Is gravity a force or a property of space?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of gravity, specifically whether it should be considered a force or a property of space. Participants explore implications for theories of everything and the unification of gravity with other fundamental forces, touching on concepts from general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that gravity may not be a force but rather a property of space, as suggested by Einstein's definitions.
  • Others argue that gravity can be viewed as both a property and a force, similar to how charge is a property of electrons yet exerts a force.
  • A participant mentions that GR is inconsistent with quantum mechanics at the Planck scale, leading to uncertainty about the nature of gravity at those scales.
  • It is noted that Newton's model treats gravity as an interaction force, while Einstein's model describes it as an inertial force, with non-Euclidean spacetime geometry playing a role.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the scientific validity of theories of everything, suggesting that gravitation in GR is geometrical rather than a true force like electromagnetism.
  • A viewpoint is raised that gravity could be perceived differently depending on the point of reference, likening it to temperature, which can be seen as a property or a force depending on the observer's perspective.
  • One participant references different approaches to quantum gravity, such as black hole thermodynamics, loop quantum gravity, and string theory, noting that they all suggest space and time may not be continuous at the Planck scale.
  • Another participant asserts that gravity is a force, while also acknowledging that it appears to be a property of space according to GR.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on whether gravity is a force or a property of space, and the discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of gravity and the assumptions underlying different models. The relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics at small scales is also not fully resolved.

smithnya
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
I have a question. I understand that one of the main problems with a theory of everything is the unification of gravity with the other three forces. Could this be due to the fact gravity may not be a force at all but a property of space? If Einstein essentially defined gravity as such, then why is it still treated like a force even after successful confirmations of GR?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Charge is a property of electrons, it still exerts a force; I'm not sure why something can't be both a property and a force (or actually how any force could not result from a property of something)
 
smithnya said:
If Einstein essentially defined gravity as such, then why is it still treated like a force even after successful confirmations of GR?
It's because GR is not consistent with quantum mechanics when you go to the Planck scale. So one or the other, or both, is wrong at that scale. I really don't know why so many people expect gravity to act more like a quantum mechanical force at those scales, instead of just breaking down and becoming something completely different, but I think it's the simple case of looking for your keys under the streetlight before you look for them in the shadows.
 
smithnya said:
I have a question. I understand that one of the main problems with a theory of everything is the unification of gravity with the other three forces. Could this be due to the fact gravity may not be a force at all but a property of space? If Einstein essentially defined gravity as such, then why is it still treated like a force even after successful confirmations of GR?

In Newtons model gravity is an interaction force. In Einsteins model gravity is an inertial force. The more general concept of non-Euclidean spactime geometry that also causes other effects than mass attraction is called gravitation.

We still use Newton's model, because it is simpler mathematically and yields almost the same results as Einstein's for most applications.
 
Last edited:
smithnya said:
I have a question. I understand that one of the main problems with a theory of everything is the unification of gravity with the other three forces. Could this be due to the fact gravity may not be a force at all but a property of space? If Einstein essentially defined gravity as such, then why is it still treated like a force even after successful confirmations of GR?

Theories of everything are not scientific, let us better to ignore them...

Effectively one of the difficulties on unifying the known interactions with gravity is because gravitation in GR is geometrical instead of a true force as electromagnetism. However, it is perfectly possible to consider gravity as a force in the modern field theory of gravity (FTG), and thus allowing a future unification with the rest of interactions.
 
Last edited:
Could it be that depending on point of reference :) , it either property or the force. Because it sounds like gravity is similar to temperature which can be hot or cold. May be for the source of temperature it's a property but for recipient (observer) it's a force?
 
Ken G said:
It's because GR is not consistent with quantum mechanics when you go to the Planck scale. So one or the other, or both, is wrong at that scale. I really don't know why so many people expect gravity to act more like a quantum mechanical force at those scales, instead of just breaking down and becoming something completely different, but I think it's the simple case of looking for your keys under the streetlight before you look for them in the shadows.

I've heard this repeated a lot, but why is it the case they don't work together at such small scales? What is the proper QM model at larger scales then?
 
why is it still treated like a force even after successful confirmations of GR?

Things are not so simple.

THREE ROADS TO QUANTUM GRAVITY,Lee Smolin, Chapter 12:

We...looked at three different approaches to quantum gravity...black hole thermodynamics, loop quantum gravityu and string theory. While each takes a different starting point, they all agree that when veiwed on the Planck scale, space and time cannot be continuous...On the Planck scale, space appears to be composedof fundamental discrete units. ...It is possible that the different approaches represent different windows onto the same quantum world...and if this is so there must be a way iof unifying them all into a single theory.

For other alternative theories of gravity, try here:
Alternative Theories,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Alternative_theories
 
I understand that one of the main problems with a theory of everything is the unification of gravity with the other three forces. Could this be due to the fact gravity may not be a force at all but a property of space?
Gravity is a force and according to GR, it appears to be a property of space.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K