I have heard it explained multiple time by different science educators that what we feel as gravity is a really just a consequence of curvature of spacetime and no real force is being applied. Why do we need to make gravity work with the standard model, and why are we looking for gravitons if there is no actual force and it is just caused by the geometry of the universe?
In: 66
[removed]
[removed]
Reconciling the curvature of spacetime with the standard model is what they’re trying to do.
Reconciling the curvature of spacetime with the standard model is what they’re trying to do.
Reconciling the curvature of spacetime with the standard model is what they’re trying to do.
We need something like gravitons in order to set up the curvature. We know it is “created” by mass-energy, but we also know that mass is quantum in nature.
So either you have two different sorts of mass, or you have something that makes the mass we know effect space time. The latter seems more likely, and would have to be quantum in nature.
The third option is that QM is the non-real but and actually another illusory “force” created by space time but that seems even more difficult to figure out.
We need something like gravitons in order to set up the curvature. We know it is “created” by mass-energy, but we also know that mass is quantum in nature.
So either you have two different sorts of mass, or you have something that makes the mass we know effect space time. The latter seems more likely, and would have to be quantum in nature.
The third option is that QM is the non-real but and actually another illusory “force” created by space time but that seems even more difficult to figure out.
We need something like gravitons in order to set up the curvature. We know it is “created” by mass-energy, but we also know that mass is quantum in nature.
So either you have two different sorts of mass, or you have something that makes the mass we know effect space time. The latter seems more likely, and would have to be quantum in nature.
The third option is that QM is the non-real but and actually another illusory “force” created by space time but that seems even more difficult to figure out.
I’ll just leave this here
“It is wrong to think that ‘geometrization’ is something essential. It is only a kind of crutch [Eselsbrücke] for the finding of numerical laws. Whether one links ‘geometrical’ intuitions with a theory is a … private matter.” (Einstein to Reichenbach, 8 April 1926)
Einstein himself didn’t seem to read too much into this interpretation. But Einstein was also wrong about other things, so I guess he could be wrong about this.
The math of GR is firmly rooted in the math of curved surfaces. But this is an ontological question. Does the math *describe* the thing. Or *is it* the thing. Our *spacetime model* is described by curved surfaces, but are space and time in reality one and the same as our model? Who knows…..
I’ll just leave this here
“It is wrong to think that ‘geometrization’ is something essential. It is only a kind of crutch [Eselsbrücke] for the finding of numerical laws. Whether one links ‘geometrical’ intuitions with a theory is a … private matter.” (Einstein to Reichenbach, 8 April 1926)
Einstein himself didn’t seem to read too much into this interpretation. But Einstein was also wrong about other things, so I guess he could be wrong about this.
The math of GR is firmly rooted in the math of curved surfaces. But this is an ontological question. Does the math *describe* the thing. Or *is it* the thing. Our *spacetime model* is described by curved surfaces, but are space and time in reality one and the same as our model? Who knows…..
Latest Answers