Is gravity a pseudo force?

[Widdekind]

If gravity is a fictitious (pseudo) force, cp. centrifugal & Coriolis forces; then how could 'gravity' be exerted, through force-ful interactions, via boson exchanges, i.e. 'gravitons', any more than there are 'centrifugal-ons' or 'Coriolis-ons' ? The only actual forces, mediated by bosons, are the S,W,EM, of the Standard Model ? If so, why would quantum gravity be any other, than "solving the Schrodinger equation on a curved coordinate grid-mesh" ?

[elfmotat]

If gravity is a fictitious (pseudo) force, cp. centrifugal & Coriolis forces; then how could 'gravity' be exerted, through force-ful interactions, via boson exchanges, i.e. 'gravitons', any more than there are 'centrifugal-ons' or 'Coriolis-ons' ? The only actual forces, mediated by bosons, are the S,W,EM, of the Standard Model ? If so, why would quantum gravity be any other, than "solving the Schrodinger equation on a curved coordinate grid-mesh" ?

 

A spin-2 field on flat spacetime is equivalent to curved spacetime.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0006423

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Moved from Curved space. Widdekind, you have been asked numerous times not to hijack threads with questions that go off-topic. This is getting old.

[pmb]

If gravity is a fictitious (pseudo) force, cp. centrifugal & Coriolis forces;

To answer your question one needs to know what an inertial force is.

 

Inertial force - A force that must be added to Newton's equations of motion when using a non-inertial frame of reference so that Newton's laws will still be valid. See the link some comments and references on this subject.

The centrifugal force and the Coriolis force are psuedo-force and fictitious force. These terms are quite misleading so it is suggested that they not be used. For details please see http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/inertial_force.htm

 

According to Einstein, the gravitational force is as real as the electric force and as such it is seen to be real.

Albert Einstein - That the relation of gravity to inertia was the motivation for general relativity is expressed in an article Einstein wrote which appeared in the February 17, 1921 issue of Nature

 

Can gravitation and inertia be identical? This question leads directly to the General Theory of Relativity. Is it not possible for me to regard the earth as free from rotation, if I conceive of the centrifugal force, which acts on all bodies at rest relatively to the earth, as being a "real" gravitational field of gravitation, or part of such a field? If this idea can be carried out, then we shall have proved in very truth the identity of gravitation and inertia. For the same property which is regarded as inertia from the point of view of a system not taking part of the rotation can be interpreted as gravitation when considered with respect to a system that shares this rotation. According to Newton, this interpretation is impossible, because in Newton's theory there is no "real" field of the "Coriolis-field" type. But perhaps Newton's law of field could be replaced by another that fits in with the field which holds with respect to a "rotating" system of co-ordinates? My conviction of the identity of inertial and gravitational mass aroused within me the feeling of absolute confidence in the correctness of this interpretation.

 

 

A.P. French - Inertial force is defined as the force on a body that results solely from observing the motion of the body from a non-inertial frame of reference. This in addressed in Newtonian Mechanics, A.P. French, The M.I.T. Introductory Physics Series, W.W. Norton Pub. , (1971) , page 499. After describing the inertial force as seen from an accelerating frame of reference French writes

 

From the standpoint of an observer in the accelerating frame, the inertial force is actually present. If one took steps to keep an object "at rest" in S', by tying it down with springs, these springs would be observed to elongate or contract in such a way as to provide a counteracting force to balance the inertial force. To describe such force as "fictitious" is therefore somewhat misleading. One would like to have some convenient label that distinguishes inertial forces from forces that arise from true physical interactions, and the term "psuedo-force" is often used. Even this, however, does not do justice to such forces experienced by someone who is actually in the accelerating frame of reference. Probably the original, strictly technical name, "inertial force," which is free of any questionable overtones, remains the best description.

The resistance of a gravitational field depends on the frame of reference that one is using. Just as frames of reference can change, so too is the existence of the gravitons. This strange notion is found in the relative existence of photons in a falling charged particle.

 

At this point I'd like to caution you regarding the presence of a gravitational field and curved spacetime. The presence of a gravitational field is determined by the existence of a non-inertial frame of reference, not tidal gradients. Therefore the presence of as a gravitational field is determined by the the presence is the affine components in a spatial Cartiansian coordinate system.

[Tres Juicy]

If gravity is a fictitious (pseudo) force, cp. centrifugal & Coriolis forces; then how could 'gravity' be exerted, through force-ful interactions, via boson exchanges, i.e. 'gravitons', any more than there are 'centrifugal-ons' or 'Coriolis-ons' ? The only actual forces, mediated by bosons, are the S,W,EM, of the Standard Model ? If so, why would quantum gravity be any other, than "solving the Schrodinger equation on a curved coordinate grid-mesh" ?

 

 

I had a similar thought here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62480-objects-take-up-space/page__p__646544__fromsearch__1#entry646544

 

Might be of interest to you.

 

Apologies if this is considered thread hijacking

[pmb]

I had a similar thought here:

http://www.sciencefo...__1#entry646544

 

Might be of interest to you.

 

Apologies if this is considered thread hijacking

I believe what you just did i not thread hijacking. I believe that continuing the discussion here is thread hijacking though.

[Tres Juicy]

I believe what you just did i not thread hijacking. I believe that continuing the discussion here is thread hijacking though.

 

 

Sorry, do you mean continuing the discussion of the other thread in this thread would be thread hijacking?

 

Not sure....

[pmb]

Sorry, do you mean continuing the discussion of the other thread in this thread would be thread hijacking?

Yes. That is not working.

[swansont]

Apologies if this is considered thread hijacking

 

!

Moderator Note

Technically, yes, it is. You could link to this thread from the one you started, saying the ideas are similar. But we frown upon "advertising" speculations in other threads; the cross-pollination is so rarely a good thing.

 

[pmb]

!

Moderator Note

Technically, yes, it is. You could link to this thread from the one you started, saying the ideas are similar. But we frown upon "advertising" speculations in other threads; the cross-pollination is so rarely a good thing.

 

On the funny part of this, there are now 5 posts discussing whether the threads was hijacked.

[pmb]

this post was a mistake)

Edited May 16, 2012 by pmb

[Tres Juicy]

On the funny part of this, there are now 5 posts discussing whether the threads was hijacked.

 

 

Sorry guys! I wasn't quite sure - now I am...

[imatfaal]