3 ms·

> 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, grav

by 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 ago
I 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 ago
I 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."

3 ms·

> 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, grav

by mryall 16y ago

maggit 16y ago
I 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 ago
I 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."