Is Gravity a Result of Mass Attracting Quanta of Mass?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the relationship between mass, gravity, and the theoretical concept of gravitons. Participants explore the idea that gravity may be a result of mass attracting quanta of mass, suggesting a gravitational equilibrium between larger and smaller masses. The conversation highlights the challenges in unifying General Relativity and Quantum Theory, emphasizing that while mass and energy both warp space-time, a comprehensive quantum theory of gravity remains elusive. The discussion also touches on the philosophical implications of physics and the mathematical models used to describe these phenomena.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity and its implications on gravity
  • Familiarity with Quantum Theory and the concept of gravitons
  • Knowledge of the Einstein stress-energy-momentum tensor
  • Basic grasp of string theory and its relation to gravity
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Einstein stress-energy-momentum tensor on space-time curvature
  • Study the current theories surrounding quantum gravity and the role of gravitons
  • Explore string theory and its potential to unify gravity with other fundamental forces
  • Investigate the philosophical debates surrounding the interpretation of physical models in modern physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the intersection of gravity, mass, and quantum mechanics will benefit from this discussion.

  • #31
Sorry for being vague. For what its worth the link cleared things up a lot. If the forum is not for sharing and building understanding, then what is it for? (I didn't ask for any replies to exclude mathematics).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Goolds said:
If the forum is not for sharing and building understanding, then what is it for? (I didn't ask for any replies to exclude mathematics).

It is for sharing and building understanding. It is not a substitute for reading books or for putting out the necessary intellectual effort on your end. Making posts like #17 without having studied the fundamentals of the subject is like expecting to be a rock star without practicing your scales.
 
  • #33
I wasn't claiming to be correct in my perception of the subject, merely stating my understanding of it. Which is, of course in violation of the PF Rules. Sorry.
 
  • #34
Goolds said:
I wasn't claiming to be correct in my perception of the subject, merely stating my understanding of it. Which is, of course in violation of the PF Rules. Sorry.

There is no rule on PF against being incorrect. I make mistakes on PF all the time. The rule is against overly speculative posts. What we're trying to get you to do is to post questions, ideas -- yes, and possibly speculations -- that are connected to your present level of understanding rather than flying so far ahead of it that they become meaningless.
 
  • #35
After consultation, the mentors have decided to close this thread. Goolds, we hope you stick around and learn from and contribute to the forum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
7K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K