Is gravity really a force?

[Sepiraph]

The nomenclature of calling gravity a force or not is really rather irrelevant, ultimately we'll just have to wait and see if the Higgs boson can be found to test our model of gravity within the QFT/SM framework.

 

Keep in mind, however that the Newtonian force-vector approach of gravity works very well classically, so really there is no argument macroscopically.

[timo]

[...] ultimately we'll just have to wait and see if the Higgs boson can be found to test our model of gravity within the QFT/SM framework.

Can you expand on what you mean with that statement? Gravitational interactions certainly isn´t part of the Standard Model so what would you expect from finding or not finding the Higgs boson?

And please don´t use ugly colors .

[Sepiraph]

Can you expand on what you mean with that statement? Gravitational interactions certainly isn´t part of the Standard Model so what would you expect from finding or not finding the Higgs boson?

And please don´t use ugly colors .

 

Although gravitational interaction isn't included in the Standard Model, there is certainly the hypothetical elementary particle of graviton to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory. In regards to Higgs boson, I think a correct understanding in the mechanism on the origins of the mass of other elementary particles would be important in contributing to the understanding of gravity, or perhaps you have good reasons to naysay otherwise?

 

Otherwise, I just happen to find argument on nomenclature rather trivial, afterall if you call a rose by any other name would it smell as sweet?

 

Disclaimer: I'm certainly not an expert on quantum gravity or String Theory.

 

p.s. I haven't violated any forum rules in using a colour that I find pleasing, and as a forum that strive to promote sharing and learning, I think the freedom of expression in the use of different colours should be encourged, rather than stifled. If you happen to find it ugly, that's fine and it is your own personal aesthetic. (Also you browser has an option to set a default to all the text colour).

[Severian]

Although gravitational interaction isn't included in the Standard Model, there is certainly the hypothetical elementary particle of graviton to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory.

I would like to clarify that the graviton is not part of the Standard Model. I don't think you were claiming it was, but your phrasology may be unclear to our other members.

 

In regards to Higgs boson, I think a correct understanding in the mechanism on the origins of the mass of other elementary particles would be important in contributing to the understanding of gravity, or perhaps you have good reasons to naysay otherwise?

 

I am interested why you think this. I actually agree, but I think we may have different reasons for thinking this. My reasoning would be that the form of the Higgs couplings and any possible solution to the hierarchy problem that plagues it would give us hints of new physics beyond the Standard Model. Any new physics would presumably help point us towards the correct formulation of gravity, even if as just an effective theory.

 

However, no matter what we discover, gravity is still undeniably a force, under any reasonable definition of the word 'force'.

[CanadaAotS]

This is a spherically symmetric system, or nearly. You can go around the Earth and not fall off, at least off the Earth.

 

"Nearly" is right... Sorry about the off topicness...

 

But apparently people living in and around the Hudson Bay area of Canada weigh a whole 2.8 grams less then people in the US...

 

Has to do with the compactification of the crust from the ice glaciers that rested there thousands of years ago...

[Klaynos]

"Nearly" is right... Sorry about the off topicness...

 

But apparently people living in and around the Hudson Bay area of Canada weigh a whole 2.8 grams less then people in the US...

 

Has to do with the compactification of the crust from the ice glaciers that rested there thousands of years ago...

 

You use the word weigh and then promptly use a unit of mass.... Weight is measured in Newtons, and I'd assume that's what you really mean :|

[CanadaAotS]

You assume right.

 

When I said "a few gram less" I meant it in context with force... as in the force a few grams exert towards the center at earth from the surface -.-'

 

You know that grams / kilograms are used as a unit of weight as well as mass in countries that use metric right?

[Klaynos]

You assume right.

 

When I said "a few gram less" I meant it in context with force... as in the force a few grams exert towards the center at earth from the surface -.-'

 

You know that grams / kilograms are used as a unit of weight as well as mass in countries that use metric right?

 

I am in a country that uses metric.

 

And when people say weight in day to day use, they mean mass. A gram cannot be a unit of weight.

 

gram * 9.81 (ish) = mN

 

Which would be about 0.0028N difference.

 

Grams are not like pounds in imperial where there is a force and mass unit called the same.

[samsingh]

Now wait. Hear me out first before jumping to conclusions.

 

We often take for granted the thought that gravity is a force, but if it were a force, it wouldn't be constant because if it were constant, an object of less mass would accelerate more rapidly than an object of greater mass due to inverse proportionality. Force is mass times accelertion, so if the force were constant, and the mass decreased, then the acceleration must increase. But that's not the case. All free-falling objects in a vacuum affected by the same source of gravity accelerate uniformly.

 

The only way these two problems could be solved is if you were to say that gravity is not constant, but that wouldn't make sense in Newtonian physics because absolutely nothing about the earth changes, not its mass, not its density, nothing, and according to everything I've been raised to know, you cannot change just one thing in the universe without changing at least one more thing.

 

And to top it all off, gravity, supposedly a force, is not even measured in Newtons, the standard unit of force. It's measured in the unit of acceleration, 9.8m/s/s, which is what remains constant under gravity, not the force being applied.

 

So wouldn't it be more accurate if gravity was defined as an acceleration rather than a force? It certainly makes sense to me. Even my physics professor agrees that my logic is water tight.

your discussion is kind of good but it is a force because its that force which makes lighter mass aclerate.how can gravity be acleration when 2 equall mass bodies are allowed to freefall they will have the same speed or velocity and same acceleration because f=ma

[samsingh]

is true but some how i do dissagree

[Norman Albers]

Gravitation is expressed in the seeming vacuum, as indeed are electric and magnetic fields. It behooves us to get down to vacuum theory.

[foodchain]

Not to sound like a complete layman, but I would think that gravity existing in nature seems to only occur where there happens to be matter or particles or something of that nature, which in my intuition leads me to think that maybe gravity and atoms share some kind of relationship possibly?

[Klaynos]

Not to sound like a complete layman, but I would think that gravity existing in nature seems to only occur where there happens to be matter or particles or something of that nature, which in my intuition leads me to think that maybe gravity and atoms share some kind of relationship possibly?

 

You mean say an equation that contains an attribute of the atom, lets say, oh I don't know mass for an example?

[lakmilis]

foodchain, that is what Newton AND Einstein relate

[foodchain]

You mean say an equation that contains an attribute of the atom, lets say, oh I don't know mass for an example?

 

Well, its just that in atoms you find orbital, and in solar systems, you find orbital, and I think this even goes out as far as galaxies. Now in a nebula, the nebula itself is sort of a "nursery", but the entire nebula is not crushed into some sphere shape, typically I don’t know across the universe of course.

 

Now QM being what it is, I know that direct observation is difficult, and many questions still exist on that level including all of the particles that may exist or not. Now in terms of a solar system, could you describe an orbit of a planet as a wave, or function of such if you wanted? Plus its seems galaxies and solar systems tend to planar somewhat in regards to geometry, is there any variation to this in the universe, past clouds of gas? Do such just not have enough mass or weight?

 

I think the physical reality of an atom plays a cumulative effect in many regards in larger systems of atoms, of course this is nothing but speculation that I cant really back up past words. I mean matter and energy share a fundamental relationship, I would wager that gravity is a product of that is all.

[Klaynos]

I'm only going to cover a couple of points to give other a good opportunity to reply (and so I can get more revision done).

 

Nebula forming spheres. There is a process called fractioning where if the density gradient of a gas could gets above a certain level it begins to collapse into spheres.

 

QM doesn't really cover what particles exist, that is more the standard model.

 

I don't really get the final paragraph. How could the atom not affect everything else? In the same way the charge of an electron is fundemental to what we see, the mass of a proton is also.

[Dr. Physics]

A force is an outside motion that acts upon another object. So according to this gravity is a force, but you are making me think twice. I'll look into it.