Switchy Posted July 6, 2008 Report Posted July 6, 2008 Why look for Gravitons when gravity is meant to be the result of the bending of Space Time?Instead shouldn't one look for something that causes mass to bend spacetime? Switchy:shrug: Quote
sanctus Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 I do not know if this is right, but on the spot I would say that gravitons are the things that tell differents fermions that space-time is curved...just like photons are exchanged between electrically charged particles to tell each other that they are charged... modest 1 Quote
CHADS Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 This is of wiki..... The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed, but would help explain how otherwise massless elementary particles still manage to construct mass in matter. In particular, it would explain the difference between the massless photon and the relatively massive W and Z bosons. Elementary particle masses, and the differences between electromagnetism (caused by the photon) and the weak force (caused by the W and Z bosons), are critical to many aspects of the structure of microscopic (and hence macroscopic) matter; thus, if it exists, the Higgs boson has an enormous effect on the world around us. Graviton Composition = Elementary particleInteraction = Gravity In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton must be massless (because the gravitational force has unlimited range) and must have a spin of 2 (because gravity is a second-rank tensor field. Gravitons are postulated because of the great success of the quantum field theory (in particular, the Standard Model) at modeling the behavior of all other forces of nature with similar particles:electromagnetism with the photon, strong interaction with the gluons,weak interaction with the W and Z bosons. " In this framework, the gravitational interaction is mediated by gravitons, instead of being described in terms of curved spacetime as in general relativity. In the classical limit, both approaches give identical results, including Newton's law of gravitation." Quote
dkv Posted July 19, 2008 Report Posted July 19, 2008 In GR there are no forces... All particles move in a straight line in a curved space time.If the particles are in inertial motion(no force) then there is no question of any interaction because motion gets defined by the inertia ... which is a property inherent to the matter. Quote
sanctus Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 So in GR there is no electrical field since there are no forces ?????????????????????????? Quote
dkv Posted July 21, 2008 Report Posted July 21, 2008 wait I am not talking about electricmagnetic force. I am talking about the gravitational forces.There are no gravitational forces in GR... All objects remain in a state of inertia in the curved space time and they actually travel straight lines.Gravity manifests due to curvature in space time. Quote
freeztar Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 There are no gravitational forces in GR... Uhhh...What? All objects remain in a state of inertia in the curved space time and they actually travel straight lines.Gravity manifests due to curvature in space time. Perhaps a better way of stating it is that objects traversing the universe travel along geodesics. Quote
dkv Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 What are geodesics ? Geodesics are the smallest possible distance between two points.. which is nothing but a straight line... There is no force involved becuase the geometry of curved space time accounts for the gravity... Can you have a force inside a geometry ? Quote
modest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 What are geodesics ? Geodesics are the smallest possible distance between two points.. which is nothing but a straight line... There is no force involved becuase the geometry of curved space time accounts for the gravity... Can you have a force inside a geometry ? Yes dkv. Switchy's question concerns the differences between general relativity where gravitation is a result of geometry and proposed theories of quantum gravity such as the graviton in superstring theory where gravitation is a force akin to electromagnetism. While the theories give equivalent results in the classical limit there do seem to be rather big distinguishing factors. Does anyone know how we would expect time dilation as a result of mass without general relativity? I'm not too well versed in quantum mechanics, certainly not theoretical quantum mechanics so I'm not sure... ~modest Quote
dkv Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Yes dkv. Switchy's question concerns the differences between general relativity where gravitation is a result of geometry and proposed theories of quantum gravity such as the graviton in superstring theory where gravitation is a force akin to electromagnetism. While the theories give equivalent results in the classical limit there do seem to be rather big distinguishing factors. Does anyone know how we would expect time dilation as a result of mass without general relativity? I'm not too well versed in quantum mechanics, certainly not theoretical quantum mechanics so I'm not sure... ~modest The quantum mechanical theories are of gravity are highly speculative... GR was invented when it was all when known that Force of gravity exists...And the same GR has explained the Universe for almost 80 years... people still make use of it to conduct experiments..The central idea of GR is equivalence between curavture of space time and gravity... why do we experience force or why the theory should be believed is a different issue.But GR as originally proposed transfroms away gravity by choosing an inertial frame...There are many respectable scientists who believe that it is not just a quatum mechanical universe but a mathematical multiverse... i.e every mathematical object actually exists... The main question was whether gravitons are needed for pure gravitational reasons... the answer is no. Quote
sanctus Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 What are geodesics ? Geodesics are the smallest possible distance between two points.. which is nothing but a straight line... Since when geodesics on a sphere for example are straight lines? Sorry, dkv, the concept of geodesics is a bit more complicated. But I think you actually know it... There is no force involved becuase the geometry of curved space time accounts for the gravity... Can you have a force inside a geometry ?It is a little while back that I had my course on GR (2 years) I'm no more into it enough to give an answer to thisd I'm sure of....I have to ponder it a little first. Quote
dkv Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 No geodesics concept is no different from what I said... Quote
sanctus Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Ok then we go into the subject: I agree geodesics are the smallest possible distances between 2 points, BUT this does not imply that they are straight lines!!It is very to see: consider the surface of a sphere, draw two points anywhere on it and connect them (always staying on the surface!!) and you'll get the geodesic not being a straight line. For example if you connect the north and south pole, there is an infinity of geodesics which are all lines that go "straight down along the surface (so they are not straight lines!)" from one pole to the other. See for example §1.1 Example on this link Quote
dkv Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Thats what I was saying. The space time is curved but the particles themselves travel in straight lines. Quote
sanctus Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 I agree that we may talk about the same thing, but how can you say "straight lines"? A straight line to me is something which has curvature zero...but the geodesics on the surface of a sphere have curvature 1/radius ... Quote
Erasmus00 Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Why look for Gravitons when gravity is meant to be the result of the bending of Space Time?Instead shouldn't one look for something that causes mass to bend spacetime? In the weak field limit, gravity becomes a theory of waves (gravitational waves), and we do know how to quantize wave theories. The graviton should be the quantized version of a gravitational wave. -Will Quote
dkv Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 I agree that we may talk about the same thing, but how can you say "straight lines"? A straight line to me is something which has curvature zero...but the geodesics on the surface of a sphere have curvature 1/radius ... At any instant the particles travels along straight line... many such instances combine together to produce the required curavture.For example photons which are massless doesnt bend because of gravity... it bends because space time is curved however the photons travels along straight line at any instant of time... Similarly when we talk about moving along the surface of the earth we move in straight lines... however due to curvature of the surface we end up covering the great circle... The gravitational space is 4 dimensional... The fundamental geometry from GR is totally deterministic..It doesnt predict earth quakes which are fundamentally non-deterministic.The actual geometry is thus probabilistic at macro and micro levels. I disagree with GR on many other points which may not be relevant here. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.