeed.
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JMac Your understanding is correct indeed.
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
" We do similar things with the other forces..." though it is clear what you mean (namely that force carriers particles naturally arise from gauge theories) this sentence is per sé slightly incorrect. The other forces live on a fixed (local) geometry at most coupling to it; they have the natural units to be (perturbatively) renormalisable - which is arguably not the case for the gravitational field (so in this respect it is indeed different from the pack).
$endgroup$
– gented
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
" We do similar things with the other forces..." though it is clear what you mean (namely that force carriers particles naturally arise from gauge theories) this sentence is per sé slightly incorrect. The other forces live on a fixed (local) geometry at most coupling to it; they have the natural units to be (perturbatively) renormalisable - which is arguably not the case for the gravitational field (so in this respect it is indeed different from the pack).
$endgroup$
– gented
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gravity is as simple a force as all the others, which means that its simple when not looked at too closely, and far more sophisticated when it is. Given that it’s generally supposed all forces are merely low energy relics of a single high energy one, we might suppose that all the forces are as complicated as each other when looked at closely.
Popularly, Gravity is seen as different from the other forces in that its geometric. It turns out that the other forces are also geometric. Nevertheless, the main difference is that in gravity, the metric tensor, which tells us how to measure distances, times and angles is directly implicated in a way that it isn’t in the other forces. For example, there are two equations in EM, one of which does not involve the metric and hence seen as topological, and the other, which does (via the Hodge star) and hence, is coupled with gravity. The other two forces, the weak and strong force are modelled as gauge theories of the Yang-Mills type and hence directly generalising the EM equations. So similarly, they also have a topological and metric aspect, and the latter means it couples to gravity.
Now, whilst gravity hasn’t yet been quantised with several ongoing major projects that attempt this there are several partial semi-classical results which are used to help orientate research into this. One such result is that the quanta of gravity, the graviton, is a massless spin-2 particle. This is understood by looking at a linearisation of gravity which is used in the theory of gravitational radiation, and then by quantising this to show we have a massless spin-2 particle, aka the graviton.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your answer! Linearisation of gravity is definitely something to look into for me :-)!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gravity is as simple a force as all the others, which means that its simple when not looked at too closely, and far more sophisticated when it is. Given that it’s generally supposed all forces are merely low energy relics of a single high energy one, we might suppose that all the forces are as complicated as each other when looked at closely.
Popularly, Gravity is seen as different from the other forces in that its geometric. It turns out that the other forces are also geometric. Nevertheless, the main difference is that in gravity, the metric tensor, which tells us how to measure distances, times and angles is directly implicated in a way that it isn’t in the other forces. For example, there are two equations in EM, one of which does not involve the metric and hence seen as topological, and the other, which does (via the Hodge star) and hence, is coupled with gravity. The other two forces, the weak and strong force are modelled as gauge theories of the Yang-Mills type and hence directly generalising the EM equations. So similarly, they also have a topological and metric aspect, and the latter means it couples to gravity.
Now, whilst gravity hasn’t yet been quantised with several ongoing major projects that attempt this there are several partial semi-classical results which are used to help orientate research into this. One such result is that the quanta of gravity, the graviton, is a massless spin-2 particle. This is understood by looking at a linearisation of gravity which is used in the theory of gravitational radiation, and then by quantising this to show we have a massless spin-2 particle, aka the graviton.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your answer! Linearisation of gravity is definitely something to look into for me :-)!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gravity is as simple a force as all the others, which means that its simple when not looked at too closely, and far more sophisticated when it is. Given that it’s generally supposed all forces are merely low energy relics of a single high energy one, we might suppose that all the forces are as complicated as each other when looked at closely.
Popularly, Gravity is seen as different from the other forces in that its geometric. It turns out that the other forces are also geometric. Nevertheless, the main difference is that in gravity, the metric tensor, which tells us how to measure distances, times and angles is directly implicated in a way that it isn’t in the other forces. For example, there are two equations in EM, one of which does not involve the metric and hence seen as topological, and the other, which does (via the Hodge star) and hence, is coupled with gravity. The other two forces, the weak and strong force are modelled as gauge theories of the Yang-Mills type and hence directly generalising the EM equations. So similarly, they also have a topological and metric aspect, and the latter means it couples to gravity.
Now, whilst gravity hasn’t yet been quantised with several ongoing major projects that attempt this there are several partial semi-classical results which are used to help orientate research into this. One such result is that the quanta of gravity, the graviton, is a massless spin-2 particle. This is understood by looking at a linearisation of gravity which is used in the theory of gravitational radiation, and then by quantising this to show we have a massless spin-2 particle, aka the graviton.
$endgroup$
Gravity is as simple a force as all the others, which means that its simple when not looked at too closely, and far more sophisticated when it is. Given that it’s generally supposed all forces are merely low energy relics of a single high energy one, we might suppose that all the forces are as complicated as each other when looked at closely.
Popularly, Gravity is seen as different from the other forces in that its geometric. It turns out that the other forces are also geometric. Nevertheless, the main difference is that in gravity, the metric tensor, which tells us how to measure distances, times and angles is directly implicated in a way that it isn’t in the other forces. For example, there are two equations in EM, one of which does not involve the metric and hence seen as topological, and the other, which does (via the Hodge star) and hence, is coupled with gravity. The other two forces, the weak and strong force are modelled as gauge theories of the Yang-Mills type and hence directly generalising the EM equations. So similarly, they also have a topological and metric aspect, and the latter means it couples to gravity.
Now, whilst gravity hasn’t yet been quantised with several ongoing major projects that attempt this there are several partial semi-classical results which are used to help orientate research into this. One such result is that the quanta of gravity, the graviton, is a massless spin-2 particle. This is understood by looking at a linearisation of gravity which is used in the theory of gravitational radiation, and then by quantising this to show we have a massless spin-2 particle, aka the graviton.
answered 9 hours ago
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
4,97432252
4,97432252
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your answer! Linearisation of gravity is definitely something to look into for me :-)!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your answer! Linearisation of gravity is definitely something to look into for me :-)!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your answer! Linearisation of gravity is definitely something to look into for me :-)!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you very much for your answer! Linearisation of gravity is definitely something to look into for me :-)!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
9 hours ago
add a comment |
steve_just_steve is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
steve_just_steve is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
steve_just_steve is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
steve_just_steve is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f463327%2fdo-theoretical-physics-suggest-that-gravity-is-the-exchange-of-gravitons-or-defo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
I think that whichever model suits your need the best should get the job done. But then again I am not a Physicist.
$endgroup$
– harshit54
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well, even if you are not a physicist this is still a good point, so thank you.
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@steve_jyst_steve: I was struggling to understand what was being asked here, so I took a moment to correct the grammar and phrasing. If you’re not happy with that, please just roll-back.
$endgroup$
– Mozibur Ullah
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MoziburUllah Hello, and thank you very much for doing that, definitely sound better now!
$endgroup$
– steve_just_steve
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
An article in the New Yorker about looking at the same "thing" using different stances: A Different Kind of Theory of Everything (via Peter Woit's blog)
$endgroup$
– David Tonhofer
9 hours ago