Not quite true. Gravitons are expected when dealing with quantum gravity. GR explains non-quantum aspects of gravity, but we know at some point the quantum aspects will be relevant.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Understanding gravity
- Thread starter Cooky
- Start date
Not quite true. Gravitons are expected when dealing with quantum gravity. GR explains non-quantum aspects of gravity, but we know at some point the quantum aspects will be relevant.
Depends on what you mean by that term. It is certainly possible to have zero gravitational force. And the gravitational potential can be zero.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Doesn't Higgs Bosons also play a part in quantum gravity? Don't remember. It was a while ago reading about these things.
No. The Higg's is related to how some particles get mass, but not directly relevant to gravity (and actually not relevant to how most 'ordinary' matter gets mass).
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Shouldn't there always be some gravitational force from our sun, SagA*, galaxy cluster, etc? It could be close to zero, but an exact zero gravity?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Ah. I knew the Higg's had something to do with the whole thing somehow. You need mass to have or be affected by gravity though.
Even that isn't precisely true. Energy also produces a gravitational field, as does momentum density. The total energy of most systems we encounter in everyday life is dominated by the mass, though.
If you are considering the force, all that is required is a very small force opposite SagA* to get a zero total. Any equilibrium position will have zero total force.
Heyo
Veteran Member
A zero point in a gravitational field would be possible if the field could contain negative gravitational forces. Dark energy may be that negative gravitation.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Yes, but not all Quantum Gravity hypothesis require a particle representation of gravity. And non of the mid future falsifiable hypothesis like Super Symetry have it. It hasn't been ruled out but it is a fringe idea at the moment.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Theoretically possible, but probably not in reality, since we really don't know how it works yet. Anyway, considering that our star system is travelling 700 Mm/hr around SagA*, pulled by it, and the inertia keeps our system in orbit in the galaxy, if we managed to somehow nullify any and all gravitational forces (even the interaction between Andromeda and Milkyway) we should end up in a relative velocity of hundreds of thousands km/hr in respect to our star system and galaxy. Just some random thoughts I had.
Cooky
Veteran Member
It's also odd how the moon is traveling away from earth, when it's gravity is only 1.62 m/s² and ours is 9.8 m/s².
Apparently an oceanic bulge from a mere 2 mile deep (on average) ocean is somehow pushing a moon already 240,000 miles away further into space?
...There must be something more to this.
Apparently an oceanic bulge from a mere 2 mile deep (on average) ocean is somehow pushing a moon already 240,000 miles away further into space?
...There must be something more to this.
Supersymmetry doesn't deal with the energy levels for quantum gravity, which is why it doesn't have a quantum particle for gravity. As far as I am aware, gravitons are still considered part of a full quantum gravity treatment. Every field has a corresponding particle representation in QM.
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
It’s nice that you used her real name.
Also, I think we need something more evocative than just ‘the earth’ to name our living home.
It is so banal and dry. May as well call it ‘the old sod’.
I know there’s Gaia, but it doesn’t do it for me.
Any suggestions ? What is our planet called in other cultures ?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Since I took Astronomy 101 many moons ago, don't take anything I say as gospel.
Anywho, the sum of gravitational force of the interaction between Earth and Luna is the sum of both masses. Earth pulls the moon, and the moon pulls Earth.
And, because the moon is less mess, the center point around which both are orbiting is much closer to Earth than the moon.
Yeah, if I remember it right, the ocean is slowing the moon down, causing it to slowly depart. Not sure if I'm able to explain how that works, but that's the explanation... I think.
You're talking about tidal aspects. The friction in the tides is slowing the rotation rate of the Earth. To conserve energy, the moon moves away in the gravitational field. It isn't 'pushing' the moon farther away. The moon is in orbit and the orbit expands because of conservation of energy.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Hmm... Bob?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
It's a very heavy topic.