Gravity as a property of matter

  1. If gravity is a "property" of Mass, and mass is a "property" of matter, and matter is known to be composed of highly integral infinitessimal Force Fields, why jump to the conclusion of Gravitons, when one has not thoroughly defined Force Field. Of what are these force fields composed? Is the word Force not that which we use to describe Gravity? is it not evident that all Forces are of the same nature? That of a field? Why does the 'Scientific" mind continually strive to find The Particle? Even the sub-atomics are not particles, and the quantum behavior of even "photons" is past this model.
    Get Real.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 29,650
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What you need to "get real" is to learn the actual physics, and what has been verified. The gravitons are still hypothetical. No one has accepted it. But it doesn't mean there aren't any theoretical model that uses it. That's what theoretical physics does - make further conjecture on what we might be able to know and test.

    You obviously have never heard of quantum field theory and why the "scientific mind" would want to look for the "carrier particle" of all these various interactions. Considering how successful the application of QFT has been (look at QED and how accurately the electron's gyromagnetic ratio has agreed with experiment), it is not unreasonable that each of the known fundamental forces might be represented by such carrier particle. We know it already works for 3 of them. So it is highly expected that one might think the 4th could be too. But no one accepts such a scenario on face value, and that is why we continue to try to TEST it out.

    Zz.
     
  4. hypothetical

    That is just the point. Why hypothesise that it is a particle, when all these "particles" have been found to NOT be particles? That an infinitesimally small force field might act like a particle, does not make it a particle. if you use the term, particle, especially in the physics lab, it should be surrounded by quotes, Because it is NOT a particle. That is what is REAL.
     
  5. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 29,650
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But what is "not a particle" for all of them? Are you confusing these "particles" with actual, boundary-in-real-space particles? A photon is a "particle" in the sense that it has quanta of energy. It was NEVER defined as a particle in real space! The same with gluons and W,Z vector bosons. Do not confuse what you read out of pop-science stuff with the actual physics! This is what is real!

    You should never make such definitive statement when all you have is some superficial knowledge. Where in the world did you learn QFT?

    Zz.
     
  6. Gravity

    what do you guys think of " The Final theory" by mark Mark McMcutcheon? That theory states that their is no such thing as gravity but only atomic expansion. :!!)
     
  7. You could also ask just what the heck "pure energy" or "pure force fields" are and get nowhere equally as fast.

    Although mass/energy can be described in terms of forcefields, it can also be described in terms of matter and energy. Since we do not have a unified theory you can take your pick in physics. In addition, when you start discussing the metaphysics behind these theories you can pretty much choose any words you want.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2007
  8. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 29,650
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is crackpottery. We do not allow such things on PF, per our Guidelines.

    Zz.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook
Similar discussions for: Gravity as a property of matter
Loading...