5 ms·
It is semantics, and all comes down to what's a 'force' and what isn't in theoretical physics. I was arguing from the second definition. The first definition i
by a-priori 16y ago
It is semantics, and all comes down to what's a 'force' and what isn't in theoretical physics. I was arguing from the second definition.
The first definition is tautological: First, you define a curved space, accounting for gravitational forces such that a small object will follow a certain geodesic. Then, you say that since it does indeed follow said geodesic in that geometry without deviation, gravity is not a force. Well of course not!
With the same same hand-wavy argument, you could define the curvature of space based on electromagnetic field strength, for example, and argue that electromagnetism is not a force.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- jessriedel 16y ago> The first definition is tautological >With the same same hand-wavy argument, you could define the curvature of space based on electromagnetic field strength, for example, and argue that electromagnetism is not a force. No. You're very wrong here. You (irritatingly) seem to think that because you have only been exposed to popularized hand-wavy arguments, that physicists necessarily rely on them. The vast majority of possible forces (including Newtonian gravity and electromagnetism) can not be explained the way gravity is explained. Your confusion probably comes from not understanding how much smaller the space of possible geometries is than the space of possible forces. In fact, the stunningly beautiful thing about gravity is that it can be derived from knowing only that it is a geometric effect and obeys a few symmetries. Even if you relax some of these symmetries (e.g. Brans-Dicke theory) the resulting parameterizable space of possible geometries is very restricted.
- kscaldef 16y ago> With the same same hand-wavy argument, you could define the curvature of space based on electromagnetic field strength, for example, and argue that electromagnetism is not a force. Not really so much, since different objects couple to electromagnetism differently based on their charge. All objects follow the same geodesics in general relativity.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago>All objects follow the same geodesics in general relativity. As far as we know .. I'm trying to imagine particles that do not [Higgs-teflon engage] I'm assuming they would be extra-dimensional (by definition when considering geodesics). If you decouple particles from the Higgs field where do they go.