Is Gravity Part Of The Standard Model?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Standard Model of particle physics does not include gravity, as it is based on the gauge group ##U(1) \times SU(2) \times SU(3)##, which excludes gravitational interactions. The discussion highlights the incompatibility between classical theories of gravity and the Standard Model, emphasizing that gravity is traditionally considered too weak to influence particle physics calculations. Theories such as quantum gravity and string theory aim to reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics, but no definitive particle physics calculation involving gravity has been established. The consensus is that while gravity is a fundamental force, its integration into the Standard Model remains an open question.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Standard Model of Particle Physics
  • Familiarity with Quantum Field Theory (QFT)
  • Knowledge of General Relativity (GR)
  • Basic concepts of gauge theories and particle interactions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Quantum Gravity theories
  • Study the role of string theory in unifying gravity with particle physics
  • Explore the Einstein-Hilbert action and its significance in General Relativity
  • Investigate the concept of effective field theories in modern physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in theoretical physics, and students interested in the intersection of quantum mechanics and gravity.

  • #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
5K
  • · 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
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K