Origin of Gravity

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Gravity is one of the basic forces of the universe. It came into being at the same time universe came into being, some 14 billion years ago.

That is the prevailing attitude among cosmologists but string theory says gravity goes way beyond our universe, a kind of glue that couples the extra dimensions, threaded through, sharing its field, which is the explanation as to why in our universe gravity is so weak compared to the others, EM etc. So the origin of gravity may be way beyond the origin of our universe. It is hoped that string theory will lead to real verifieable or falsifiable predictions soon. String theory explains a lot about gravity, if only ST can be verified somehow.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That is the prevailing attitude among cosmologists but string theory says gravity goes way beyond our universe, a kind of glue that couples the extra dimensions, threaded through, sharing its field, which is the explanation as to why in our universe gravity is so weak compared to the others, EM etc. So the origin of gravity may be way beyond the origin of o ...[text shortened]... redictions soon. String theory explains a lot about gravity, if only ST can be verified somehow.

Still: Gravity is one of the basic forces of the universe.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Still: Gravity is one of the basic forces of the universe.

That's the point, EXTREMELY fundamental. More fundamental than our whole universe.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I've read that the origin of gravity has yet to be discovered, but I'm not so sure. Does anybody know where gravity comes from?


GRAVITATION, n. The tendency of all bodies to approach one another with a strength proportion to the quantity of matter they contain -- the quantity of matter they contain being ascertained by the strength of their tenden ...[text shortened]... of of B, makes B the proof of A. Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914), 'The Devil's Dictionary', 1911

There's a theory with a pretty solid mathematical base that says gravity is the name we've given to the phenomena caused by indentations in space-time made by celestial objects. This theory has it that space really isn't empty; it can be compared to infinitely thin sheets of stuff stacked on top of each other.

To illustrate celestial gravity, think of space-time as a sheet stretched taut. If you place a bowling ball on the sheet, part of the ball will sink in to the sheet. Keep in mind that the indentation is a sphere, not a half-sphere. Objects slip in to that indentation at a distance proportional to the relative size the two. The smaller object will travel in that groove.

I've done a very poor job of explaining the concept; I'm afraid school is some distance behind me and I thought that a postcard version, rather than a dissertation, was the appropriate length. If you'd like an approachable explanation, go pick up a copy of "The Elegant Universe" by Kevin Greene.

I haven't read all old posts, but the most popular hypothesis is that gravity is transmitted through the Higgs boson particle in a similar way as photons and W/Z bosons transmit the electroweak interactions and gluons transmit strong interactions. The reason the Higgs boson has not been found (yet?) is because gravity is very weak compared to the other forces (or because the Higgs boson hypothesis is wrong, of course).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I haven't read all old posts, but the most popular hypothesis is that gravity is transmitted through the Higgs boson particle in a similar way as photons and W/Z bosons transmit the electroweak interactions and gluons transmit strong interactions. The reason the Higgs boson has not been found (yet?) is because gravity is very weak compared to the other forces (or because the Higgs boson hypothesis is wrong, of course).

I thought that mass, not gravity, was explained by the Higgs boson...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I thought that mass, not gravity, was explained by the Higgs boson...

You thought right. That's the current theory.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The reason the Higgs boson has not been found (yet?) is because gravity is very weak compared to the other forces (or because the Higgs boson hypothesis is wrong, of course).

The Higgs boson has to do with mass generation and not gravity. At least directly that is. In the current paradigm of intermediary particle being responsible for an interaction we have that the graviton is the intermediary particle that is responsible for the effects we label as gravitic.

The reason for the Higgs boson not showing up (excluding the hypothesis of its non-existence 😏 )is that its mass is way too high when compared to other subatomic particles. So a very high energy is needed to make it appear. The things is that current day accelerators don't generate enough energy to be able to to produce Higgs boson. Now of course we have the new accelator at CERN and this baby can generate the energy which is sufficient to Higgs bosons to appear. So when the data is analysed either we'll know the face of the Higgs boson or we'll know that current particle model is deeply flawed and the search of new one will have to begin. I'm putting my money on hypothesis number 2. 😏 😏 😏

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I thought that mass, not gravity, was explained by the Higgs boson...

That's true, although they are hardly seperate subjects of course. 😉

Originally posted by adam warlock
The Higgs boson has to do with mass generation and not gravity. At least directly that is. In the current paradigm of intermediary particle being responsible for an interaction we have that the graviton is the intermediary particle that is responsible for the effects we label as gravitic.

The reason for the Higgs boson not showing up (excluding the h ...[text shortened]... search of new one will have to begin. I'm putting my money on hypothesis number 2. 😏 😏 😏

It's unknown if the energy of the current accelerators is high enough, because estimates of the Higgs boson mass are pretty vague - precisely because there is no satisfactory theory to predict particle masses because the Higgs boson has not been detected yet. 😉

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's unknown if the energy of the current accelerators is high enough, because estimates of the Higgs boson mass are pretty vague - precisely because there is no satisfactory theory to predict particle masses because the Higgs boson has not been detected yet. 😉

You are very confused.

The standard model is like a jigsaw puzzle. We can see all the picture, but there ar pieces missing here and there. One of these pieces is the Higgs boson. We know where to put it if there is such a particle. One place in the puzzle, at the upper edge, there is a piece missing in the sky area. The piece must be of a bluish kind. If we think up a piece like this, then a whole area of the standard model puzzel is complete, but we haven't actually found the blue Higgs piece, not yeat. CERN in Europe are working on it. Perhaps they'll find the blue piece. They should find it. If they don't, then we have to rearrange the surrounding blue pieces, it may take a while. A standard model without a Higgs boson is a tricky rearrangement.

Alternative (1): They find it, and it fits nicely in the standard model. Game over, problem solved. Now we go from here and find new exiting things to wonder about.
Alernative (2): They don't find it. The reason might be (2a) that the Higg's boson is heaver than we thought, and therefore unable to detect it, even if there is such a particel like the Higg's boson. Or perhaps (2b) there isn't such a creature as the Higg's bozon. Then the future of the standard model might be a bit shaky. What is wrong, what can we use from the old standard model, were do we look for the answer of the problem.

I believe in alt (1), or perhaps 2(a), but alt (2b) will be more exciting, in my opinion.

Originally posted by adam warlock
You are very confused.

Hmm no, I just rephrased what my textbook on elementary partcile physics says. Wikipedia states:

Current estimates exclude a Standard Model Higgs boson having a mass greater than 285 GeV/c2 at 95% CL, and estimate its mass to be 129+74−49 GeV/c2.[8] (138 proton masses)

That's hardly an accurate estimate of the particle mass.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Hmm no, I just rephrased what my textbook on elementary partcile physics says. Wikipedia states:

Current estimates exclude a Standard Model Higgs boson having a mass greater than 285 GeV/c2 at 95% CL, and estimate its mass to be 129+74−49 GeV/c2.[8] (138 proton masses)

That's hardly an accurate estimate of the particle mass.

But you had some circular logic going on on the post I quoted.

I know about all the shadiness regarding the Higgs boson and the standard model of particles so if you are a non-believer in it that just makes two of us. 😉