In what way do we still not understand gravity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dydxforsn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
dydxforsn
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
I've always thought that Einstein's theory of general relativity was quite beautiful, it explained gravity as merely an intertial tendency of objects to move in straight lines (albeit different kinds of straight lines defined to be paths of greatest proper time) in a curved space-time. This explains why it's so distant from other forces in the standard model, because it's really a result of geometry.

In what way do we still not understand the mechanism of gravity? It would seem that this is quite explanatory. I do not doubt the claims that we don't quite understand it, as our knowledge of something is never entirely certain, but objects travel in straight lines seems to be a good enough reasons for the effects of the so called "gravity". Is it just a stagnant philosophical struggle that we do not quite understand gravity, or is there more to this claim?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you familiar with gravitons?
 
There are two ways of approaching physics that are proven: Relativity and Quantum Mechanics...both of which can be compatible with the standard model. According to relativity, spacetime is smooth and bending spacetime is an inherent property of matter...much like inertia.
According to QM, spacetime is much different. It isn't smooth, and gravity is projected by a massless, spin 2 boson called a graviton.
The reason we don't understand gravity is that quantum mechanics and general relativity are incompatible at the energies and distances on which gravity is a factor in both theories. Infinite energies and other odd things pop up.
Remember, gravity, the weak force, the strong force, and the electromagnetic force were all unified at the universes birth, so it is necessary to calculate massive velocities and densities(problems suited for general relativity) as well as very small time scales and distances(problems suited for QM) when studying the origin of the universe. One mystery of gravity is why it has turned out to be so much weaker than the other three forces.
If you find a way to reconcile the two in a quantum theory of gravity, you'll win the nobel prize, and should probably look at the Riemann Hypothesis next :)
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top