I’ll preface this by saying that I have a very good understanding of Newtonian mechanics, but only an amateur’s understanding of Einstein’s relativity.
I understand that Newton’s law of gravitation is insufficient to accurately describe and predict certain physical phenomena, and that Einstein’s relativity “fixes” this. I don’t understand, however, why we must do away with the model of gravity as a force to build a better model. Couldn’t Newton’s law of gravitation be amended to account for the discrepancies? It looks to me as if it’s a question of which mental model we prefer. Saying that gravity isn’t a force, it is a curvature, or vice-versa, sounds to me like saying that positive charges are actually negative and negative charges are actually positive, i.e., a matter of convention. Whether gravity >is< one or the other seems to me much more a matter of philosophy than physics properly.
So why is this such a central point?
In: Physics
All these discrepancies will be moot once we measure the graviton. That way we could place it within the pantheon of elementary particles alongside the magneton and photon, and thereby understand its effects at all scales.
Gravity already exhibits the characteristics of a particle: it travels in waves at light speed; it diffuses exponentially; and it interacts with matter.
My understanding is that “spacetime” is merely a measurement convention, but doesn’t actually describe gravity’s quantum effects if we were to define it as a force.
Latest Answers