<p>I can attempt to address the second part of your initial question (*"Is it a particle, a wave,...?") Einstein's theory of general relativity states that mass and energy bend space-time. Space-time, in turn, tells matter how to move (John Wheeler put this more elegantly).</p>

<p>This concept is completely different from the theories of the other three fundamental forces (electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces). In these quantum theories, forces are mediated by particles called gauge bosons. Electromagnetism is carried by photons, the strong nuclear force by gluons, and the weak nuclear force by W+, W-, and Z bosons. There have been many attempts to find a quantum theory of gravity - that is, to use quantum principles to construct a field theory of gravity. In these theories, gravity would indeed be mediated by a particle, dubbed the <em>graviton</em>. String theory is one example of these theories; the physics community is divided about it.</p>

<p>You probably have heard other terms tossed around that embody interesting concepts. A <em>gravitational wave</em> is essentially a ripple in space-time emitted by an object or system of objects. There are strict restrictions over what sort of objects can emit these waves; binary neutron stars are one consistently cited example. These waves should <em>not</em> be confused with the aforesaid hypothesized gravitons; while gravitational waves carry energy, they do not "mediate" gravity. They should also not be confused with the unrelated <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave" rel="nofollow noreferrer">gravity waves</a>.</p>

<p>So, basically, the predominant view in the physics community is that general relativity is the best description of gravity; at the moment, gravity is considered to be the bending of space-time, so it is indeed "something else entirely." Many theories of quantum gravity, including string theory, however, attempt to create particles called gravitons as force-carrying bosons. If evidence is found relating to these theories, then we may well learn whether or not gravitons do exist. One more thing about waves: Because of the quantum concept of wave-particle duality, any particle can be described as a wave, which has a wave function. So if gravity is carried by a particle, then it is also due carried by a wave!</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-15T12:54:52.377Z
"There are strict restrictions over what sort of objects can emit these waves": Well, yes: It must have mass.
Peter - Reinstate Monica
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-15T21:39:04.013Z
@PeterA.Schneider That's not what I meant. The emission of gravitational radiation requires non-spherically symmetric acceleration. For example, a perfectly spherical not-rotating object of any mass will not radiate gravitational waves.
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-15T22:56:07.647Z
Ah, ok. Yes, spherically perfectly symmetrical events would not generate waves, like a non-roating star collapsing. But in the general case, all masses radiate gravitational waves when accelerated.
Peter - Reinstate Monica
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-31T19:48:47.743Z
2016-11-03T19:45:35.620Z
2016-11-03T19:45:35.620Z
HDE 226868
<p>This is one of the great remaining mysteries of the universe.  I have an idea on this that one can derive known equations for gravity, as described below (this has not been proven, but I believe it is very likely to be the case).  Other people have thought of this as well, but it is not yet the mainstream view.  In fact, someone wrote a paper on it, discussed here: <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/pq/spaceflow/part2.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.angelfire.com/pq/spaceflow/part2.html</a></p>
<p><strong>My gravity idea (simplified):</strong></p>
<p>This recent YouTube video by ScienceClic English actually illustrates my idea very well:
<div class="youtube-embed"><div>
                <iframe width="640px" height="395px" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wrwgIjBUYVc?start=0"></iframe>
            </div></div></p>
<p><strong>I believe gravity is the flow of space itself into mass.</strong>  By space, I am referring to the 3 dimensions of space that we observe in the universe.  I believe all mass constantly &quot;absorbs&quot; the space around it, bringing everything around closer to itself.  To conceptualize this, imagine mass being a vacuum cleaner, sucking up the air, and the dust that is in the air all around it.  This has the greatest effect on the air that is nearest to the vacuum, and I believe mass behaves likewise with space.  Since the linked video is explaining Relativity, perhaps my idea is actually an explanation of Relativity.</p>
<p><strong>Several things this explains:</strong></p>
<ol>
<li><p>This explains why objects with more mass have more gravity (e.g. each bit of mass is absorbing a small amount of space, so has gravity).  The more mass you have, the more gravity you have.</p>
</li>
<li><p>This explains why gravity is strong when near an object (e.g. when close to earth), and decreases inversely proportional to square distance from the object.  If you imagine an expanding &quot;spherical wave&quot; of space moving inward, surface area of the sphere increases in relation to the square of the distance.  However, the effect is dispersed over this increased surface area, hence it decreases with the square of the distance from the object.  A fairly simple (but 2D vs. 3D) analogy is how when you throw a stone into water, the ripple will be strong at first, near the entry point, and then the ripple disperses as it expands into the surrounding pond.  A good 3D analogy is how sound (or light) expands spherically, and is more faint the further you are away from the source.</p>
</li>
<li><p>The orbit of &quot;binary&quot; systems, including the dynamics between the earth and moon.  The earth is more massive than the moon, and is absorbing more space than the moon.  Therefore, it is moving the moon toward it fairly quickly (but the moon has enough momentum that it remains in orbit vs. falling toward earth).  However, the moon is also pulling on the earth, so the earth is also &quot;falling toward the moon&quot; a little.  Again, the earth has enough momentum not to &quot;fall into the moon&quot;.  This results in mostly the moon orbiting around the earth, but the earth is also &quot;slightly&quot; orbiting around the moon, which would be observed as a slight wobble.</p>
</li>
<li><p>This explains why large mass objects and small mass objects are affected the same by gravity.  Since it is space itself that is moving, whatever is in that space will be moved accordingly.  If it is an anvil, it will be moved just the same as a feather.  Therefore (if it weren't for other effects such as air resistance), a feather would fall to earth the same speed as an anvil.  In practice, air resistance makes the feather small much slower (but repeat the experiment on the moon, and they should hit at the same time since it has no air).</p>
</li>
<li><p>This even explains why things without mass (e.g. light) are also affected by gravity.  Since space itself is moving, light moves along with it.  This would explain gravitational lensing, and why light cannot escape a black hole.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>Second part of my idea (more speculative):</strong></p>
<p>I also believe antimatter somehow constantly ejects space back into the universe.  In the video, imagine the reverse happening (e.g. if you could play it in reverse).  I believe when matter and antimatter form, they are somehow &quot;linked&quot; so that space absorbed by matter is ejected by the corresponding antimatter particle.  This would give antimatter a &quot;negative&quot; gravity effect.  I believe there is equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe, and the antimatter is in a diffuse cloud spread throughout the universe, where matter is not present.  I believe this accounts for dark energy - the accelerating expansion of the universe.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-03T21:08:15.023Z
Downvote: That's only a rough sketch of an idea, not even a full idea and certainly not a fully developed mathematical theory that makes testable predictions. Also it doesn't explain OP's question.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-05T22:48:08.980Z
@HDE 226868 Not quite sure how this is an off-topic answer...
Jonathan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-10T12:14:00.767Z
@AtmosphericPrisonEscape - I corrected theory to idea, and improved the answer a bit.
Jonathan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-10T12:29:10.020Z
@christopherlovell I added references and improved the answer.  It appears the idea is becoming more mainstream now!
Jonathan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-10T13:29:19.170Z
Space (or spacetime) isn't a substance that can be absorbed. And as far as we know, it behaves gravitationally just like regular matter: there are ongoing antimatter gravity experiments at CERN, and antimatter seems to fall down under the influence of gravity. It's very difficult to make large quantities of antimatter, so it may be many years before we can accurately measure the gravitational field produced by a lump of antimatter.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-10T13:32:50.510Z
However, your idea isn't totally without merit. There's the river or waterfall model of gravity. See https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand%E2%80%93Painlev%C3%A9_coordinates
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-23T14:49:57.377Z
this isn't an answer (or even a theory), it's a high level idea with no mathematical proof or widely accepted references. You shouldn't post your 'beliefs' as answers
christopherlovell
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-23T16:37:06.150Z
I like your idea of dark energy. But suppose a body is emitting light in a particular direction and there's a stationary observer. So, space is being absorbed into the body. But the rate of absorption will be different for the observer and the light emitted but the observer will see it move at c. It will not slow down for him. How do you account for that? Retain time dilation from GR?
Yashbhatt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-23T17:13:05.550Z
@Yashbhatt, Yes, I believe time dilation, and the effects of General Relativity still apply, but this idea explains what gravity really is.  I do not fully understand your question, are you saying in your example, that a body (e.g. the sun) is emitting light, and that its gravity should slow it down, but it still flows at c (the speed of light), but my idea shows that it should be less than c (if we exclude GR)?  This question seems to relate to this issue: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59502/does-gravity-slow-the-speed-that-light-travels
Jonathan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-23T17:51:33.367Z
@Jonathan Yes. That is what I meant. If space moves in a direction opposite to that of light, will it slow it down?
Yashbhatt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-23T20:22:58.350Z
I believe due to the effects of relativity, it will not slow down, but it will bend (e.g. gravitational lensing), and it will be redshifted (e.g. the wavelength would "slow down", but not the light itself)
Jonathan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-08-29T17:54:40.480Z
Nothing quite like giving an off-topic answer to your own question. Why ask in the first place?
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 4.0
2014-06-23T01:52:22.777Z
2020-11-10T12:18:53.550Z
2020-11-10T12:18:53.550Z
Jonathan
<p>What is gravity?  I want to know more than it being simply the "mysterious force" that attracts things to earth.  Is it a particle, a wave, or something else entirely?</p>

<gravity><space-time><space><newtonian-gravity>
What is gravity really?
Jonathan
# What is gravity really?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-06-23)

What is gravity? I want to know more than it being simply the "mysterious force" that attracts things to earth. Is it a particle, a wave, or something else entirely?

**Tags:** gravity, space-time, space, newtonian-gravity

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-07-31. Score: 6

I can attempt to address the second part of your initial question (\*"Is it a particle, a wave,...?") Einstein's theory of general relativity states that mass and energy bend space-time. Space-time, in turn, tells matter how to move (John Wheeler put this more elegantly).

This concept is completely different from the theories of the other three fundamental forces (electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces). In these quantum theories, forces are mediated by particles called gauge bosons. Electromagnetism is carried by photons, the strong nuclear force by gluons, and the weak nuclear force by W+, W-, and Z bosons. There have been many attempts to find a quantum theory of gravity - that is, to use quantum principles to construct a field theory of gravity. In these theories, gravity would indeed be mediated by a particle, dubbed the *graviton*. String theory is one example of these theories; the physics community is divided about it.

You probably have heard other terms tossed around that embody interesting concepts. A *gravitational wave* is essentially a ripple in space-time emitted by an object or system of objects. There are strict restrictions over what sort of objects can emit these waves; binary neutron stars are one consistently cited example. These waves should *not* be confused with the aforesaid hypothesized gravitons; while gravitational waves carry energy, they do not "mediate" gravity. They should also not be confused with the unrelated [gravity waves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave).

So, basically, the predominant view in the physics community is that general relativity is the best description of gravity; at the moment, gravity is considered to be the bending of space-time, so it is indeed "something else entirely." Many theories of quantum gravity, including string theory, however, attempt to create particles called gravitons as force-carrying bosons. If evidence is found relating to these theories, then we may well learn whether or not gravitons do exist. One more thing about waves: Because of the quantum concept of wave-particle duality, any particle can be described as a wave, which has a wave function. So if gravity is carried by a particle, then it is also due carried by a wave!

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: "There are strict restrictions over what sort of objects can emit these waves": Well, yes: It must have mass.  
> **username_1**: @PeterA.Schneider That's not what I meant. The emission of gravitational radiation requires non-spherically symmetric acceleration. For example, a perfectly spherical not-rotating object of any mass will not radiate gravitational waves.  
> **username_2**: Ah, ok. Yes, spherically perfectly symmetrical events would not generate waves, like a non-roating star collapsing. But in the general case, all masses radiate gravitational waves when accelerated.  

---

### Answer by username_0 on 2014-06-23. Score: -3

This is one of the great remaining mysteries of the universe. I have an idea on this that one can derive known equations for gravity, as described below (this has not been proven, but I believe it is very likely to be the case). Other people have thought of this as well, but it is not yet the mainstream view. In fact, someone wrote a paper on it, discussed here: <http://www.angelfire.com/pq/spaceflow/part2.html>

**My gravity idea (simplified):**

This recent YouTube video by ScienceClic English actually illustrates my idea very well:

**I believe gravity is the flow of space itself into mass.** By space, I am referring to the 3 dimensions of space that we observe in the universe. I believe all mass constantly "absorbs" the space around it, bringing everything around closer to itself. To conceptualize this, imagine mass being a vacuum cleaner, sucking up the air, and the dust that is in the air all around it. This has the greatest effect on the air that is nearest to the vacuum, and I believe mass behaves likewise with space. Since the linked video is explaining Relativity, perhaps my idea is actually an explanation of Relativity.

**Several things this explains:**

1. This explains why objects with more mass have more gravity (e.g. each bit of mass is absorbing a small amount of space, so has gravity). The more mass you have, the more gravity you have.
2. This explains why gravity is strong when near an object (e.g. when close to earth), and decreases inversely proportional to square distance from the object. If you imagine an expanding "spherical wave" of space moving inward, surface area of the sphere increases in relation to the square of the distance. However, the effect is dispersed over this increased surface area, hence it decreases with the square of the distance from the object. A fairly simple (but 2D vs. 3D) analogy is how when you throw a stone into water, the ripple will be strong at first, near the entry point, and then the ripple disperses as it expands into the surrounding pond. A good 3D analogy is how sound (or light) expands spherically, and is more faint the further you are away from the source.
3. The orbit of "binary" systems, including the dynamics between the earth and moon. The earth is more massive than the moon, and is absorbing more space than the moon. Therefore, it is moving the moon toward it fairly quickly (but the moon has enough momentum that it remains in orbit vs. falling toward earth). However, the moon is also pulling on the earth, so the earth is also "falling toward the moon" a little. Again, the earth has enough momentum not to "fall into the moon". This results in mostly the moon orbiting around the earth, but the earth is also "slightly" orbiting around the moon, which would be observed as a slight wobble.
4. This explains why large mass objects and small mass objects are affected the same by gravity. Since it is space itself that is moving, whatever is in that space will be moved accordingly. If it is an anvil, it will be moved just the same as a feather. Therefore (if it weren't for other effects such as air resistance), a feather would fall to earth the same speed as an anvil. In practice, air resistance makes the feather small much slower (but repeat the experiment on the moon, and they should hit at the same time since it has no air).
5. This even explains why things without mass (e.g. light) are also affected by gravity. Since space itself is moving, light moves along with it. This would explain gravitational lensing, and why light cannot escape a black hole.

**Second part of my idea (more speculative):**

I also believe antimatter somehow constantly ejects space back into the universe. In the video, imagine the reverse happening (e.g. if you could play it in reverse). I believe when matter and antimatter form, they are somehow "linked" so that space absorbed by matter is ejected by the corresponding antimatter particle. This would give antimatter a "negative" gravity effect. I believe there is equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe, and the antimatter is in a diffuse cloud spread throughout the universe, where matter is not present. I believe this accounts for dark energy - the accelerating expansion of the universe.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: this isn't an answer (or even a theory), it's a high level idea with no mathematical proof or widely accepted references. You shouldn't post your 'beliefs' as answers  
> **username_6**: I like your idea of dark energy. But suppose a body is emitting light in a particular direction and there's a stationary observer. So, space is being absorbed into the body. But the rate of absorption will be different for the observer and the light emitted but the observer will see it move at c. It will not slow down for him. How do you account for that? Retain time dilation from GR?  
> **username_0**: @Yashbhatt, Yes, I believe time dilation, and the effects of General Relativity still apply, but this idea explains what gravity really is.  I do not fully understand your question, are you saying in your example, that a body (e.g. the sun) is emitting light, and that its gravity should slow it down, but it still flows at c (the speed of light), but my idea shows that it should be less than c (if we exclude GR)?  This question seems to relate to this issue: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59502/does-gravity-slow-the-speed-that-light-travels  
> **username_6**: @Jonathan Yes. That is what I meant. If space moves in a direction opposite to that of light, will it slow it down?  
> **username_0**: I believe due to the effects of relativity, it will not slow down, but it will bend (e.g. gravitational lensing), and it will be redshifted (e.g. the wavelength would "slow down", but not the light itself)  
> **username_1**: Nothing quite like giving an off-topic answer to your own question. Why ask in the first place?  
> **username_3**: Downvote: That's only a rough sketch of an idea, not even a full idea and certainly not a fully developed mathematical theory that makes testable predictions. Also it doesn't explain OP's question.  
> **username_0**: @HDE 226868 Not quite sure how this is an off-topic answer...  
> **username_0**: @AtmosphericPrisonEscape - I corrected theory to idea, and improved the answer a bit.  
> **username_0**: @christopherlovell I added references and improved the answer.  It appears the idea is becoming more mainstream now!  
> **username_4**: Space (or spacetime) isn't a substance that can be absorbed. And as far as we know, it behaves gravitationally just like regular matter: there are ongoing antimatter gravity experiments at CERN, and antimatter seems to fall down under the influence of gravity. It's very difficult to make large quantities of antimatter, so it may be many years before we can accurately measure the gravitational field produced by a lump of antimatter.  
> **username_4**: However, your idea isn't totally without merit. There's the river or waterfall model of gravity. See https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand%E2%80%93Painlev%C3%A9_coordinates  

---

