4 ms·
> I really don't understand the question "is gravity a force?" The question is not "is gravity a force?". The question is "What is gravity?" An accepted answe
by maggit 16y ago
> I really don't understand the question "is gravity a force?"
The question is not "is gravity a force?". The question is "What is gravity?"
An accepted answer, what I was taught in school, and what I would answer if you asked me is "it's a force". And labeling something as "a force" has huge implications for people that know what that label means.
If a four year old asked me "What is gravity?", I'd know better than to give him a label, because he wouldn't know what a force is from school. Obviously.
If it turns out gravity is not really a force -- if modelling gravity as a force breaks down at some point -- that's a good fundamental result. It is a falsification of the theory "Gravity is a force". (So the line of thought goes: "What is gravity?", "It is a force!", "Is gravity really a force?", "Perhaps not!")
How is this not helping us attaining a deep understanding? How is this not advancing science? How is this any different from any science?
- mryall 16y ago> If it turns out gravity is not really a force ... It definitely isn't. The word "force" implies a Newtonian model for physics. Under general relativity, gravity isn't seen as a force but a consequence of curved space-time. The title was probably chosen by an editor without deep knowledge of the subject. It doesn't accurately describe the article's content either.
- maggit 16y agoI humbly bow to anybody's superior knowledge of physics. To clarify, I wasn't actually trying to say anything about physics, just about science. So it would have been better phrased as a hypothetical; If we assume that gravity is currently best modeled as a force, why is it valuable (nay, essential) to question whether or not it actually is a force? I hope I answered that hypothetical properly :)
- ScottBurson 16y ago> Under general relativity, gravity isn't seen as a force but a consequence of curved space-time. But why does the presence of matter cause spacetime to curve? If you want to argue that gravity isn't a force, I don't think it's enough to say "it's a consequence of curved spacetime". I think you have to answer the question of why it curves. I'm not aware of an answer to that question. If there isn't one, as I suspect, then I would say, there's your force of gravity: you're just describing it as acting on spacetime itself rather than on the objects in that spacetime.
- hammock 16y agoI was taught in school that there were four forces- strong, weak, EM and gravity. Gravity was the one that was always hardest to fit into a GUT model (people suggesting looking for a particle called a gravitron, for example, which intuitively I always thought was bullshit), and based on what I've read since school it's hard for me to believe that gravity belongs in the list of "the four forces."