This might be the weirdest and most stupid question but I'm tempted to put this forward (LoL). The story of apples and Newtons theory that it was because of gravity is known to one and all. However has research ever looked at the question is what is Gravity? While there is substantial evidence on how gravity is functionally related to existence, has research ever asked the fundamental question "What is Gravity"? To me that is an unanswered question and possibly an unanswerable question.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
I suppose your question is- whats the mechanism of gravity?
@ Manohar: No not the mechanism of gravity...but rather what is "gravity"...the mechanism has been well established...but the fundamental idea is still unexplored...
@madmax: I'm not so sure the mechanism of gravity has been established. I suppose nobody still knows what gravity is caused by -- there is string theory and there is the supposed presence of gravitons.. but all that is still very speculative when compared to say electromagnetic force.
We may empirically understand gravity and although there is the newtonian view of gravity as one model and the einsteinian view as another- none of them explain the mechanism of gravity - they just give us a model that explains the effects of it.....
@madmax: Let me clarify that a bit. There is 1. cause of gravity and 2. effect of gravity.
All our understanding and models are about (2), in the presense of so and so, so and so accelerates so and because of a force (or space time curves and this is the only path available)
By mechanism, I mean (1).
interesting thought process...Reminds me of fermat principle...light always tries to take the least distance path...no one knows why...
@mindframes: I believe its least time.. esp if you take the path of light travelled going from one media to another. In this case the distance is not the least but the time is least.
that was a mistake...it should be least time...
@mindframes: Just an interesting analogy i came across from the least time prinicpal
the lifeguard and the swimmer. When a swimmer is drowning, the lifegaurd has to reach the swimmer in least time. He can run faster in sand than swim in water.. so what path does he take to reach the drowning swimmer as quickly as possible
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/shwave/leatimedirns.html
Scientist always ask that question right? "What is this and what is that?"
My understanding was, they think they got the answer only to find out it was not a perfect explanation.
Newton:
Gravity is attraction between 2 masses. (big attracting small)
Einstein:
Gravity is not an attraction but a smooth movement of small objects moving in the contour on a space-time continuium by big mass
Is this not an attempt to answer - what is gravity?
@mindframes: I think I understand where y ou are coming from... We can only realy explain the cause of observations., but the terms we invented are really a mystery. So I'm with you that- we are explaining the reason two bodies move by the theory of gravity... there will always be supersets of theories (each explaining a superset of the prev one- like einstein's view is a superset of newtons). But the real term we invented- gravity--- we don't know what it is.
Its like asking what is force? we know force causes bodies to move... but the term is an invented one to bring forth a theory...
hmmm i'm rambling...
@mano: I think you intended the comment for "brainwaves"..:)
Heh heh
I read: "We may empirically understand gravity and although there is the newtonian view" .Gorrr....Gorr... Gorr..
@ Mano, Mindframes and Brainwaves: now now now...my ramblings have sown the seeds here...okie folkss more to comeee....
@ Sdpla: lol....but i agree with Mano...the observation is critical in answering fundamental questions...causal empiricism hides behind weak theory...then the question begs...what is good theory????
Post a Comment