Why is gravity still described as a “force” when Einstein described it as the curvature of spacetime?


Gravity- it’s known as the “weakest fundamental force”, but we know the “attraction” is really just objects falling along the curvature of space toward a more massive object. I don’t understand how this explanation of gravity relates to the other fundamental forces.

In: 311

Last I checked getting gravity to relate to the other forces was the only holdup for GUT. It’s a force, because well that’s what it is, the curvature stuff doesn’t contradict that any.

It produces a force. That is an acceleration in a given direction.

In reality it’s a “Fictitious force” or “apparent force”, but for every day people you don’t need to worry about it. It only comes into play in certain areas of high level physics.

For everyone else, you can just consider it a force, it’s fine.

The Equivalence principal says that a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from a uniform acceleration. Newton defines a force as that which accelerates a mass. Gravity causes acceleration and is thus is a force.

They’re both equivalent descriptions and one is not more right than the other. Even Einstein never claimed that as far as I know. Curved space time will manifest itself as a force in a flat space time. The curve taken by light passing a heavy object can be described by using force alone. The description stems from (Einstein) that the gravitational force happens to be proportional to the inertial mass in Newton’s second law. Which is amazing if you think about it.

This just came up in another post and the concensus was pretty much that the curvature doesn’t explain the mechanism(s) that convert the potential energy to kinetic energy, or in other words how this explanation relates to the others.

If you figure it out I think you might get some kind of prize 🏆