126
submitted 1 month ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/space@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Atlas_@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I know not enough physics to tell if this is reasonable but...

What if there's not just 4 base forces but 5, or an infinite class of them? Say something that falls off sub-quadratically but with a significantly lower constant than gravity? Or a whole class of forces that fall off less and less slowly, but have smaller and smaller constants as they do?

[-] cynar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The forces, to be a useful modelling tool, need a medium to interact with matter. E.g. an equivalent of charge would always be zero, if matter didn't have the ability to have charge. At that point, it effectively doesn't exist.

Interestingly, the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces are also aspects of the same force. They unify at high enough energy levels. They only appear different. The exception is gravity. It doesn't fit the mould. Basically we don't currently have 4 forces, but only 2. Scientists suspect it's actually only 1, but can't yet unify gravity into a theory of everything via a theory of quantum gravity.

[-] Zannsolo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

But isn't gravity a function of spacetime not matter? Where's the others are all behaviors of matter? Like there isn't a gravity partical or a spacetime partical.

[-] cynar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Ultimately, physics follows the maths, everything else is interpretation to comprehend what the maths is telling us.

In relativity, gravity is a smooth, continuous distortion of spacetime. In QM, gravity is just another force, mediated by the graviton. Both theories are consistent with the known maths. The fact that they don't agree shows the large hole we have in the maths.

In short, we don't know what gravity is. Then again, we don't know what most things are, once we did deep enough. We just have maths, with interpretations that let our monkey brains make sense of them.

My favourite example ample of this is the "dark sucker theory". Envision a universe where light producing objects don't produce light, but suck up dark. We can make the model work for our universe. The reason we don't use it is due to it being harder to work with than the light emitter model. Another one is the rabit hole of what relativity says about the existence of light (hint light doesn't exist, from light's point of view).

this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
126 points (96.3% liked)

Space

8857 readers
173 users here now

Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.


Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Picture of the Day

The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula


Related Communities

๐Ÿ”ญ Science

๐Ÿš€ Engineering

๐ŸŒŒ Art and Photography


Other Cool Links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS