Unraveling the Mystery of Gravity: Insights from M Theory | Beginner's Guide

  • Thread starter Thread starter rlinsurf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
rlinsurf
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Hi--

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
Jeffrey Ellis
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
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
Jeffrey
 
Last edited:
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
 
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
Jeffrey
 
This is an alert about a claim regarding the standard model, that got a burst of attention in the past two weeks. The original paper came out last year: "The electroweak η_W meson" by Gia Dvali, Archil Kobakhidze, Otari Sakhelashvili (2024) The recent follow-up and other responses are "η_W-meson from topological properties of the electroweak vacuum" by Dvali et al "Hiding in Plain Sight, the electroweak η_W" by Giacomo Cacciapaglia, Francesco Sannino, Jessica Turner "Astrophysical...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.09804 From the abstract: ... Our derivation uses both EE and the Newtonian approximation of EE in Part I, to describe semi-classically in Part II the advection of DM, created at the level of the universe, into galaxies and clusters thereof. This advection happens proportional with their own classically generated gravitational field g, due to self-interaction of the gravitational field. It is based on the universal formula ρD =λgg′2 for the densityρ D of DM...
Back
Top