Is Gravity Merely a Manifestation of Atomic Expansion?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of gravity, mass, and the concept of force fields in physics. It questions the need to hypothesize the existence of gravitons as particles when the understanding of force fields remains incomplete. Participants argue that all forces might be better understood as fields rather than discrete particles, challenging the conventional particle model in quantum physics. The conversation highlights the success of quantum field theory (QFT) in explaining fundamental forces and the rationale behind searching for carrier particles. However, there is skepticism about the classification of particles, emphasizing that many so-called particles, like photons, do not fit the traditional definition of particles in real space. The dialogue also touches on alternative theories, such as Mark McCutcheon's "The Final Theory," which posits that gravity does not exist and is merely a result of atomic expansion, but this is dismissed as unscientific. Overall, the thread reflects a critical examination of current physics paradigms and the ongoing quest for deeper understanding in the field.
reidh
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
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.
 
reidh said:
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.

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.
 
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. :!)
 
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:
Bob Elston said:
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. :!)

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

Zz.
 

Similar threads

Condensed Matter Physics Explained to a Lay Audience
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Dark matter interactions other than gravity
Replies
12
Views
3K
I Effects of gravity on planetary core structure
Replies
9
Views
3K
I How does the Singularity produce all the diverse matter in the universe?
Replies
9
Views
2K
A Is Fatio–Le Sage's theory of gravitation an entropic gravity?
Replies
33
Views
2K
I Explanation for Galaxy Rotation Curves
Replies
12
Views
2K
I How Do Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Loop Gravity Explain the Quantum World?
Replies
1
Views
2K
B Does gravitational force act on system or its components?
Replies
5
Views
1K
B Why do we need a separate center of gravity idea when we have CoM?
Replies
31
Views
2K
I Research on conservation of spacetime curvature
Replies
6
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top