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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rlinsurf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between M Theory, gravity, and the Standard Model of particle physics. Participants explore the implications of viewing the universe as a membrane in 11 dimensions and how this perspective might reconcile gravity with particle interactions. The conversation touches on conceptual understandings of energy, mass, and the nature of gravity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant, Jeffrey Ellis, proposes that if M Theory is correct, gravity could be understood as the warping of space-time by energy pockets in the brane, suggesting a connection between gravity and the properties of particles.
  • Jeffrey questions why gravity cannot be described simply as a collective effect of this warping, implying that the apparent weakness of gravity at larger scales may stem from the empty space within particles.
  • Another participant critiques the initial proposal as overly generic, comparing it to historical concepts like Clifford's "hills in space," and emphasizes the need for precise physics rather than vague imagery.
  • Jeffrey expresses uncertainty about the clarity of his question and acknowledges a lack of education on the topic, indicating a desire for more informed discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion reflects a lack of consensus, with some participants expressing skepticism about the initial ideas presented and others seeking clarification and deeper understanding. There are competing views on the adequacy of the proposed explanations.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not reached a resolution on the relationship between M Theory and gravity, and there are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of energy and mass in the context of brane theory.

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
 

Similar threads

Undergrad The standard model from loop quantum gravity via spinors octonions
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
Graduate Can time be the cause of gravity's weakness and nonpolarity?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Can Core Theory Be Derived From Nine Lines?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad What Are the Empirical Challenges Facing Quantum Gravity Theories?
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
16K
Graduate In what way is M-Theory different from Loop Quantum Gravity?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate A strange theory of everything: dust on [itex]\mathbb{R}^{0|18}[/itex]
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Twistors and celestial holography
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
Graduate "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
Graduate Is Fatio–Le Sage's theory of gravitation an entropic gravity?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Graduate MOND Theory Primer: Stacy McGaugh's Research Program Explored
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K