Gravity THE fundamental force

[scott_sieger]

theory developement sure comes quick sometimes!!

Could our illusive Gravity be THE fundemental force and all other forces be just a variation on a theme?

[Jonathan]

Like I said a moment ago, I think that if all forces are manifastations of the same thing then we should start with EM and go to gravity rather than the other way around so we can sidestep unnecessary reformulation of theories.

[Arc_Central]

I agree that you should start with the EM.

Dats all I gots to say.

[actinide244]

[o)] starting w/ electromagnetism, eh?

gravity seems most fundamental but there are too may things we don't know about it, ie, we know how masses attract each other:

(FG= (G m1 m2)/(d^2))

but what do we know about the WHY of gravity? why does gravity exist. mass is not an answer that is far reaching enough.

as far as the WHY of charges attracting an repelling and in that, creating a field, we are equally as clueless. we know

(FC= (k q1 q2)/(d^2)

but why?

i guess my point is, mtheory is our best bet because it is partially explained and explainable while those types of theories would be based on topics in physics in which the fundamentals remain undisclosed

curiously:

[scott_sieger]

I find that an approach that seems to work for me is to extend the why question to include "why does it have to exist"?

We have and effect all we have to find is the cause

I tend to feel that things only exist because they have to.

If one looks as to why they have to (out of necessity) it makes for a way of looking that demands an answer.

Gravity is no accident so to speak it has to be what it is.

[Jonathan]

I agree, but it is hard to get to the real answer that way. The anthropic principle is technically true, but that's not what we wanted to hear.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6130

[russ_watters]

According to the standard model, there are four fundamental forces. Gravity is one of them but with no special standing.

[pelastration]

According to the standard model, there are four fundamental forces. Gravity is one of them but with no special standing.
Russ,

I think it's possible to imagine scenario's in which the three other forces don't exist. But that's not possible without gravity.

IMO gravity must be an inherent part (let's say included inside) of all fundamental particles. The other forces (EM, strong and weak force) are the result of interactions between these fundamental particles.

[arivero]

According to the standard model, there are four fundamental forces. Gravity is one of them but with no special standing.
Except that it has a dimensional coupling constant, making the force non-renormalizable.

[Twistedseer]

According to the standard model, there are four fundamental forces. Gravity is one of them but with no special standing.

The standard model defines Gravity as shaping of space/time.

Twistedseer

[Epoch1]

According to the standard model, there are four fundamental forces. Gravity is one of them but with no special standing.

Consider for a moment that the Standard Model is wrong. What if the four fundamental forces are simply sub-levels of a greater force? Forces that when applied to matter lends it the malleability to be shaped in a manner that reflects the influence of that unifying or containing force.

A force that consists of waves of probability, potential and possibility. Molding matter in the combinations best suited for interaction with its unique energy.

One that allows possibility to become probability. As the canvas, pallette, brush and oils are simply the tools that allow the artist to re-create his artistic vision into the form of a painting that can be viewed by others.

[Epsilon Pi]

Gravity is but a conservative field, i.e., a derived field. It was Einstein who thought it to be a fundamental one, but
how could we derive a non conservative field such as the magnetic field from a conservative one? How could we derive, from the philosophical point of view, a whole / part from the part?

Regards
EP

theory developement sure comes quick sometimes!!

Could our illusive Gravity be THE fundemental force and all other forces be just a variation on a theme?

[alen]

SORRY for posting this message here. I haven't worked out the new thread system yet.
Well, here is my message: I am a student and i have to explain the wind car theory. I really need help. I need to come up with equations and real explanation. I'd be really happy if you could help me.
You can email me at : ngkho@yahoo.com.hk
Sorry again for posting my message here.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks a lot. Alen.

[DavidSF]

Gravity acts at atomic level, whether it be a penny or a feather the accelleration is the same.. Sound familiar.

All our formula's are based on the total mass of the object, yet the gravitational effect is developed and reacting at atomic level.

Has anyone any ideas as to the real atomic cause.

David