Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Newbie Gravity Question

  1. Jul 4, 2006 #1

    Please excuse the stupid question, but I've been wrestling with this for years.

    If M Theory is correct, and the universe is a giant membrane which exists in 11 dimensions, it would seem that reconciling the Standard Model and gravity would be simple. Everything in the universe are simply varying pockets of energy in the brane. The greater the energy, the more "solid" the resulting "object" -- a Higgs Boson, for example -- would appear, i.e., the more massive the object.

    So why can't the force of gravity be described as simply the collective warping of space-time by particles, and that of particles the same warping but at far smaller scales?

    Any particle contains a vast amount of empty space. When collected in larger structures, the force would necessarily be apparently diminished from it's effects at close quarters. So, when accounting for the relative disproportion of the contained energy of an individual particle to it's empty space, the force of gravity would naturally appear greatly diminished from forces which interact at a sub-atomic level.

    I guess what I'm saying is... perhaps I just don't understand the problem. If all matter is simply energy, than gravity must be just a different way of looking at the same force which underlies all matter... namely, greater and smaller brane-warping.

    So what am I missing?

    All My Best,
    Jeffrey Ellis
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 5, 2006 #2
    Ok. So either it's so mind-blowing everyone is just speechless, or I've stated it so stupidly no one can bring themselves to call me dumb to my face...

    <grin> Either will do.

    All My Best,
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2006
  4. Jul 5, 2006 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    It's so generic that no one has any opinion. I mean distortions in a brane are not really different from Clifford's nineteenth century "hills in space", which was prior to all the modern physics on which present day discussions are based on. Vague pictures are not the way it works; you need precise physics. Look at the dialog Marcus posted at the fh/distler thread; this shows the give and take of real physics.

    I am sorry to be so harsh. Ich kann nicht anders
  5. Jul 5, 2006 #4
    I had a feeling...

    I'm not sure I can say it in a more educated manner -- as I'm not that educated I'm afraid.

    But I will read Marcus's post.

    Thanks :)

    All My Best,
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook