Could light be the reason for gravity?

When my physics teacher explained to me the string theory, I agree'd with him with the fact that it is possibly the most probable theory explaining as to why gravity works the way it does. Unlike sound waves, light waves, gravity as he explained seems to simply pull you, and we just don't know why.

Now, if I was to look at gravity universally, can't we agree that the only particles affecting us in free space are photons, or light waves? Could it be possible that photons or light waves somehow are responsible for causing those pulls and changes, somehow? To strengthen my argument, I have also heard from physics articles that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light.

PS: I have only taken two physics courses so far, and my lack of knowledge might have caused me to say something stupid. I apologize in advanced.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not sure, but one opinion seems to be that photons mediate electromagnetic forces, while (as yet undiscovered) gravitons mediate gravity...

http://www-ed.fnal.gov/data/phy_sci/relativity/student/defs.shtml

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

all massless forms of energy that travel, travel at light speed.

string theory is nice, but there really isn't any meat to it (by meat I mean evidence). try not to jump on the band wagon yet.

I don't agree with that statement. doesn't every particle effect us? we would not know its there if it didn't interact with us.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

algebra or calc based physics? calc based physics will allow you to under stand how stuff works better.

 

JetPilot:

Anyone reading Einstein's own book on Relativity, titled ( I think ) "Relativity", will be amazed to see that AE said ( paraphrased slightly due to my non photographic memory ) "Since I have determined that the maximum velocity for commuication by light signal is always c, it just seemed sensible to claim that the speed of propagation of gravity is also c.".

No chain of logic, no experimental evidence. Another unproved postulate. The Man just thought it was cool.

Regarding photons as gravity, many scientists for many decades have tried to formulate a Unified Field Theory, including Einstein. Such a theory would explain gravity and electric force as the same thing, which would of course make photons associated directly with gravitational action. So far, there has obviously been no apparent success.

 

So its only been theorized, but never approved. Thanks for the responses. = )

 

Speaking of being mis-leading. Perhaps you should qualify your remarks and point out to readers that the issue of "Gravity Waves" is not the same as "Gravity" itself.

 

it's possible that matter is compressed light.

 

James R.:

I humbly (?) suggest that you read the Einstein quote before you again hallucinate what you wish he had said or done. I most recently read the quote in the last edition of his book, rewritten, reedited and republished very shortly before his death, long after he had invented and published GR.

You cannot show any portion of GR wherein it is proved that gravity propagates at c. If you dream that you can, tell us where to read.

Lest you are tempted to try another linguistic sleight of hand, I am pointedly speaking of the propagation of gravity, NOT the velocity of the hypothetical gravity waves, or, gravitational radiation. Your use of the terms incorrectly interchangeably amply illustrates your confusion.

You obviously already knew that, and you have already been blatantly intellectually dishonest in substituting your " propagation of gravity waves" for my original statement re propagation of gravity.

Now, concerning a Unified Field Theory, perhaps you are as confused about what unification is as you are about other important issues. The unification of electric force and gravity force would mean that they are the same thing. If they are the same thing, the proven agent in the transfer of force in one aspect must also be the transfer agent in the other aspect, just as the unification of electric force and magnetic force uses only one transfer agent, the photon. Of course, if the lucky theorist were to choose to rename the photon to be then called a graviton, and could explain electrodynamics in terms of the graviton, why not?

Your unnecessarily vitriolic personal comment alledging that I do not know as much about GR as you do is a personification of the old Dave Gardner comedy routine. In it, the impatient motorcycle rider is stuck behind the slow moving semi truck going up a long hill. The motorcyclists notices a bumper sticker on the semi: " I may be slow, but I'm ahead of you!"

 

James R,

I admit I know little physics, but what I have read states that gravity waves are produced by cataclysmic events, like the merger of two neutron stars. I can assume those waves carrying the information may move away from the event no faster than 'c'. But what of solitary neutron star. Does GR state there is a 'continous stream' of gravitational waves emitting from the neutron star like an EM wave moving away from a normal star? Or are there individual gravitons (not waves) continously emitted by the neutron star like photons? I have brought this up before, but does the graviton/gravitational waves Doppler shift like EM waves if there is relative motion between the neutron star and the observer?

 

Thanks for your response, James R. If I am understanding you correctly, there has to be a motion, such as an interaction between two or more gravitating objects, to produce gravity waves, correct? That is what I was trying to get at by the neutron star merger, which you also described by the orbiting stars. So, would a lone object in an empty universe produce gravity? Or would an interaction between it and another object be a necessary requirement? It would seem to me that gravity would still hold the individual atoms in a lone star together, even if there were no other object to 'detect' the gravity, correct?

 

According to GR, as if I know anything about it, the more asymetrical a rotating object is, the easier it is for it to make quadrupole gravitational radiation.

According to GR, as if I know anything about it, a lone asymetrical rotating object, not long ago but far away from other massive objects, would be a good guess as a source of quadrupole gravitational radiation.

Or is it spelled quadropole? As if I know anything about spaling eithor.

The chief joint is the acceleration of mass, in an unbalanced way, at least for a realizeable amount of time. The greater the acceleration, the greater the mass, and the longer the time before an acceleration in the opposite direction, the more obvious the radiated gravitational wave, according to GR.

 

Hey, could you take a look at the posting by Grav in the cosmology/exobiology section under The Grand Puzzle. He's a link to his web-published article wherein he posits that neutrinos (which are indeed extensively abundant, as every fusion in a star releases them) cause gravity, and that they are similar to an 'ether' of old, and cause a 'friction' that over long distances adds to the recessional red-shifts, accounting for the apparent discrepancy of very distant galaxy red-shifts predicted by theory, and actually measured. It's similar to the 'tired-light' conjecture, but with a causal explanation. He presents some interesting mathematics to support his theory, and derives real numbers with real meaning.

Anyway, thought you might find his post of interest, as it is related to this thread. I believe CANGAS has already read it and posted a comment.

 

CANGAS is obsessed with a Unified Field Theory (electric and gravity) and is cursed with some tunnel vision regarding theories that do not not aggressively jump up and say "I am electrogravity!".

CANGAS is therefore a little dubious about the neutrinogravity theory but is interested in studying any well presented thoughts which might advance the serious study of gravity. The neutrinogravity theory definitely does have some attractive features (unintended pun).

A frequent poster in these forums, MacM, has previously presented a theory of gravity which is very interesting, to say the least.

Any serious student of gravity will be interested by their reading of both of these presentations. What is right? What is wrong? You will have some food for thought.

 

Hmm interesting, I had no idea you guys were already discussing this when I posted on my gravity waves...

 

JetPilot: I just wanted to say I think it's awesome you're asking questions and thinking of possibilities despite inexperience. I'm only this year starting my first basic physics class, but I've been an enthusiast of theoretical and astro-physics since I understood their concepts. But anyways, speaking of string theory, one of the possibilities I have heard is that gravity is the effect of some open-ended string that was blown-up during the big bang or something like that, and the open ends latch on to each other. I'm not sure of the validity or implications of this, as I've barely been introduced to string-theory. And speaking about waves and light, there is a theory that electromagnetic waves are actually ripples from the 5th dimension (or 4th spacial dimension), since Einstein's theory of gravity and Maxwell's wave equations become the same from the point of view of a 5th dimension.

 

Let me start by saying I'm not in college, i don't have a degree, I'm just a basement physics nerd. If any of my following statement is wrong, please feel free to correct me.

I don't believe gravity "moves" like light does. Gravity is a constant. Gravity is defined as the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth. Granted, that is a VERY (i stress this) VERY loose definition. The basic rule is that the more mass an object has, the more gravitational force is applies.

Light is photons being projected from a radiant source.
Gravity is the opposite.

Gravity doesn't project, it pulls.

However, me talking in circles isn't doing any good. I don't understand why gravity works the way it does, but i can tell you that light and gravity are different forces all together. However, the same particle may be doing both jobs. But gravity doesn't project. So i don't see how photons could be pulling us down, because photons aren't being created in the atmosphere and being shot down at earth, nor do they spontaneously appear and fall to earth.

In short, i highly doubt that light is the reason for gravity. (Should this statement come back to bite me, i will gouge my eyes out with a butter knife)