General Relativity vs. gravitons/force

crschoen
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello. I've been out of college for 10+ years now, but have never lost the desire to learn more. So I've been trying to increase my physics knowledge, which I feel was not very strong despite some college level physics classes (they seemed to focus too much of classical physics in my view).

I have been trying to read simpler books, but often come across questions that I cannot resolve, and not having the benefit of being able to ask anyone else about this stuff thought I would post one such question here.

I think I have a fairly decent understanding of General Relativity now. That is that gravity is equivalent to acceleration, and that gravity is not a force but merely an illusion of force caused by the warping of space-time that causes matter to move along the geodisc. In other words there is no actual force pushing our feet to the floor, but we perceive it to be a force.

Not long after feeling I had a good grasp on this, I read a couple things that seem to contradict General Relativity:

1. Descriptions of four fundamental forces include Gravity. But wait just a second, I thought it was not a force?

2. Gravitons - these are the carriers of the force of gravity. But wait just a second, I thought gravity was not a force?

What puzzles me is that in my readings of General Relativity, it seems like it has withstood every scientific test since it was proposed by Einstein (from the famous solar eclipse in 1919 onward). So why do we have these conflicting concepts of gravitons and gravitational force?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In other words there is no actual force pushing our feet to the floor, but we perceive it to be a force.
Well, there is an actual force pushing the floor to our feet. It carries us away from the geodesic.
1. Descriptions of four fundamental forces include Gravity. But wait just a second, I thought it was not a force?
Yes, that is a problem. You could phrase it more neutral and speak about interactions, which does not contradict GR. But still, you have three forces described in a similar way, and gravity described in a fundamentally different way. Nobody knows how the descriptions could be united.
2. Gravitons - these are the carriers of the force of gravity. But wait just a second, I thought gravity was not a force?
There are gravitational waves (at least supposedly), described by the classical theory GR. If you stipulate that these waves come in quanta just like electromagnetic waves are quantized as photons, you can derive the properties of those "gravitons", like mass 0 and spin 2, from the classical field.
Since gravitational waves are geometric perturbations, you could think of gravitons as the quanta of geometric perturbations, and get the semantics straight.
But again, nobody knows how to quantize gravity, so we can't really say how gravitons fit in.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top