Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Graviton Doesn't Exist(classically).

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Zephram Cochrane/">Zephram Cochrane on November 25, 1999 06:01:22 UTC

: : Why should there be a graviton? There is no need for a messenger particle if the "force" of gravity is simply a property of inertia (i.e. acceleration on a curve that bends into a higher dimension). In this case..... is there a messenger particle for centrifugal force?? I should think not.

In purely macroscopic mechanics there is no need for the graviton just as there is no need for the photon in that scale. The graviton is not a prediction of relativity. It comes from an attempt to quantize gravity. Force carrier particles are quantum mechanics predictions. Its only in that scale that the graviton is a need for such messenger particles.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins