So I thought gravity was basically the curvature of spacetime. But if there's a "gravity" particle, those two things seem mutually exclusive?
Can someone who understands this please explain it to me, thanks!
Can someone who understands this please explain it to me, thanks!
String theory and loop quantum gravity fit into this picture by trying to replace the integral over something we can't handle with an integral that matches it at large scales, but turns into something more tractable at small scales. Maybe the fact that we still can't make sense of the integral is Nature's way of telling us that she does not do the integral either...
>The model of non-self-interacting gravity is a particle we call a "graviton,"
This needs to be emphasized even more, because it has
>when the dx represents a slight change in a function
*see the discussion around sharikous’ comment below
Physicists love to be wrong! If there is an experiment that disagree with the current theory, then is like the will west and everyone can publish their own pet theory that "fix" it. It's like raining free paper for them, their graduate students and everyone. Also, it's fun!
When experiments and theory agree, they have to use imagination to get a new "interesting" tweak that can be published. In some case the the tweak may be interesting, but most of the times it's not.
I remember a talk about a 2-sigma "particle". There was a small disagreement in some experiment, so someone did a thesis about a possible fix adding a new particle. A lot of hard work and hard calculations. It was a nice talk, and someone asked what what happened then. The sad new was that later the 2-sigma disappeared, it was only a fluke :( . This kind of work is important, but it's more boring that looking for new particles.
Theorists would also love for experimentalists to be wrong, but the most efficient way to do it would be by inventing new maths… [sad but still fun]
Can you please elaborate, the first part of the sentence says graviton is for non-self-interacting gravity, the second part of the sentence says graviton is for self-interacting (if 'its' in 'its self-interaction' refers to the graviton).
I don't intend to nitpick the sentence, just trying to understand the theory and I don't even know if particle means self interaction or the opposite and can't parse it here either...
If the answer is graviton is for non-self-interacting: what is the model for the other case (where gravity does self interact) and what would cause that self interaction if not the graviton?
The point is, we know gravitation does self-interact. But our best model, the graviton, doesn't model self-interaction. So the model is probably accurate in regimes where you'd expect little self-interaction anyways.
just like the massless photon, the massless graviton would be bent by the gravity of black holes... hence self interaction?
In QED, photon and photon do interacts too and you can calculate its effect to be small. In GR, you can expect self interaction is small if the space time curvature is small.
(Photon is the particle that mediates QED, and graviton is the hypothetical particle that mediates gravity.)
That said, an easier question to ponder (and many have tried) might be:
Do photons self-interact? With each other? In free space?
I disagree with that part. For the strong force we have the "gluons" and they are considered particles and they have a strong self-interaction. The strong self interaction makes it a huge mess and a lot of things that involve gluons are impossible to calculate.
It's more like:
fake quote> Let's pretend for 30 minutes that the strong field don't self-interact, so we have this nice particles call gluons. Now we add this interaction to the Lagrangian to make gluons interact with other gluons, and now we have a problem.
I agree that that when gravity is small enough, then gravitons give an easy to calculate aproximation. IIRC at high enough energies calculations with gluons get not impossible to calculate too.
We see interacting particles in detectors, but since nobody can write down what field configuration they mean by "a photon," I can defend my phrasing - but you can defend yours too because I know what a bird is even if I don't know how they work.
The problem is that nobody has successfully combined these two views into a single unified theory, known as "quantum gravity". General Relativity and quantum mechanics don't naturally fit together, and that's why we don't yet fully understand gravity in a way that reconciles both the spacetime curvature and graviton perspectives.
Classically, it is. But most physicists believe that there is a quantum theory of gravity that underlies the classical theory, and that that quantum theory will include, at some level of description, a spin-2 gauge boson that mediates the quantum gravitational interaction, called the "graviton". Our classical theory of gravity, General Relativity, would then be the classical limit of that quantum theory, just as classical Maxwell electrodynamics is the classical limit of quantum electrodynamics.
Of course, our idea of how to reconcile quantum gravity with general relativity is much less developed than our understanding of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces.
In fact the outstanding success of the Standard Model has posed its own problems - the lack of deviations from it makes it hard for experiments to point in a useful direction for better theories to be developed along.
We have anomalies (deviations from standard model) in many measurements done by several experiments. This is a good summary [1] from them up until now (sorry for the pay-walled)
https://home.cern/news/news/physics/incredible-lightness-hig...
More relevantly to the previous question, I'm not aware of any of those which affect interactions with the strong or weak nuclear forces.
At first I thought this was a great pun. But then this is perhaps also the reason the word is actually "matters"? Where "matters" is what means something? What matters is what has an observable effect?
So if you take the gravity curves spacetime view, then gravity is not a force and all that. But if you take the alternative view then gravity is a force. Now, I'll leave what the distortions are that gravity produces in flat spacetime for another time, or for the reader. But I'll say this: this view is both controversial (perhaps replies will show this) and not (see above -and many other- animations).
I follow a few educators/communicators in this field and I have a feeling they're using this "gravity isn't really a force" to bridge the gap between their deep understanding and us mortals that don't poses the language / understanding to get the entire meaning behind it. Is that feeling correct or am I missing something?
To that extent you can build 3 fundamental forces, electro magnetic, weak (that are called together electroweak) and the strong force. You have an extra force carrier through the Higgs that allows you to give mass to everyone.
Now you need to consider gravity because you know that gravity exist and since everything under the sub is quantised, well so should gravity.
The main issue with gravity is that it is interpreted so far as a curvature of space time, it's mainly fine for big items, but the implications for quantum field theory is that you should modify the small integral element that you use (space shouldn't have the same size) except that you look locally at space that is mainly flat... And changing the integral does not lead to well behaved behaviours.
You can start to introduce new fields but doing so also causes an issue...
Funnily enough even in the standard model something is missing, everything mostly fits, but that's the trick, mostly, neutrinos have mass and this in itself is a problem because the Higgs mechanism doesn't provide mass to them ...
Long story short, people take shortcut when explaining the messy gritty part of it, which is "fine" but not really, and from a simple standpoint one would like to have a simple field from which gravity is born, which might be but so far, to my simpleton understanding, this hasn't been too successful, unless some form of string theory is realised. But the pre requisite for this is a form of supersymmetric theory existing which is currently disfavored, but could exist in the unproved energy scales from here to the plank energy scale.
Sorry this ended being a tad long and I'm not sure this is clarifying things.
The Higgs mechanism doesn't provide all mass, even of the things that it provides mass for. They each have a "bare" mass, that is, a mass without any Higgs interactions. They just have a much greater mass because of the Higgs interaction. (And maybe that's why neutrinos have so little mass...)
The W Z have only mass from the Higgs and nothing else for example.
But to answer your point completely here is an answer which is in the two following links making the point for the Dirac fields
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/607435/what-part...
https://cds.cern.ch/record/292286/files/B00008237.pdf at page 46
Or have I misunderstood your point?
Yes, that is the main issue. It doesn't have to be that way though. If you look at the Einstein field equations, and solutions like the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics, the key component is a metric tensor that is nothing more than a mapping from flat spacetime to curved spacetime. We have the ability to choose which interpretation to use. The metrics are nothing more than Mercator-like projections.
If you take the curved spacetime view then you get distortions of spacetime. If you take the flat spacetime view then you get other distortions like that the speed of light -though always seen as the same locally- varies according to the gravitational potential (there are other distortions as well).
We seem to have a bit of a fetish for the curved spacetime view. But oddly when you look for animations depicting interactions with black holes and photons or particles / small bodies what you almost invariably find are of two types: a) flat spacetime representations, or b) the funnel representation, and (b) often comes with a flat spacetime representation above the funnel. How do you think the authors produce the flat spacetime representations? A: By applying the metrics to go from curved spacetime to flat! And why do they use flat spacetime for their animations? A: Because it's easier for humans to understand!
The reality is that flat and curved spacetime are two sides of the same coin. If curved spacetime is the sticking point for quantizing gravity, then switch to flat spacetime.
The core idea is that when you move a mass, its contribution to the spacetime geometry changes, but the effects of the change of the geometry doesn't apply instantaneously to all the universe but instead the change propagates at the speed of light.
So that explains why any sudden movement of a mass creates a "crest" that moves through space at the speed of light.
Furthermore, the sources of fast movement of extremely heavy mass just happen to involve an object that wiggles back and forth in a periodic way because those events involve heavy objects orbiting other heavy objects.
That's the reason we can measure a wave with multiple crests and we can talk about a wave length of the gravitational waves: the wave length of the gravitational waves matches the period of the orbit of the heavy mass.
You wouldn't expect to find quantums of centrifugal force in a rotating frame of reference, and no quantums of centrifugal force in a non-rotating frame of reference. They're both describing the same situation; either quantums exist in both frames, or they exist in neither.
So either gravity really exists as a force, or it doesn't. If it does, then I would expect gravitons, and expect them in all frames of reference. If it doesn't, then I would expect no gravitons in any frame of reference.
Except... If I understand correctly, static electric and magnetic fields are not carried by photons - they just sit there. It's only changing E/M fields that are carried by photons. So maybe only changing gravitational fields are carried by gravitons, and the static fields are just curved space-time?
The "geometry" comes from the fact that the way we measure distances (or, well, experience time) uses the metric tensor field to do it. But it is still ultimately just a value attached to every point like any other field.
Not just some dumbed down Discovery show - it pushes the limits of what a layperson can understand.
That's the link bridging gravity as a particle (small-scale) and gravity as a feature of a manifold (large-scale). Physicists are trying to find a way to make spacetime emerge from quantum field theory, or make both emerge from some common framework.
The disconnect seems to be unresolvable (I don't understand this part at all) and so efforts are being made to quantise gravity and incorporate it into the standard model.
It does not have to be either or. It can be both. Both models can be useful to understand the nature of gravity and make predictions about natural phenomenon.
That is true. Classically, gravity is a fictitious force, merely a result of inertia from moving in a curved space-time.
> But how can that be true if there is a force carrying "gravity" particle? Or is the word 'force' being used loosely here?
Because we _suspect_ that the classical view is not correct. And there's a quantum description that may or may not involve curved space-time.
It's not impossible that the spacetime curvature is a mathematical artifact of a deeper theory. Merely a kinematic explanation, just like epicycles.
It's also possible that the space-time _is_ really curved, and gravitons simply cause the curvature by somehow coupling with it. And then other matter experiences this, in the manner described above.
So you have a thing, that gets interpolated updated with various functions, that overlap, and those functions only get updated at lightspeed, cause caching.
Cachesize limit should show as farway gravity sources getting bundled into lower density information functions.
There is not. Or maybe there is not. At least so far there is not. We have never observed one. "Graviton" particle is just a hypothesis. Outside of some people theorizing that graviton could exist, there is no observations that it exists.
"In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity"
That's just part of the picture.
I always thought that Veritasium video did more harm than good.