The discussion centers on the mechanism by which matter curves space and whether this curvature occurs instantaneously or at the speed of light. Participants explore theoretical aspects of gravity, the role of energy and momentum, and the implications of current models, particularly in relation to the Einstein field equations.
Participants express differing views on the nature of gravity and the mechanisms of curvature, with no consensus reached on whether a more fundamental theory exists or how curvature propagates.
Participants acknowledge the limitations of current theories and the challenges in providing definitive mechanisms for the curvature of space-time.
I don't see how this contradicts what I said. My comments were about a theory in general. If you alter the underlying assumptions, it might give you the old theory as a result in some limit, but it will be a different theory that rests on its own assumptions for which no "mechanism" is provided.Ibix said:Slightly contradicting Orodruin, it's possible that a future theory of gravity would provide an explanation, perhaps in terms of some quantum field (or some other structure - I make no predictions). But then you could ask similar questions about the quantum field and Orodruin's answer would be the only one available.
I read your post as implying that there's no possibility of a more fundamental theory of gravity than general relativity. I know you don't think that, but that's how I read your answer. All I meant was that the OP's specific question may one day have an answer of the sort I suspect the OP wants - "stress-energy emits gravitons", or something like that (I know that's not how quantum gravity theories work). As you say, that theory will rest on its own assumptions that are only justified in a post hoc "because it works" way.Orodruin said:I don't see how this contradicts what I said.