Is Gravity Part Of The Standard Model?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the inclusion of gravity in the Standard Model of particle physics, exploring whether gravity is considered part of the model and how it relates to other theories such as general relativity and quantum gravity. Participants examine the theoretical implications and the status of gravity in various contexts, including particle physics and cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the Standard Model does not include gravity, citing its formulation as a gauge theory that does not account for gravitational interactions.
  • Others argue that while gravity is traditionally considered one of the four fundamental forces, its role in particle physics is minimal, and calculations involving gravity are not part of the Standard Model.
  • A few participants mention that gravity can be viewed as a curvature of spacetime rather than a force, referencing Einstein's theory of relativity.
  • Some propose that the Standard Model can be seen as an effective theory, suggesting that gravity's inclusion could be straightforward under certain interpretations.
  • There are discussions about the implications of treating gravity as a spin-2 gauge theory and the challenges of defining it on a Minkowski background.
  • Participants express uncertainty about how to categorize gravity within the framework of particle physics, with some suggesting that the debate may be more about terminology than the underlying physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether gravity is part of the Standard Model. Multiple competing views are presented, with some asserting its exclusion and others suggesting it may be included under broader theoretical frameworks.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions of gravity and the Standard Model, as well as the implications of viewing gravity as an effective theory. The discussion touches on the complexities of integrating gravity with quantum field theories and the challenges posed by non-renormalizability.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying theoretical physics, particularly in the areas of particle physics, cosmology, and quantum gravity, as well as individuals curious about the conceptual foundations of these fields.

  • #31
bhobba said:
Feynman shows it is exactly the same as GR. However I just know what I read in the book, others may know more details. A book that follows a similar approach classically is Ohanian - Gravitation:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1107012945/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Its different - but equivalent - to the usual and perhaps more elegant geometric approach as is shown in the book.

Thanks
Bill
It has been a while, but from what I recall this equivalency certainly wasn't true at the level of rigour of mathematical physics instead of at the level of rigour of theoretical physics, where it is of course generally accepted as being true.

Myself, I'd wager on the geometric interpretation being more correct with the field theoretic interpretation being merely an approximation: this wager is based purely on mathematical intuition, biased by more sophisticated geometric and (complex-)analytic aesthetics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ohwilleke

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
9K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K