# Is gravity a force or just a consequence of mass?

• CuriousGeorge1
In summary, the nature of gravity as a force or a consequence depends on the context and the mathematical formulation being used. In classical mechanics, gravity is considered a force, but in more sophisticated approaches, it may be seen as a consequence. The ultimate goal is to unify all forces into one theory, but currently, there are three known forces in nature, with gravity being the most challenging to incorporate into this unified theory.
CuriousGeorge1
Since gravity is caused by mass deforming spacetime, is gravity actually a force or just a consequence? Are there really 4 forces in nature or just 3?

What does "really" mean?

“Really” used for emphasis, drop the word and question still stands. Are there four forces in nature or just 3?

CuriousGeorge1 said:
“Really” used for emphasis, drop the word and question still stands. Are there four forces in nature or just 3?
What do you mean by "forces"?

The point is that your question is not answerable because it is based on a false assumption: that you can frame a question about physics in vague ordinary language that somehow has a precise answer. The only precise answer is the mathematical models that physicists use to make predictions, and those models can be described in vague ordinary language in multiple, different ways. There is no one "right" description that will answer your question one way or the other.

topsquark
CuriousGeorge1 said:
Since gravity is caused by mass deforming spacetime, is gravity actually a force or just a consequence? Are there really 4 forces in nature or just 3?
Electromagnetism and the weak force have been unified, so the max right now is three. The goal with TOE is to get it all down to just one. Connecting the Strong force to Electroweak seems close. Getting Gravity to play along looks harder. But really anything is possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

In the narrower sense of "Is gravity a force?", you'd really need to have the TOE to get a final answer to that. Otherwise it starts turning into linguistics. Right now I'm not aware of any real objection to calling Gravity a force, (particularly for practical applications such as spacecraft ) but that might change someday.

topsquark
CuriousGeorge1 said:
is gravity actually a force or just a consequence?
'Force' as a construct in physics actually belongs to the specific viewpoint of 'Classical mechanics' and is not necessarily present in some alternative ... approaches.
If your actual approach is based on classical mechanics (likely the case when you work with everyday problems), then it's a force, and since classical mechanics has not much to do the unified theories, you may need to account for quite disturbing number of 'forces in nature'.

If the problem you are working with requires a more sophisticated approach, then gravity will be more and more like a consequence, and depending on the depth required by the problem, you might be down to three or just two forces interactions.

All depends on the required depth of the approach, and these answers are still the same without any controversy.
It's just ... not simple.

Last edited:
topsquark
Yeah, this might sound perplexing, but we often use terminology that was formerly used in classical mechanics that is also confusingly being used in quantum mechanics. Consider many of the terminology used in quantum mechanics to have certain context to what it actually refers to.

Even in the most simplest thing like Coulomb force Interaction (between electrons), which you may have a fairly good understanding in electromagnetism, will have a relatively math-heavy formulation in quantum mechanics (i.e. direct term and exchange term). However, few people confusingly call these terms as "direct force" and "exchange force". And then you have words like "force carrier" which is something else. So like everyone just stated here, "force" really depends on the context, and at what mathematical formulation we're exactly talking about.

Thanks to all of the above respondents for your replies. i was only considering force in relation to classical physics and TOE efforts to unify gravity with the strong/weak/EM forces. I now see my question in a broader context.

## What are the four forces of nature?

The four forces of nature are gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force. These forces govern the interactions between particles and objects in the universe.

## Why is there a debate about whether there are three or four forces?

The debate about three or four forces arises from the fact that the strong and weak nuclear forces can be combined into one force called the electroweak force at high energies. This has led some scientists to argue that there are only three fundamental forces.

## What is the difference between the four forces?

The four forces have different strengths and ranges. Gravity is the weakest force but acts over long distances, while the strong nuclear force is the strongest but only acts over very short distances. Electromagnetism and weak nuclear force have intermediate strengths and ranges.

## How do the four forces interact with each other?

The four forces do not interact directly with each other, but they can affect the behavior of particles and objects in the universe. For example, gravity can cause objects to move towards each other, while the strong nuclear force holds the nucleus of an atom together.

## What is the role of the four forces in the universe?

The four forces are responsible for all the interactions and processes that occur in the universe. They determine the structure of matter, the behavior of objects, and the dynamics of the universe as a whole.

Replies
11
Views
923
Replies
51
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
69
Views
5K
Replies
40
Views
5K
Replies
49
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
701
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
1K