If Gravity is a pseudoforce in General Relativity, then why is a graviton necessary?
As far as i’m aware, gravity in General Relativity arises from the curvature of spacetime, and is equivalent to an accelerated reference frame. Objects accelerating in a gravitational field are in fact inertial and are moving through geodesics in spacetime. So it could be said then that it is not really a force, but a pseudoforce much like the coriolis effect. If so, why is it necessary to quantise gravity with a gauge boson, the graviton? And why is it necessary to unify it with the other forces?
quantum-field-theory general-relativity
add a comment |
As far as i’m aware, gravity in General Relativity arises from the curvature of spacetime, and is equivalent to an accelerated reference frame. Objects accelerating in a gravitational field are in fact inertial and are moving through geodesics in spacetime. So it could be said then that it is not really a force, but a pseudoforce much like the coriolis effect. If so, why is it necessary to quantise gravity with a gauge boson, the graviton? And why is it necessary to unify it with the other forces?
quantum-field-theory general-relativity
I like this question. I have seen many sparse answers, but haven't seen it addressed head-on.
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
Possible duplicate of Is quantizing acceleration equivalent to quantizing gravity?
– knzhou
50 mins ago
add a comment |
As far as i’m aware, gravity in General Relativity arises from the curvature of spacetime, and is equivalent to an accelerated reference frame. Objects accelerating in a gravitational field are in fact inertial and are moving through geodesics in spacetime. So it could be said then that it is not really a force, but a pseudoforce much like the coriolis effect. If so, why is it necessary to quantise gravity with a gauge boson, the graviton? And why is it necessary to unify it with the other forces?
quantum-field-theory general-relativity
As far as i’m aware, gravity in General Relativity arises from the curvature of spacetime, and is equivalent to an accelerated reference frame. Objects accelerating in a gravitational field are in fact inertial and are moving through geodesics in spacetime. So it could be said then that it is not really a force, but a pseudoforce much like the coriolis effect. If so, why is it necessary to quantise gravity with a gauge boson, the graviton? And why is it necessary to unify it with the other forces?
quantum-field-theory general-relativity
quantum-field-theory general-relativity
asked 5 hours ago
Thatpotatoisaspy
17826
17826
I like this question. I have seen many sparse answers, but haven't seen it addressed head-on.
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
Possible duplicate of Is quantizing acceleration equivalent to quantizing gravity?
– knzhou
50 mins ago
add a comment |
I like this question. I have seen many sparse answers, but haven't seen it addressed head-on.
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
Possible duplicate of Is quantizing acceleration equivalent to quantizing gravity?
– knzhou
50 mins ago
I like this question. I have seen many sparse answers, but haven't seen it addressed head-on.
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
I like this question. I have seen many sparse answers, but haven't seen it addressed head-on.
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
Possible duplicate of Is quantizing acceleration equivalent to quantizing gravity?
– knzhou
50 mins ago
Possible duplicate of Is quantizing acceleration equivalent to quantizing gravity?
– knzhou
50 mins ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
While it's common to describe gravity as a fictitious force we should be cautious about the use of the adjective fictitious as this is a technical term meaning the gravitational force is not fundamental but is the result of an underlying property. The force itself it most certainly not fictitious as anyone who has been sat on by an elephant can attest.
There is a sense in which all forces are fictitious since they are all the emergent long range behaviour of quantum fields, so gravity is not unique in this respect. For more on this see Can all fundamental forces be fictitious forces?
Anyhow, the object responsible for the gravitational force is a tensor field called the metric, and when we quantise gravity we are quantising the metric. The graviton then emerges as the excitation of the quantum field that describes the metric. As with other quantum fields we can have real gravitons that are the building blocks of gravitational waves and virtual gravitons used in scattering calculations.
I really like this answer, and the link is very good too. But when you say "There is a sense in which all forces are fictitious since they are all the emergent long range behaviour of quantum fields", are asserting that this is equivalent to your earlier statement that "the force is the result of an underlying property"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
@InertialObserver yes
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
But isn't OP asserting the possibility that gravity is different in this sense? That the description of spacetime is more fundamental than the Yang-Mills gauge theories that we define on that spacetime, and so perhaps shouldn't be subject to the same intuition that it should be "quantized"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
No I don't think quantising the metric is any more fundamental than quantising the electromagnetic potential fourvector.
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
Why is that? Isn't $A^mu(x)$ a function of space time?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Gravity is not equivalent to an accelerated frame. It's locally equivalent to an accelerated frame. That means that a point-like observed will never be able to tell whether he/she is in a gravitational field or in an accelerating spaceship. But an observer that has some characteristic size will experience tidal forces. Tidal forces are a result of a non zero curvature of space. On the other hand going to an accelerated frame does not curve spacetime because it's just a change of variables.
The mathematical statement is that you can always find a change of coordinates which, at a given point, sets to zero the first derivatives of the metric. Namely you can make the Christoffel symbols $Gamma^mu_{nurho}$ vanish at a given point. On the other hand the second derivatives of the metric, which encode the curvature, cannot be set to zero.
There is a nice exercise that demonstrates the difference between accelerating frames and curved spacetime. Suppose you have two particles following two parallel geodesics. In curved spacetime the geodesics will not stay parallel. This is discussed in the book Schutz - A first course in general relativity at the end of Section 6.5. I'll summarize the punch line but I encourage you to check the derivation there.
Call $vec{xi}$ the vector that connects two geodesics $vec{V}$ and $vec{V}'$ initially parallel. In the book the following equation is proven
$$
nabla_Vnabla_V xi^alpha = R^alpha_{phantom{a}munubeta}V^mu V^nu xi^beta,.
$$
where $nabla_V = V^mu nabla_mu$, $nabla$ being the covariant derivative and $R^alpha_{phantom{a}munubeta}$ is the Riemann tensor, which measures the curvature. The equation above states that the variation of $vec{xi}$ along the geodesic is not zero but proportional to the curvature, thus showing that geodesics deviate from being parallel in curved space. This is a frame-independent effect and cannot be realized by going to an accelerated frame.
An observer with a characteristic size of the order of $1/sqrt{R^mu_{phantom{a}nurhobeta}}$ would be able to notice this effect.
Thank you very much for your comment, although I was already aware of the equivalence being local; i really should have phrased my question better.
– Thatpotatoisaspy
42 mins ago
add a comment |
There is no difference between waves and particles. They are identical broad concepts including any possible configuration of matter or energy.
So since gravity must be transmitted as something, whatever means through which it transmits can be called a wave or particle. Because all forces must unify, forces transmitted through quanta e.g. emag require that all other forces also be quantized.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f449958%2fif-gravity-is-a-pseudoforce-in-general-relativity-then-why-is-a-graviton-necess%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
While it's common to describe gravity as a fictitious force we should be cautious about the use of the adjective fictitious as this is a technical term meaning the gravitational force is not fundamental but is the result of an underlying property. The force itself it most certainly not fictitious as anyone who has been sat on by an elephant can attest.
There is a sense in which all forces are fictitious since they are all the emergent long range behaviour of quantum fields, so gravity is not unique in this respect. For more on this see Can all fundamental forces be fictitious forces?
Anyhow, the object responsible for the gravitational force is a tensor field called the metric, and when we quantise gravity we are quantising the metric. The graviton then emerges as the excitation of the quantum field that describes the metric. As with other quantum fields we can have real gravitons that are the building blocks of gravitational waves and virtual gravitons used in scattering calculations.
I really like this answer, and the link is very good too. But when you say "There is a sense in which all forces are fictitious since they are all the emergent long range behaviour of quantum fields", are asserting that this is equivalent to your earlier statement that "the force is the result of an underlying property"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
@InertialObserver yes
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
But isn't OP asserting the possibility that gravity is different in this sense? That the description of spacetime is more fundamental than the Yang-Mills gauge theories that we define on that spacetime, and so perhaps shouldn't be subject to the same intuition that it should be "quantized"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
No I don't think quantising the metric is any more fundamental than quantising the electromagnetic potential fourvector.
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
Why is that? Isn't $A^mu(x)$ a function of space time?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
While it's common to describe gravity as a fictitious force we should be cautious about the use of the adjective fictitious as this is a technical term meaning the gravitational force is not fundamental but is the result of an underlying property. The force itself it most certainly not fictitious as anyone who has been sat on by an elephant can attest.
There is a sense in which all forces are fictitious since they are all the emergent long range behaviour of quantum fields, so gravity is not unique in this respect. For more on this see Can all fundamental forces be fictitious forces?
Anyhow, the object responsible for the gravitational force is a tensor field called the metric, and when we quantise gravity we are quantising the metric. The graviton then emerges as the excitation of the quantum field that describes the metric. As with other quantum fields we can have real gravitons that are the building blocks of gravitational waves and virtual gravitons used in scattering calculations.
I really like this answer, and the link is very good too. But when you say "There is a sense in which all forces are fictitious since they are all the emergent long range behaviour of quantum fields", are asserting that this is equivalent to your earlier statement that "the force is the result of an underlying property"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
@InertialObserver yes
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
But isn't OP asserting the possibility that gravity is different in this sense? That the description of spacetime is more fundamental than the Yang-Mills gauge theories that we define on that spacetime, and so perhaps shouldn't be subject to the same intuition that it should be "quantized"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
No I don't think quantising the metric is any more fundamental than quantising the electromagnetic potential fourvector.
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
Why is that? Isn't $A^mu(x)$ a function of space time?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
While it's common to describe gravity as a fictitious force we should be cautious about the use of the adjective fictitious as this is a technical term meaning the gravitational force is not fundamental but is the result of an underlying property. The force itself it most certainly not fictitious as anyone who has been sat on by an elephant can attest.
There is a sense in which all forces are fictitious since they are all the emergent long range behaviour of quantum fields, so gravity is not unique in this respect. For more on this see Can all fundamental forces be fictitious forces?
Anyhow, the object responsible for the gravitational force is a tensor field called the metric, and when we quantise gravity we are quantising the metric. The graviton then emerges as the excitation of the quantum field that describes the metric. As with other quantum fields we can have real gravitons that are the building blocks of gravitational waves and virtual gravitons used in scattering calculations.
While it's common to describe gravity as a fictitious force we should be cautious about the use of the adjective fictitious as this is a technical term meaning the gravitational force is not fundamental but is the result of an underlying property. The force itself it most certainly not fictitious as anyone who has been sat on by an elephant can attest.
There is a sense in which all forces are fictitious since they are all the emergent long range behaviour of quantum fields, so gravity is not unique in this respect. For more on this see Can all fundamental forces be fictitious forces?
Anyhow, the object responsible for the gravitational force is a tensor field called the metric, and when we quantise gravity we are quantising the metric. The graviton then emerges as the excitation of the quantum field that describes the metric. As with other quantum fields we can have real gravitons that are the building blocks of gravitational waves and virtual gravitons used in scattering calculations.
answered 4 hours ago
John Rennie
270k42528779
270k42528779
I really like this answer, and the link is very good too. But when you say "There is a sense in which all forces are fictitious since they are all the emergent long range behaviour of quantum fields", are asserting that this is equivalent to your earlier statement that "the force is the result of an underlying property"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
@InertialObserver yes
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
But isn't OP asserting the possibility that gravity is different in this sense? That the description of spacetime is more fundamental than the Yang-Mills gauge theories that we define on that spacetime, and so perhaps shouldn't be subject to the same intuition that it should be "quantized"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
No I don't think quantising the metric is any more fundamental than quantising the electromagnetic potential fourvector.
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
Why is that? Isn't $A^mu(x)$ a function of space time?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
I really like this answer, and the link is very good too. But when you say "There is a sense in which all forces are fictitious since they are all the emergent long range behaviour of quantum fields", are asserting that this is equivalent to your earlier statement that "the force is the result of an underlying property"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
@InertialObserver yes
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
But isn't OP asserting the possibility that gravity is different in this sense? That the description of spacetime is more fundamental than the Yang-Mills gauge theories that we define on that spacetime, and so perhaps shouldn't be subject to the same intuition that it should be "quantized"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
No I don't think quantising the metric is any more fundamental than quantising the electromagnetic potential fourvector.
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
Why is that? Isn't $A^mu(x)$ a function of space time?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
I really like this answer, and the link is very good too. But when you say "There is a sense in which all forces are fictitious since they are all the emergent long range behaviour of quantum fields", are asserting that this is equivalent to your earlier statement that "the force is the result of an underlying property"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
I really like this answer, and the link is very good too. But when you say "There is a sense in which all forces are fictitious since they are all the emergent long range behaviour of quantum fields", are asserting that this is equivalent to your earlier statement that "the force is the result of an underlying property"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
@InertialObserver yes
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
@InertialObserver yes
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
But isn't OP asserting the possibility that gravity is different in this sense? That the description of spacetime is more fundamental than the Yang-Mills gauge theories that we define on that spacetime, and so perhaps shouldn't be subject to the same intuition that it should be "quantized"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
But isn't OP asserting the possibility that gravity is different in this sense? That the description of spacetime is more fundamental than the Yang-Mills gauge theories that we define on that spacetime, and so perhaps shouldn't be subject to the same intuition that it should be "quantized"?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
No I don't think quantising the metric is any more fundamental than quantising the electromagnetic potential fourvector.
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
No I don't think quantising the metric is any more fundamental than quantising the electromagnetic potential fourvector.
– John Rennie
4 hours ago
Why is that? Isn't $A^mu(x)$ a function of space time?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
Why is that? Isn't $A^mu(x)$ a function of space time?
– InertialObserver
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Gravity is not equivalent to an accelerated frame. It's locally equivalent to an accelerated frame. That means that a point-like observed will never be able to tell whether he/she is in a gravitational field or in an accelerating spaceship. But an observer that has some characteristic size will experience tidal forces. Tidal forces are a result of a non zero curvature of space. On the other hand going to an accelerated frame does not curve spacetime because it's just a change of variables.
The mathematical statement is that you can always find a change of coordinates which, at a given point, sets to zero the first derivatives of the metric. Namely you can make the Christoffel symbols $Gamma^mu_{nurho}$ vanish at a given point. On the other hand the second derivatives of the metric, which encode the curvature, cannot be set to zero.
There is a nice exercise that demonstrates the difference between accelerating frames and curved spacetime. Suppose you have two particles following two parallel geodesics. In curved spacetime the geodesics will not stay parallel. This is discussed in the book Schutz - A first course in general relativity at the end of Section 6.5. I'll summarize the punch line but I encourage you to check the derivation there.
Call $vec{xi}$ the vector that connects two geodesics $vec{V}$ and $vec{V}'$ initially parallel. In the book the following equation is proven
$$
nabla_Vnabla_V xi^alpha = R^alpha_{phantom{a}munubeta}V^mu V^nu xi^beta,.
$$
where $nabla_V = V^mu nabla_mu$, $nabla$ being the covariant derivative and $R^alpha_{phantom{a}munubeta}$ is the Riemann tensor, which measures the curvature. The equation above states that the variation of $vec{xi}$ along the geodesic is not zero but proportional to the curvature, thus showing that geodesics deviate from being parallel in curved space. This is a frame-independent effect and cannot be realized by going to an accelerated frame.
An observer with a characteristic size of the order of $1/sqrt{R^mu_{phantom{a}nurhobeta}}$ would be able to notice this effect.
Thank you very much for your comment, although I was already aware of the equivalence being local; i really should have phrased my question better.
– Thatpotatoisaspy
42 mins ago
add a comment |
Gravity is not equivalent to an accelerated frame. It's locally equivalent to an accelerated frame. That means that a point-like observed will never be able to tell whether he/she is in a gravitational field or in an accelerating spaceship. But an observer that has some characteristic size will experience tidal forces. Tidal forces are a result of a non zero curvature of space. On the other hand going to an accelerated frame does not curve spacetime because it's just a change of variables.
The mathematical statement is that you can always find a change of coordinates which, at a given point, sets to zero the first derivatives of the metric. Namely you can make the Christoffel symbols $Gamma^mu_{nurho}$ vanish at a given point. On the other hand the second derivatives of the metric, which encode the curvature, cannot be set to zero.
There is a nice exercise that demonstrates the difference between accelerating frames and curved spacetime. Suppose you have two particles following two parallel geodesics. In curved spacetime the geodesics will not stay parallel. This is discussed in the book Schutz - A first course in general relativity at the end of Section 6.5. I'll summarize the punch line but I encourage you to check the derivation there.
Call $vec{xi}$ the vector that connects two geodesics $vec{V}$ and $vec{V}'$ initially parallel. In the book the following equation is proven
$$
nabla_Vnabla_V xi^alpha = R^alpha_{phantom{a}munubeta}V^mu V^nu xi^beta,.
$$
where $nabla_V = V^mu nabla_mu$, $nabla$ being the covariant derivative and $R^alpha_{phantom{a}munubeta}$ is the Riemann tensor, which measures the curvature. The equation above states that the variation of $vec{xi}$ along the geodesic is not zero but proportional to the curvature, thus showing that geodesics deviate from being parallel in curved space. This is a frame-independent effect and cannot be realized by going to an accelerated frame.
An observer with a characteristic size of the order of $1/sqrt{R^mu_{phantom{a}nurhobeta}}$ would be able to notice this effect.
Thank you very much for your comment, although I was already aware of the equivalence being local; i really should have phrased my question better.
– Thatpotatoisaspy
42 mins ago
add a comment |
Gravity is not equivalent to an accelerated frame. It's locally equivalent to an accelerated frame. That means that a point-like observed will never be able to tell whether he/she is in a gravitational field or in an accelerating spaceship. But an observer that has some characteristic size will experience tidal forces. Tidal forces are a result of a non zero curvature of space. On the other hand going to an accelerated frame does not curve spacetime because it's just a change of variables.
The mathematical statement is that you can always find a change of coordinates which, at a given point, sets to zero the first derivatives of the metric. Namely you can make the Christoffel symbols $Gamma^mu_{nurho}$ vanish at a given point. On the other hand the second derivatives of the metric, which encode the curvature, cannot be set to zero.
There is a nice exercise that demonstrates the difference between accelerating frames and curved spacetime. Suppose you have two particles following two parallel geodesics. In curved spacetime the geodesics will not stay parallel. This is discussed in the book Schutz - A first course in general relativity at the end of Section 6.5. I'll summarize the punch line but I encourage you to check the derivation there.
Call $vec{xi}$ the vector that connects two geodesics $vec{V}$ and $vec{V}'$ initially parallel. In the book the following equation is proven
$$
nabla_Vnabla_V xi^alpha = R^alpha_{phantom{a}munubeta}V^mu V^nu xi^beta,.
$$
where $nabla_V = V^mu nabla_mu$, $nabla$ being the covariant derivative and $R^alpha_{phantom{a}munubeta}$ is the Riemann tensor, which measures the curvature. The equation above states that the variation of $vec{xi}$ along the geodesic is not zero but proportional to the curvature, thus showing that geodesics deviate from being parallel in curved space. This is a frame-independent effect and cannot be realized by going to an accelerated frame.
An observer with a characteristic size of the order of $1/sqrt{R^mu_{phantom{a}nurhobeta}}$ would be able to notice this effect.
Gravity is not equivalent to an accelerated frame. It's locally equivalent to an accelerated frame. That means that a point-like observed will never be able to tell whether he/she is in a gravitational field or in an accelerating spaceship. But an observer that has some characteristic size will experience tidal forces. Tidal forces are a result of a non zero curvature of space. On the other hand going to an accelerated frame does not curve spacetime because it's just a change of variables.
The mathematical statement is that you can always find a change of coordinates which, at a given point, sets to zero the first derivatives of the metric. Namely you can make the Christoffel symbols $Gamma^mu_{nurho}$ vanish at a given point. On the other hand the second derivatives of the metric, which encode the curvature, cannot be set to zero.
There is a nice exercise that demonstrates the difference between accelerating frames and curved spacetime. Suppose you have two particles following two parallel geodesics. In curved spacetime the geodesics will not stay parallel. This is discussed in the book Schutz - A first course in general relativity at the end of Section 6.5. I'll summarize the punch line but I encourage you to check the derivation there.
Call $vec{xi}$ the vector that connects two geodesics $vec{V}$ and $vec{V}'$ initially parallel. In the book the following equation is proven
$$
nabla_Vnabla_V xi^alpha = R^alpha_{phantom{a}munubeta}V^mu V^nu xi^beta,.
$$
where $nabla_V = V^mu nabla_mu$, $nabla$ being the covariant derivative and $R^alpha_{phantom{a}munubeta}$ is the Riemann tensor, which measures the curvature. The equation above states that the variation of $vec{xi}$ along the geodesic is not zero but proportional to the curvature, thus showing that geodesics deviate from being parallel in curved space. This is a frame-independent effect and cannot be realized by going to an accelerated frame.
An observer with a characteristic size of the order of $1/sqrt{R^mu_{phantom{a}nurhobeta}}$ would be able to notice this effect.
answered 4 hours ago
Mane.andrea
46118
46118
Thank you very much for your comment, although I was already aware of the equivalence being local; i really should have phrased my question better.
– Thatpotatoisaspy
42 mins ago
add a comment |
Thank you very much for your comment, although I was already aware of the equivalence being local; i really should have phrased my question better.
– Thatpotatoisaspy
42 mins ago
Thank you very much for your comment, although I was already aware of the equivalence being local; i really should have phrased my question better.
– Thatpotatoisaspy
42 mins ago
Thank you very much for your comment, although I was already aware of the equivalence being local; i really should have phrased my question better.
– Thatpotatoisaspy
42 mins ago
add a comment |
There is no difference between waves and particles. They are identical broad concepts including any possible configuration of matter or energy.
So since gravity must be transmitted as something, whatever means through which it transmits can be called a wave or particle. Because all forces must unify, forces transmitted through quanta e.g. emag require that all other forces also be quantized.
add a comment |
There is no difference between waves and particles. They are identical broad concepts including any possible configuration of matter or energy.
So since gravity must be transmitted as something, whatever means through which it transmits can be called a wave or particle. Because all forces must unify, forces transmitted through quanta e.g. emag require that all other forces also be quantized.
add a comment |
There is no difference between waves and particles. They are identical broad concepts including any possible configuration of matter or energy.
So since gravity must be transmitted as something, whatever means through which it transmits can be called a wave or particle. Because all forces must unify, forces transmitted through quanta e.g. emag require that all other forces also be quantized.
There is no difference between waves and particles. They are identical broad concepts including any possible configuration of matter or energy.
So since gravity must be transmitted as something, whatever means through which it transmits can be called a wave or particle. Because all forces must unify, forces transmitted through quanta e.g. emag require that all other forces also be quantized.
answered 4 hours ago
Liu
21
21
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f449958%2fif-gravity-is-a-pseudoforce-in-general-relativity-then-why-is-a-graviton-necess%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I like this question. I have seen many sparse answers, but haven't seen it addressed head-on.
– InertialObserver
5 hours ago
Possible duplicate of Is quantizing acceleration equivalent to quantizing gravity?
– knzhou
50 mins ago