Why Does Gravity Exist and What Are Gravitons?

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of gravity, its existence, and the theoretical concept of gravitons. Participants explore various models and philosophical implications, touching on classical and modern physics perspectives, including Newton's and Einstein's contributions, as well as speculative ideas about the fundamental nature of forces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical inquiry

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the existence of gravity and whether it can be explained through models like the Stranded Model, suggesting that gravitons may not fit within this framework.
  • Others argue that physics primarily seeks to describe and predict phenomena rather than explain the fundamental "why" behind existence, indicating that some questions may lean more towards philosophy.
  • A participant notes that gravity is a result of spacetime curvature due to mass and energy, but the underlying reasons for this curvature remain unresolved.
  • Discussion includes references to Einstein's general relativity and its implications for understanding gravity as a geometric property rather than a force.
  • Speculative ideas are presented, such as the universe being a simulation, and the notion that understanding gravity may require new axioms or insights from future discoveries, like the Higgs Boson.
  • Historical references are made to theories of gravity waves and the limitations of past experiments, suggesting that the causes of gravity and other forces are still not fully understood.
  • Some participants express curiosity about the unique challenges posed by gravity compared to other fundamental forces, noting the lack of a comprehensive atomic explanation for it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the nature of gravity or the validity of various models. Some agree on the philosophical aspects of the questions raised, while others emphasize the scientific pursuit of understanding gravity through mathematical and theoretical frameworks.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in current understanding of gravity, including unresolved questions about the fundamental nature of mass and the properties of hypothetical particles like gravitons. There are also references to the historical context of gravity theories and the challenges in reconciling different models.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in the philosophical implications of physics, the historical development of gravitational theories, and the ongoing debates in theoretical physics may find this discussion relevant.

thewhills
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
I am a bit of Physics noob and I am reading some of Newton's stuff. But I am trying to figure why gravity exists.
There is the theory of gravitons,but aren't they impossible using Stranded Model?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
thewhills said:
I am a bit of Physics noob and I am reading some of Newton's stuff. But I am trying to figure why gravity exists.
There is the theory of gravitons,but aren't they impossible using Stranded Model?

If I was stranded on a desert island that's the model I would use--the Stranded Model! Yup, no gravitons for me in the ol' Stranded Model.

Good luck and cheers.
 
Physics is not really concerned with explanation of Why things exist. We simply try to understand it, describe it mathematically, design a model, and be able to predict future behavior. Your question is more philosophy then physics.

Simple answer as far as I am aware is that we simply don't know. I mean... why do electrons exist? They just kinda do.
 
I mean why does gravitational forces exist. For example the Sun has a gravitational pull on the Earth...Why?

I mean Standard Model...
 
Last edited:
maybe everything is just a simulation on some cosmic supercomputer and therefore everything everywhere can be explained by transistor logic. but is that really the sort of answer you want? ultimately explaining the universe as we know it will require some minimum number of axioms. there is a limit to how far one can simplify things.
 
Mephisto said:
Physics is not really concerned with explanation of Why things exist.

that's not correct. whenever a new and better theory supercedes and older one, you can say that the effects described by the old theory happen because of the law or descriptions contained in the new. that is answering a "why" question. it's not much different than the "how" question.

We simply try to understand it, describe it mathematically, design a model, and be able to predict future behavior. Your question is more philosophy then physics.

philosophy is about everything. the discipline of physics is contained in that set. not all of philosophy is about physics. if the "why" question is answered with "because God made it so", that is clearly not about physics.

Simple answer as far as I am aware is that we simply don't know. I mean... why do electrons exist? They just kinda do.

how about why do protons exist? are you leaving the answer as "they just kinda do"?

gravity exists because spacetime is curved by the presence of matter (and the equivalent of energy). why spacetime is curved by the presence of matter is a question to be addressed by later generations. (or maybe the present regarding string theory, but i know so little about string theory, i don't know how it would explain it. and, of course, it might be that string theory is no good, but it's worth exploring.)
 
If you're reading Newton, it won't be long before you come across his quote, "...I leave it to the reader to speculate as to the mechanism by which this force is propogated...", (or words to that effect; I'm pretty sure I messed up the wording there).

It was Einstein who later took him up on that statement, and tried to figure out what gravity is "made of." He's the one who proposed that gravity is not, in fact, a force, but rather a condition of the geometry of spacetime. That's where we get the picture of curved space that we all know and love today. This model, which envisions space as something that can be curved or dented by the presence of mass, works pretty well, and makes accurate predictions in the exact areas where Newton's "force" model does not.

Of course, this begs the question, "why does space curve or dent in the presence of mass?". That's one for which we don't yet have even a decent geuss, but then we don't exeactly know why mater has mass, to begin with. Maybe if the LHC produces the Higgs Boson, we can get some ideas by observing it. Mass and gravity seem to be directly linked, so if we egt a better udnerstanding of the particle responsible for mass, it stands to reason we might get a better understanding of gravity.
 
Supporting upstairs.
Einstein's general relativity theory will give you much help. I don't also believe in action at a distance.
 
A scientist named Weber had a theory about gravity waves. In the Smithsonian museum of science his apparatus was on display in the '80's and might still be. It consisted of a 3000 lb. cylindrical aluminum block on bearings. I saw it in the '80's. One of my profs in the '70's was fascinated w/ gravity waves and I took a limited interest in it at the time. But I don't think Dr. Weber's aluminum ylinder resulted in any breakthroughs.

I'd suggest googling using key words " Weber gravity waves ".

It might turn up something. Also, general relativity is a good source of info regarding gravity.

What causes anything is a tough question. If we knew what caused gravity, say a graviton, then the next question to immediately follow is "what gives a graviton its properties?"

There is always a smallest wave/particle/energy that can be detected due to the limited resolution of our instruments. When our ability to observe is more refined, we will know more. I don't think anyone has actually determined what causes gravity, as well as the other forces. BR.

Claude
 
  • #10
What I find interesting about gravity is that without it, our sun, the other stars, planets, black holes, etc... could not exist in their present form.

It's as if gravity, whether or not some type of fundamental force, seems to be a fundamentally required characteristic of many important aspects of our universe.
 
  • #11
pallidin said:
What I find interesting about gravity is that without it, our sun, the other stars, planets, black holes, etc... could not exist in their present form.

Yes, but without the strong force, no element besides hydrogen would exist; without that, our sun, the other starts, planets, black holes, etc... could not exist in their present form. o:)

You could the same about much of physics. I think the only thing special about gravity is how magnificently difficult it has been to truly understand it.
 
  • #12
I just find it odd, that we have a good atomic explanation of nuclear and basic electromagnetic forces...but not gravity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K