Hi--(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

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

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Newbie Gravity Question

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**