|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready…
|
Completed
40s·37 Sources
Thinking
Exploring gravity’s nature
Thinking
Exploring gravity’s nature
- The request is intriguing, questioning how gravity can be a force without a clear explanation. It seems to challenge traditional views, possibly leaning into philosophical or scientific debates.
- I’m considering Newton’s law, which treats gravity as a force between masses. But Einstein’s general relativity describes it as spacetime curvature, not a force, which adds complexity.
- I’m searching for how physics reconciles these views, given the user’s concern about lacking an explanation. It looks like the tension between force and geometry is key here.
Searching for “is gravity considered a force in modern physics”
10 results found
en.wikipedia.org
Gravity | Definition, Physics, & Facts | Britannica
britannica.com
What Is Gravity? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids
spaceplace.nasa.gov
Why is gravity not a real force? | Science Questions with Surprising Answers
wtamu.edu
space.comSee more (5)
Browsing results
- Currently looking at search results, Wikipedia says general relativity frames gravity, leaning toward spacetime curvature rather than a force (Wikipedia).
- Just found Britannica calls it a “universal force of attraction,” sticking to the classical view (Britannica).
Browsing plato.stanford.edu for “is gravity considered a force in general relativity”
- There’s a lot here, and the browse didn’t return content, which is odd. Maybe the URL is wrong or the page isn’t accessible right now.
Browsing hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu for “is gravity a force in general relativity”
- Another failure, that’s frustrating. It could be the site structure changed or it’s not parsing correctly, so let’s try something else.
Browsing arxiv.org for “is gravity considered a force in modern physics”
- OK, that was a bad guess—2105.12345 is about math, not physics. I need to find a physics paper on gravity in general relativity.
Browsing arxiv.org for “is gravity considered a force in general relativity”
- Another miss, it seems like the search page itself doesn’t have the content I need. Maybe I should stick to browsing established physics sites.
Browsing physicsworld.com for “is gravity considered a force in general relativity”
- Still nothing, this is getting tough. Maybe I should go back to web search and look for a specific article, like from Scientific American or Quanta Magazine, which had relevant content earlier.
Searching for “Scientific American gravity force general relativity”
10 results found
Physicists Probe Validity of Einstein’s Gravity on Cosmic Scales | Scientific American
scientificamerican.com
General relativity – Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
What is the theory of general relativity? Understanding Einstein’s space-time revolution | Space
space.com
amnh.org
en.wikipedia.orgSee more (5)
Browsing results
- I’m checking the Scientific American article, “The Illusion of Gravity,” from 2007. It suggests gravity isn’t a force in the quantum sense, aligning with Einstein’s view of curvature (Scientific American).
Browsing scientificamerican.com for “is gravity considered a force in general relativity”
- Another miss, that’s odd—it must be the parsing. Let’s try the AMNH page instead, as it seemed promising.
Browsing amnh.org for “is gravity considered a force in general relativity”
- Finally, some useful content. The AMNH page says Einstein imagined gravity as spacetime bending, not a force, which fits general relativity ().
- In everyday language, we still call it a force, like in Newton’s laws, for convenience. It causes acceleration, similar to other forces, which explains the confusion.
- I’m thinking the user might be curious about quantum gravity, given their question. Let’s check the Perimeter Institute for more on this, focusing on whether gravity’s a force and its explanation.
Browsing perimeterinstitute.ca for “is gravity considered a force and explanation for it”
- Another miss, running out of luck here. Let’s try one more web search for “quantum gravity force carrier explanation.”
Searching for “quantum gravity force carrier explanation”
10 results found
en.wikipedia.org
quantum field theory – What are “Force Carriers”? – Physics Stack Exchange
physics.stackexchange.com
en.wikipedia.org
What is quantum gravity? | Space
space.com
Is Gravity Quantum? | Scientific American
scientificamerican.comSee more (5)
Browsing results
- Gravitons are hypothetical particles for gravity, mentioned on Wikipedia, but they’re not observed, with interactions too weak to detect (Wikipedia).
- Scientific American notes the search for gravitons is key to quantum gravity, treating it as a force, yet evidence is lacking (Scientific American).
Browsing britannica.com for “is gravity considered a force in modern physics”
37 web pages
Key Points
- Research suggests gravity is considered a force in Newtonian physics but not in Einstein’s general relativity, where it’s spacetime curvature.
- It seems likely that the lack of a quantum explanation, like finding the graviton, fuels questions about calling it a force.
- The evidence leans toward gravity being treated as a force historically for convenience, despite modern physics viewing it as geometry.
Newtonian View
In classical physics, gravity is a force, described by Newton’s law, where it pulls objects together based on their mass and distance. This view doesn’t need to explain the mechanism, similar to early understandings of other forces.
General Relativity Perspective
In Einstein’s general relativity, gravity isn’t a force but the bending of spacetime caused by mass, explaining why objects move as if pulled, like a ball rolling into a depression on a trampoline.
Quantum Context
In quantum physics, we’re trying to fit gravity into a framework where forces have carriers, like the hypothetical graviton, but we haven’t found it yet, leaving the explanation incomplete.
Unexpected Detail: Practical Usage
Even though modern physics sees gravity as curvature, we still often call it a force in everyday language and calculations, especially for simplicity in classical contexts.
Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Gravity as a Force and Its Explanation
This section provides a comprehensive exploration of the user’s query, delving into the historical, classical, and modern perspectives on gravity, its classification as a force, and the ongoing challenges in explaining its mechanism, particularly in quantum contexts. It aims to address all aspects of the question, including theoretical nuances and potential misunderstandings, while maintaining a professional and informative tone suitable for a lay audience.
Historical Context: Newton’s Classical Force
Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation, published in 1687 in his Principia, described gravity as a force of attraction between any two masses, proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, expressed as F=Gm1m2r2F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}F=Gr2m1m2. This classical view treated gravity as one of the fundamental forces, alongside electromagnetism and the nuclear forces, without needing to explain the underlying mechanism. For centuries, this was sufficient for describing planetary motion, falling objects, and other macroscopic phenomena, and it remains accurate enough for most everyday calculations, as noted by Encyclopædia Britannica.
Newton’s theory was revolutionary, but it left open questions about how the force acted at a distance instantaneously, a concept that later clashed with Einstein’s theory of relativity, which imposed a cosmic speed limit—the speed of light. Despite this, the Newtonian view of gravity as a force was practical and widely accepted, similar to how early physics described magnetism before understanding electromagnetic fields.
Einstein’s General Relativity: Gravity as Curvature, Not Force
Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, introduced in 1915, offered a radical departure, treating gravity not as a force but as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. According to this theory, massive objects like the Earth or Sun warp the four-dimensional fabric of spacetime, and other objects move along the resulting geodesics, or shortest paths, which we perceive as gravitational attraction. For example, the American Museum of Natural History explains this with an analogy: a trampoline sags under a bowling ball, and a marble rolls toward it, not because of a force, but due to the curved surface.
This view resolved issues like the instantaneous action at a distance in Newton’s theory, as spacetime curvature propagates at the speed of light. General relativity has been extensively tested, with predictions like gravitational lensing (confirmed in 1919 by Arthur Eddington during a solar eclipse) and gravitational waves (first detected in 2015) supporting its validity. As Scientific American notes, it’s the framework for all precise gravitational calculations, especially in cosmology, describing the universe’s expansion and black holes.
In this context, gravity is not a force but a geometric effect, which addresses the user’s concern about lacking an explanation for the force—general relativity explains it as spacetime geometry, not a direct interaction requiring a carrier.
Quantum Physics and the Search for a Force Carrier
The user’s question likely stems from the challenge in quantum physics, where the other fundamental forces (electromagnetic, strong, and weak) are described by quantum field theory, with each having a force carrier: photons for electromagnetism, gluons for the strong force, and W and Z bosons for the weak force. Gravity, however, is not part of the Standard Model of particle physics, and efforts to quantize it, known as quantum gravity, are ongoing.
Researchers hypothesize the graviton, a massless, spin-2 boson, as the force carrier for gravity, analogous to the photon for electromagnetism, as described by Encyclopædia Britannica. If it exists, the graviton would mediate gravitational interactions, explaining gravity as a force in quantum terms. However, gravitons have not been directly observed, and their interactions are predicted to be extremely weak, making detection challenging, as noted by Wikipedia. Scientific American highlights the search for the graviton as crucial for a “theory of everything,” unifying quantum mechanics and gravity, but as of 2025, no experimental evidence has been found, leaving the explanation incomplete.
This lack of a quantum explanation is a significant gap, and theories like string theory and loop quantum gravity are exploring ways to describe gravity quantum mechanically, but none are yet complete or experimentally verified, as detailed by Wikipedia.
Reconciling the Views: Force or Not?
The tension between these perspectives—Newtonian force, relativistic curvature, and quantum carrier—explains the user’s query. In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force, and its effects (acceleration, attraction) are described without needing the mechanism, much like how early physics described other forces before discovering fields or particles. This historical usage persists in everyday language and classical calculations, where we say gravity “pulls” objects down or keeps planets in orbit, as seen in educational resources like NASA Space Place.
In general relativity, however, it’s not a force but an effect of spacetime geometry, addressing the user’s concern about lacking an explanation by redefining the problem. Yet, in quantum attempts, we treat it as a force with a carrier (graviton), but without finding it, the explanation remains elusive. This dual nature is reflected in discussions like Physics Stack Exchange, where gravity is described as an “emergent force” in some contexts, meaning what looks like a force emerges from more fundamental effects (spacetime curvature).
Practical Usage and Controversy
An interesting aspect is that despite general relativity’s view, we still often call gravity a force for convenience, especially in educational and classical contexts. For example, textbooks and popular science might say “gravity is the force that keeps you on the ground,” simplifying for lay audiences, as seen in Space.com. This practical usage can blur the distinction, leading to confusion, and it’s a point of controversy among physicists and educators about how to present gravity to students—should we stick to curvature for accuracy, or use “force” for familiarity?
The lack of a quantum explanation, particularly the undiscovered graviton, fuels debates about whether gravity should be called a force at all in modern physics. Some argue it’s misleading, given general relativity, while others say it’s valid in quantum contexts, highlighting the ongoing tension between classical, relativistic, and quantum views, as discussed in Quanta Magazine.
Table: Comparison of Gravity Across Physics Frameworks
| Framework | View of Gravity | Explanation for Mechanism | Force Carrier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newtonian Physics | Force of attraction between masses | Not explained, mathematical law | None, action at distance |
| General Relativity | Curvature of spacetime by mass/energy | Geometric, objects follow geodesics | None, no force |
| Quantum Field Theory | Hypothesized force, mediated by graviton | Incomplete, graviton not observed | Graviton (hypothetical) |
This table highlights the evolution of our understanding, showing how gravity shifts from a force to geometry and remains unexplained in quantum terms.
Conclusion
In summary, gravity can be considered a force in Newtonian physics, where it’s described without needing a mechanism, but in Einstein’s general relativity, it’s not a force but spacetime curvature, addressing the user’s concern by redefining the problem. The lack of a quantum explanation, particularly the undiscovered graviton, leaves the force carrier hypothesis incomplete, aligning with the user’s point. However, for historical and practical reasons, we often still call it a force, especially in classical contexts, reflecting the complexity and ongoing debates in modern physics.
Leave a Reply