2old4this
Honorary Admin
- Joined
- Jan 1, 1999
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- My Location
- Cloud Cuckoo Land
More food for thought...
The attempts to create a unified "theory of everything" are premised on the assumption that gravity is at some fundamental level (perhaps at very high energies) the same kind of thing as the other forces (electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear). The other forces arise from the exchange of elementary particles generically called bosons. The electromagnetic force, for example, is mitigated by the photon.
If gravity is to be viewed in the same way, then there must be a particle that is exchanged between two bodies experiencing gravitational attraction. This particle (the gravitational boson, or "quantum" of gravity) is nominally called the "graviton". No gravitons have ever been detected. However, as a quantumn particle, the graviton should exhibit wave/particle duality and give rise to gravitional waves. There are serious attempts being made to detect such waves.
But where I struggle is to reconcile this particle (or rather, wave/particle) view with the other view of gravity - that it is actually the warping of space-time by mass. This latter view is the cornerstone of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity - and indeed the reconciliation of that with quantum mechanics has still not been achieved. But the view of gravity as geometric curvature in the fabric of four-dimensional space-time has nevertheless been validated by observable phenomena such as gravitational lensing.
If there are two equally 'correct' and accurate views (a wave/particle or quantum-mechanical view, and a geometric or Einstinean/relativistic view) then the "real" nature of gravity must be something else, something "deeper".
To understand what that might be, consider this: if a theory of everything exists then it will amount to a quantisation of space-time geometry. What would that mean? Well it would mean that space-time is not analogue continuum, but is actually composed of discreet chunks.
Perhaps in finally understanding what gravity is and establishing a "theory of everything" we will have our first indication that reality may in fact be a digital construct - a simulation.
2old
The attempts to create a unified "theory of everything" are premised on the assumption that gravity is at some fundamental level (perhaps at very high energies) the same kind of thing as the other forces (electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear). The other forces arise from the exchange of elementary particles generically called bosons. The electromagnetic force, for example, is mitigated by the photon.
If gravity is to be viewed in the same way, then there must be a particle that is exchanged between two bodies experiencing gravitational attraction. This particle (the gravitational boson, or "quantum" of gravity) is nominally called the "graviton". No gravitons have ever been detected. However, as a quantumn particle, the graviton should exhibit wave/particle duality and give rise to gravitional waves. There are serious attempts being made to detect such waves.
But where I struggle is to reconcile this particle (or rather, wave/particle) view with the other view of gravity - that it is actually the warping of space-time by mass. This latter view is the cornerstone of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity - and indeed the reconciliation of that with quantum mechanics has still not been achieved. But the view of gravity as geometric curvature in the fabric of four-dimensional space-time has nevertheless been validated by observable phenomena such as gravitational lensing.
If there are two equally 'correct' and accurate views (a wave/particle or quantum-mechanical view, and a geometric or Einstinean/relativistic view) then the "real" nature of gravity must be something else, something "deeper".
To understand what that might be, consider this: if a theory of everything exists then it will amount to a quantisation of space-time geometry. What would that mean? Well it would mean that space-time is not analogue continuum, but is actually composed of discreet chunks.
Perhaps in finally understanding what gravity is and establishing a "theory of everything" we will have our first indication that reality may in fact be a digital construct - a simulation.
2old