4 ms·
Mathematically all interactions can be described as fields. Where gravity differs from other interactions/forces is that it lacks, according to standard model b
by forgotpwd16 6y ago
Mathematically all interactions can be described as fields. Where gravity differs from other interactions/forces is that it lacks, according to standard model but hypothesized to exist, a carrier (boson). Instead gravity is described by general relativity as the result of curved spacetime.
Edit: This is what article is about and how double copy helps with this. The previous is described in the article's second section.
- criddell 6y ago> Mathematically all interactions can be described as fields. Is there any other way a field can be described? What's the physical reality of a field?
- forgotpwd16 6y agoParticles as shown in most introductory particle physics courses. Because of particle/wave (alternatively particle/field) duality the question of whether particles or fields are the fundamental constituents remains open but the current consensus is the later (fields).
- criddell 6y agoDescribing a field in terms of particles seems circular if particles are excitations of a quantum field.
- forgotpwd16 6y agoIndeed. That's why it is a hard question to answer which is fundamental.
- DangitBobby 6y agoHow does it being a consequence of curved spacetime make it not a force? When we learn the more fundamental origins behind the other forces, will they also cease to be forces? It's not helpful, IMO.
- forgotpwd16 6y agoA force is considered an interaction mediated by a carrier. When we learn, a force will be described in a way that adheres to the new/modified framework.
- DangitBobby 6y agoHow long can that definition of a force have existed? 60 years? "Carriers" (carrying particles if I understand you correctly) only makes sense in the context of the standard model. It rubs me the wrong way when a field co-opts layperson definitions of something and redefines them to be something incompatible with the original definition, but I can understand that maybe physicists are not interested in helping people maintain what little physical intuition can be gleaned from the world around them. But I digress, are gravitons not a carrier of gravity?
- forgotpwd16 6y agoThere're no gravitons in the standard model and every attempt to introduce them has failed. That's the problem. Our current theoretical framework describes all fundamental forces but gravity.
- nimish 6y agoIt's a pseudoforce in the same way centrifugal acceleration is "fictitious" It's a consequence of massive objects following geodesic motion on a curved space; e.g. To keep an ant on a sphere you would need "something" to ensure the ant's velocity doesn't lead the ant's position "off" the sphere. That something is interpreted as gravity. Here's a more technical explanation: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212167/what-is-a-christoffel-symbol https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212167/what-is-a...
- DangitBobby 6y agoInteresting, thank you.
- 6y ago