Thw first sentence below is simply a fundamental physical error for reasons I have explained. Gravity is just the way massy objects obeying Newton's First law behave in locally and perhaps globally nonEuclidean space(time)s. The second sentence is false insofar as it implies that gravity is a force, and misleading insofar as ut suggests that "forces" are specially associated woth aprticles. Electromagetic radiation is not a force but it is certainly associated with a wide range of particles (photons, electrons, etc.). Some forces are not associated with any particles at all, but that is beside the point. It is true that physicists are looking for gravitrons, particlesa ssociated with gravity -- not to explain gravity, but to explain how it is integrated in quantum electrodynamics. B-S is right that relativity theory -- special as well as general -- is deterministic, while quantum is not, and this shows that it is incomplerely integrated into a quantum conception of the world, and indeed incomplete. But I already said that, if perhaps not quite so clearly. A Gtand Unified Theory that fit together relativity and quantum would be great to have and no doubt teach us more about gravity -- but would not explain away any mysterious occulr forces. Einstein already got rid of those.
--- boddi satva <lbo.boddi at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, this is just wrong. Gravity absolutely is
> a force and the
> mechanism of it is mysterious. While all the other
> forces seem to have
> mediating particles, nobody knows what mediates
> gravity. The General
> Theory of Relativity describes the behavior of the
> universe very well
> but all physicists will tell you it is an incomplete
> view of reality.
> It only describes the behavior of masses large
> enough to behave
> non-probabilistically. At the level of probabilistic
> masses, geometry
> is violated with impunity as in tunnelling.
>
> On 12/23/05, andie nachgeborenen
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Gravity is not a force. That is the fundamental
> > negative result of GTR -- the elimination of the
> idea
> > of the "force" of gravitation posited by Newton,
> thus
> > the elimination of the problem of action at a
> distance
> > that so puzzled him.* Gravity is an effect of the
> > curvature of spacetime near massy objects. It is
> an
> > consequence of geometry. Neither is it correct to
> say
> > that it in virtue of some occult force that
> > mass-energy "causes" spacetime to curve. That
> > presupposes tata spacetime is somehow naturally
> > Euclidean and that something must be posited to
> > expalin deviations from flatness. This is an
> error.
> > S-T is locally Euclidean, which may be where the
> error
> > comes from. It may be (but probbaly isn't)
> Euclidean
> > in on the large scale, but once you give up the
> idea
> > of Newtonian absolute space, fixed, immovable, the
> > same everywhere, it is no special mystery why the
> > presence of mass-energy would produce variations
> in
> > the shape of spacetime, and why it would produce
> the
> > precise highly preductable vatiations it does. No
> > occult powers are called for to account for this
> > unless you illegitimately import closet Newtonian
> > assumptions. As noted by me and others, a
> unification
> > of GTR with qwuantum theory, which hopefully will
> give
> > us more ins ights into gravity, still eludes us.
> >
> > * Action at a distance creeps back in quantum
> theory
> > -- in a context totally removed from gravitation
> --
> > via Bell's Theorem, but quantum is so
> fundamentally
> > bizarre and incomprehensible that there isn't much
> we
> > can do about that.
> >
> > --- Matt <lbo3 at beyondzero.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 08:12:27AM -0800, Chris
> Doss
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- Matt <lbo3 at beyondzero.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, the dynamic nature of space-time and
> > > gravity as
> > > > > the manifestation
> > > > > of the curving effects of matter is the
> > > explanation
> > > > > of the "mechanism"
> > > > > as given by General Relativity. It works
> very
> > > very
> > > > > well; in other
> > > > > words the mathematical predictions have been
> > > > > experimentally confirmed.
> > > >
> > > > That's not a mechanism -- that's an improved
> > > > predictive model. The question is "why does
> matter
> > > > cause space to 'curve'?", i.e., "why is there
> > > > gravity?", "why does matter have this occult
> > > > property?"
> > > >
> > > > It has been 10 years since I read Einstein's
> > > > for-the-layman book on SR and GR, but if I
> > > recollect
> > > > correctly (a big if) no such explanation is
> given.
> > >
> > > The answer to the question of why matter causes
> > > spame-time to curve is
> > > where we must look to new theories that will
> unify
> > > Quantum Mechanics -
> > > which models the behavior of the sub-atomic
> > > particles and the fields
> > > affecting those particles - and macroscopic
> theories
> > > like GR. We have
> > > string theory; quantum units of gravity, such as
> a
> > > graviton; quantum
> > > loop gravity - attempting to model gravity as a
> > > fundamental force
> > > consistent with the other forces modeled by QM.
> > >
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > --
> > > PGP RSA Key ID: 0x1F6A4471
> > > aim: beyondzero123
> > > PGP DH/DSS Key ID: 0xAFF35DF2
> > > icq: 120941588
> > > http://blogdayafternoon.com
> yahoo
> > > msg: beyondzero123
> > >
> > > Let me close by telling you what I hope to get
> out
> > > of the national
> > > dialogue that these committees are fostering. I
> am
> > > not really
> > > helped by being reminded that I need more Arabic
> > > linguists or by
> > > someone second-guessing an obscure intercept
> sitting
> > > in our files
> > > that may make more sense today than it did two
> years
> > > ago. What I
> > > really need you to do is to talk to your
> > > constituents and find out
> > > where the American people want that line between
> > > security and
> > > liberty to be.
> > > -NSA Director Michael Hayden, statement
> before
> > > Congress
> > >
> > > ___________________________________
> > >
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
> > http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/
> > ___________________________________
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com