The Log of Gravity J

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Log of Gravity J THE LOG OF GRAVITY J. M. C. Santos Silva and Silvana Tenreyro* Abstract—Although economists have long been aware of Jensen’s in- models are severely biased, distorting the interpretation of equality, many econometric applications have neglected an important implication of it: under heteroskedasticity, the parameters of log- the model. These biases might be critical for the compara- linearized models estimated by OLS lead to biased estimates of the true tive assessment of competing economic theories, as well as elasticities. We explain why this problem arises and propose an appropri- for the evaluation of the effects of different policies. In ate estimator. Our criticism of conventional practices and the proposed solution extend to a broad range of applications where log-linearized contrast, our method is robust to the different patterns of equations are estimated. We develop the argument using one particular heteroskedasticity considered in the simulations. illustration, the gravity equation for trade. We find significant differences We next use the proposed method to provide new esti- between estimates obtained with the proposed estimator and those ob- tained with the traditional method. mates of the gravity equation in cross-sectional data. Using standard tests, we show that heteroskedasticity is indeed a severe problem, both in the traditional gravity equation I. Introduction introduced by Tinbergen (1962), and in a gravity equation CONOMISTS have long been aware that Jensen’s in- that takes into account multilateral resistance terms or fixed Eequality implies that E(ln y) ln E(y), that is, the effects, as suggested by Anderson and van Wincoop (2003). expected value of the logarithm of a random variable is We then compare the estimates obtained with the proposed different from the logarithm of its expected value. This PML estimator with those generated by OLS in the log basic fact, however, has been neglected in many economet- linear specification, using both the traditional and the fixed- ric applications. Indeed, one important implication of Jen- effects gravity equations. sen’s inequality is that the standard practice of interpreting Our estimation method paints a very different picture of the parameters of log-linearized models estimated by ordi- the determinants of international trade. In the traditional nary least squares (OLS) as elasticities can be highly mis- gravity equation, the coefficients on GDP are not, as gen- leading in the presence of heteroskedasticity. erally estimated, close to 1. Instead, they are significantly Although many authors have addressed the problem of smaller, which might help reconcile the gravity equation obtaining consistent estimates of the conditional mean of with the observation that the trade-to-GDP ratio decreases the dependent variable when the model is estimated in the with increasing total GDP (or, in other words, that smaller log linear form (see, for example, Goldberger, 1968; Man- countries tend to be more open to international trade). In ning & Mullahy, 2001), we were unable to find any refer- addition, OLS greatly exaggerates the roles of colonial ties ence in the literature to the potential bias of the elasticities and geographical proximity. estimated using the log linear model. Using the Anderson–van Wincoop (2003) gravity equa- In this paper we use the gravity equation for trade as a tion, we find that OLS yields significantly larger effects for particular illustration of how the bias arises and propose an geographical distance. The estimated elasticity obtained appropriate estimator. We argue that the gravity equation, from the log-linearized equation is almost twice as large as and, more generally, constant-elasticity models, should be that predicted by PML. OLS also predicts a large role for estimated in their multiplicative form and propose a simple common colonial ties, implying that sharing a common pseudo-maximum-likelihood (PML) estimation technique. colonial history practically doubles bilateral trade. In con- Besides being consistent in the presence of heteroskedas- trast, the proposed PML estimator leads to a statistically and ticity, this method also provides a natural way to deal with economically insignificant effect. zero values of the dependent variable. The general message is that, even controlling for fixed Using Monte Carlo simulations, we compare the perfor- effects, the presence of heteroskedasticity can generate mance of our estimator with that of OLS (in the log linear strikingly different estimates when the gravity equation is specification). The results are striking. In the presence of log-linearized, rather than estimated in levels. In other heteroskedasticity, estimates obtained using log-linearized words, Jensen’s inequality is quantitatively and qualitatively important in the estimation of gravity equations. This sug- Received for publication March 29, 2004. Revision accepted for publi- gests that inferences drawn on log-linearized regressions cation September 13, 2005. can produce misleading conclusions. * ISEG/Universidade Te´cnica de Lisboa and CEMAPRE; and London School of Economics, CEP, and CEPR, respectively. Despite the focus on the gravity equation, our criticism of We are grateful to two anonymous referees for their constructive the conventional practice and the solution we propose ex- comments and suggestions. We also thank Francesco Caselli, Kevin tend to a broad range of economic applications where the Denny, Juan Carlos Hallak, Daniel Mota, John Mullahy, Paulo Parente, Manuela Simarro, and Kim Underhill for helpful advice on previous equations under study are log-linearized, or, more generally, versions of this paper. The usual disclaimer applies. Jiaying Huang transformed by a nonlinear function. A short list of exam- provided excellent research assistance. Santos Silva gratefully acknowl- ples includes the estimation of Mincerian equations for edges the partial financial support from Fundac¸a˜o para a Cieˆncia e Tecnologia, program POCTI, partially funded by FEDER. A previous wages, production functions, and Euler equations, which are version of this paper circulated as “Gravity-Defying Trade.” typically estimated in logarithms. The Review of Economics and Statistics, November 2006, 88(4): 641–658 © 2006 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/rest.88.4.641 by guest on 30 September 2021 642 THE REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. where ␩ij is an error factor with E(␩ij͉Yi,Yj,Dij) ϭ 1, Section II studies the econometric problems raised by the assumed to be statistically independent of the regressors, estimation of gravity equations. Section III considers leading to constant-elasticity models in general; it introduces the PML ␣ ␣ ␣ ͑ ͉ ͒ ϭ ␣ 1 2 3 estimator and specification tests to check the adequacy of E Tij Yi,Yj,Dij 0Y i Y j Dij . the proposed estimator. Section IV presents the Monte Carlo simulations. Section V provides new estimates of both the There is a long tradition in the trade literature of log- traditional and the Anderson–van Wincoop gravity equa- linearizing equation (2) and estimating the parameters of tion. The results are compared with those generated by interest by least squares, using the equation OLS, nonlinear least squares, and tobit estimations. Section ln Tij ϭ ln ␣0 ϩ ␣1 ln Yi ϩ ␣2 ln Yj VI contains concluding remarks. (3) ϩ␣3 ln Dij ϩ ln ␩ij. II. The Econometrics of the Gravity Equation The validity of this procedure depends critically on the assumption that ␩ij, and therefore ln ␩ij, are statistically A. The Traditional Gravity Equation independent of the regressors. To see why this is so, notice that the expected value of the logarithm of a random The pioneering work of Jan Tinbergen (1962) initiated a variable depends both on its mean and on the higher-order vast theoretical and empirical literature on the gravity equa- moments of the distribution. Hence, for example, if the tion for trade. Theories based on different foundations for variance of the error factor ␩ij in equation (2) depends on Yi, trade, including endowment and technological differences, Yj, or Dij, the expected value of ln ␩ij will also depend on the increasing returns to scale, and Armington demands, all regressors, violating the condition for consistency of OLS.2 predict a gravity relationship for trade flows analogous to In the cases studied in section V we find overwhelming Newton’s law of universal gravitation.1 In its simplest form, evidence that the error terms in the usual log linear speci- the gravity equation for trade states that the trade flow from fication of the gravity equation are heteroskedastic, which country i to country j, denoted by Tij, is proportional to the violates the assumption that ln ␩ij is statistically indepen- product of the two countries’ GDPs, denoted by Yi and Yj, dent of the regressors and suggests that this estimation and inversely proportional to their distance, Dij, broadly method leads to inconsistent estimates of the elasticities of construed to include all factors that might create trade interest. resistance. More generally, A related problem with the analogy between Newtonian gravity and trade is that gravitational force can be very ␣ ␣ ␣ ϭ ␣ 1 2 3 Tij 0Y i Y j Dij , (1) small, but never zero, whereas trade between several pairs of countries is literally zero. In many cases, these zeros occur simply because some pairs of countries did not trade where ␣0, ␣1, ␣2, and ␣3 are unknown parameters. The analogy between trade and the physical force of in a given period. For example, it would not be surprising to 3 gravity, however, clashes with the observation that there is find that Tajikistan and Togo did not trade in a certain year. no set of parameters for which equation (1) will hold exactly These zero observations pose no problem at all for the for an arbitrary set of observations. To account for devia- estimation of gravity equations in their multiplicative form.
Recommended publications
  • Kaluza-Klein Gravity, Concentrating on the General Rel- Ativity, Rather Than Particle Physics Side of the Subject
    Kaluza-Klein Gravity J. M. Overduin Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 3055, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, V8W 3P6 and P. S. Wesson Department of Physics, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1 and Gravity Probe-B, Hansen Physics Laboratories, Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A. 94305 Abstract We review higher-dimensional unified theories from the general relativity, rather than the particle physics side. Three distinct approaches to the subject are identi- fied and contrasted: compactified, projective and noncompactified. We discuss the cosmological and astrophysical implications of extra dimensions, and conclude that none of the three approaches can be ruled out on observational grounds at the present time. arXiv:gr-qc/9805018v1 7 May 1998 Preprint submitted to Elsevier Preprint 3 February 2008 1 Introduction Kaluza’s [1] achievement was to show that five-dimensional general relativity contains both Einstein’s four-dimensional theory of gravity and Maxwell’s the- ory of electromagnetism. He however imposed a somewhat artificial restriction (the cylinder condition) on the coordinates, essentially barring the fifth one a priori from making a direct appearance in the laws of physics. Klein’s [2] con- tribution was to make this restriction less artificial by suggesting a plausible physical basis for it in compactification of the fifth dimension. This idea was enthusiastically received by unified-field theorists, and when the time came to include the strong and weak forces by extending Kaluza’s mechanism to higher dimensions, it was assumed that these too would be compact. This line of thinking has led through eleven-dimensional supergravity theories in the 1980s to the current favorite contenders for a possible “theory of everything,” ten-dimensional superstrings.
    [Show full text]
  • Unification of Gravity and Quantum Theory Adam Daniels Old Dominion University, [email protected]
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Faculty-Sponsored Student Research Electrical & Computer Engineering 2017 Unification of Gravity and Quantum Theory Adam Daniels Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/engineering_students Part of the Elementary Particles and Fields and String Theory Commons, Engineering Physics Commons, and the Quantum Physics Commons Repository Citation Daniels, Adam, "Unification of Gravity and Quantum Theory" (2017). Faculty-Sponsored Student Research. 1. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/engineering_students/1 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Electrical & Computer Engineering at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty-Sponsored Student Research by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Unification of Gravity and Quantum Theory Adam D. Daniels [email protected] Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Old Dominion University Norfolk, Virginia, United States Abstract- An overview of the four fundamental forces of objects falling on earth. Newton’s insight was that the force that physics as described by the Standard Model (SM) and prevalent governs matter here on Earth was the same force governing the unifying theories beyond it is provided. Background knowledge matter in space. Another critical step forward in unification was of the particles governing the fundamental forces is provided, accomplished in the 1860s when James C. Maxwell wrote down as it will be useful in understanding the way in which the his famous Maxwell’s Equations, showing that electricity and unification efforts of particle physics has evolved, either from magnetism were just two facets of a more fundamental the SM, or apart from it.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Newtonian Approximation
    Post-Newtonian gravity and gravitational-wave astronomy Polarization waveforms in the SSB reference frame Relativistic binary systems Effective one-body formalism Post-Newtonian Approximation Piotr Jaranowski Faculty of Physcis, University of Bia lystok,Poland 01.07.2013 P. Jaranowski School of Gravitational Waves, 01{05.07.2013, Warsaw Post-Newtonian gravity and gravitational-wave astronomy Polarization waveforms in the SSB reference frame Relativistic binary systems Effective one-body formalism 1 Post-Newtonian gravity and gravitational-wave astronomy 2 Polarization waveforms in the SSB reference frame 3 Relativistic binary systems Leading-order waveforms (Newtonian binary dynamics) Leading-order waveforms without radiation-reaction effects Leading-order waveforms with radiation-reaction effects Post-Newtonian corrections Post-Newtonian spin-dependent effects 4 Effective one-body formalism EOB-improved 3PN-accurate Hamiltonian Usage of Pad´eapproximants EOB flexibility parameters P. Jaranowski School of Gravitational Waves, 01{05.07.2013, Warsaw Post-Newtonian gravity and gravitational-wave astronomy Polarization waveforms in the SSB reference frame Relativistic binary systems Effective one-body formalism 1 Post-Newtonian gravity and gravitational-wave astronomy 2 Polarization waveforms in the SSB reference frame 3 Relativistic binary systems Leading-order waveforms (Newtonian binary dynamics) Leading-order waveforms without radiation-reaction effects Leading-order waveforms with radiation-reaction effects Post-Newtonian corrections Post-Newtonian spin-dependent effects 4 Effective one-body formalism EOB-improved 3PN-accurate Hamiltonian Usage of Pad´eapproximants EOB flexibility parameters P. Jaranowski School of Gravitational Waves, 01{05.07.2013, Warsaw Relativistic binary systems exist in nature, they comprise compact objects: neutron stars or black holes. These systems emit gravitational waves, which experimenters try to detect within the LIGO/VIRGO/GEO600 projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Einstein's Gravitational Field
    Einstein’s gravitational field Abstract: There exists some confusion, as evidenced in the literature, regarding the nature the gravitational field in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. It is argued here that this confusion is a result of a change in interpretation of the gravitational field. Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with. 1 Author: Peter M. Brown e-mail: [email protected] 2 INTRODUCTION Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (EGR) has been credited as the greatest intellectual achievement of the 20th Century. This accomplishment is reflected in Time Magazine’s December 31, 1999 issue 1, which declares Einstein the Person of the Century. Indeed, Einstein is often taken as the model of genius for his work in relativity. It is widely assumed that, according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, gravitation is a curvature in space-time. There is a well- accepted definition of space-time curvature. As stated by Thorne 2 space-time curvature and tidal gravity are the same thing expressed in different languages, the former in the language of relativity, the later in the language of Newtonian gravity. However one of the main tenants of general relativity is the Principle of Equivalence: A uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference. This implies that one can create a uniform gravitational field simply by changing one’s frame of reference from an inertial frame of reference to an accelerating frame, which is rather difficult idea to accept.
    [Show full text]
  • Principle of Relativity and Inertial Dragging
    ThePrincipleofRelativityandInertialDragging By ØyvindG.Grøn OsloUniversityCollege,Departmentofengineering,St.OlavsPl.4,0130Oslo, Norway Email: [email protected] Mach’s principle and the principle of relativity have been discussed by H. I. HartmanandC.Nissim-Sabatinthisjournal.Severalphenomenaweresaidtoviolate the principle of relativity as applied to rotating motion. These claims have recently been contested. However, in neither of these articles have the general relativistic phenomenonofinertialdraggingbeeninvoked,andnocalculationhavebeenoffered byeithersidetosubstantiatetheirclaims.HereIdiscussthepossiblevalidityofthe principleofrelativityforrotatingmotionwithinthecontextofthegeneraltheoryof relativity, and point out the significance of inertial dragging in this connection. Although my main points are of a qualitative nature, I also provide the necessary calculationstodemonstratehowthesepointscomeoutasconsequencesofthegeneral theoryofrelativity. 1 1.Introduction H. I. Hartman and C. Nissim-Sabat 1 have argued that “one cannot ascribe all pertinentobservationssolelytorelativemotionbetweenasystemandtheuniverse”. They consider an UR-scenario in which a bucket with water is atrest in a rotating universe,andaBR-scenariowherethebucketrotatesinanon-rotatinguniverseand givefiveexamplestoshowthatthesesituationsarenotphysicallyequivalent,i.e.that theprincipleofrelativityisnotvalidforrotationalmotion. When Einstein 2 presented the general theory of relativity he emphasized the importanceofthegeneralprincipleofrelativity.Inasectiontitled“TheNeedforan
    [Show full text]
  • 5D Kaluza-Klein Theories - a Brief Review
    5D Kaluza-Klein theories - a brief review Andr´eMorgado Patr´ıcio, no 67898 Departamento de F´ısica, Instituto Superior T´ecnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal (Dated: 21 de Novembro de 2013) We review Kaluza-Klein theory in five dimensions from the General Relativity side. Kaluza's original idea is examined and two distinct approaches to the subject are presented and contrasted: compactified and noncompactified theories. We also discuss some cosmological implications of the noncompactified theory at the end of this paper. ^ ^ 1 ^ I. INTRODUCTION where GAB ≡ RAB − 2 g^ABR is the Einstein tensor. Inspired by the ties between Minkowki's 4D space- For the metric, we identify the αβ-part ofg ^AB with time and Maxwell's EM unification, Nordstr¨om[3] in 1914 gαβ, the α4-part as the electromagnetic potential Aα and and Kaluza[4] in 1921 showed that 5D general relativ- g^44 with a scalar field φ, parametrizing it as follows: ity contains both Einstein's 4D gravity and Maxwell's g + κ2φ2A A κφ2A EM. However, they imposed an artificial restriction of no g^ (x; y) = αβ α β α ; (4) AB κφ2A φ2 dependence on the fifth coordinate (cylinder condition). β Klein[5], in 1926, suggested a physical basis to avoid this where κ is a multiplicative factor. If we identifyp it in problem in the compactification of the fifth dimension, terms of the 4D gravitational constant by κ = 4 πG, idea now used in higher-dimensional generalisations to then, using the metric4 and applying the cylinder con- include weak and strong interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Gravity, Orbital Motion, and Relativity
    Gravity, Orbital Motion,& Relativity Early Astronomy Early Times • As far as we know, humans have always been interested in the motions of objects in the sky. • Not only did early humans navigate by means of the sky, but the motions of objects in the sky predicted the changing of the seasons, etc. • There were many early attempts both to describe and explain the motions of stars and planets in the sky. • All were unsatisfactory, for one reason or another. The Earth-Centered Universe • A geocentric (Earth-centered) solar system is often credited to Ptolemy, an Alexandrian Greek, although the idea is very old. • Ptolemy’s solar system could be made to fit the observational data pretty well, but only by becoming very complicated. Copernicus’ Solar System • The Polish cleric Copernicus proposed a heliocentric (Sun centered) solar system in the 1500’s. Objections to Copernicus How could Earth be moving at enormous speeds when we don’t feel it? . (Copernicus didn’t know about inertia.) Why can’t we detect Earth’s motion against the background stars (stellar parallax)? Copernicus’ model did not fit the observational data very well. Galileo • Galileo Galilei - February15,1564 – January 8, 1642 • Galileo became convinced that Copernicus was correct by observations of the Sun, Venus, and the moons of Jupiter using the newly-invented telescope. • Perhaps Galileo was motivated to understand inertia by his desire to understand and defend Copernicus’ ideas. Orbital Motion Tycho and Kepler • In the late 1500’s, a Danish nobleman named Tycho Brahe set out to make the most accurate measurements of planetary motions to date, in order to validate his own ideas of planetary motion.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Gravity, Effective Fields and String Theory
    Quantum gravity, effective fields and string theory Niels Emil Jannik Bjerrum-Bohr The Niels Bohr Institute University of Copenhagen arXiv:hep-th/0410097v1 10 Oct 2004 Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Physics at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. 28th July 2 Abstract In this thesis we will look into some of the various aspects of treating general relativity as a quantum theory. The thesis falls in three parts. First we briefly study how gen- eral relativity can be consistently quantized as an effective field theory, and we focus on the concrete results of such a treatment. As a key achievement of the investigations we present our calculations of the long-range low-energy leading quantum corrections to both the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics. The leading quantum corrections to the pure gravitational potential between two sources are also calculated, both in the mixed theory of scalar QED and quantum gravity and in the pure gravitational theory. Another part of the thesis deals with the (Kawai-Lewellen-Tye) string theory gauge/gravity relations. Both theories are treated as effective field theories, and we investigate if the KLT oper- ator mapping is extendable to the case of higher derivative operators. The constraints, imposed by the KLT-mapping on the effective coupling constants, are also investigated. The KLT relations are generalized, taking the effective field theory viewpoint, and it is noticed that some remarkable tree-level amplitude relations exist between the field the- ory operators. Finally we look at effective quantum gravity treated from the perspective of taking the limit of infinitely many spatial dimensions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Riemann Curvature Tensor
    The Riemann Curvature Tensor Jennifer Cox May 6, 2019 Project Advisor: Dr. Jonathan Walters Abstract A tensor is a mathematical object that has applications in areas including physics, psychology, and artificial intelligence. The Riemann curvature tensor is a tool used to describe the curvature of n-dimensional spaces such as Riemannian manifolds in the field of differential geometry. The Riemann tensor plays an important role in the theories of general relativity and gravity as well as the curvature of spacetime. This paper will provide an overview of tensors and tensor operations. In particular, properties of the Riemann tensor will be examined. Calculations of the Riemann tensor for several two and three dimensional surfaces such as that of the sphere and torus will be demonstrated. The relationship between the Riemann tensor for the 2-sphere and 3-sphere will be studied, and it will be shown that these tensors satisfy the general equation of the Riemann tensor for an n-dimensional sphere. The connection between the Gaussian curvature and the Riemann curvature tensor will also be shown using Gauss's Theorem Egregium. Keywords: tensor, tensors, Riemann tensor, Riemann curvature tensor, curvature 1 Introduction Coordinate systems are the basis of analytic geometry and are necessary to solve geomet- ric problems using algebraic methods. The introduction of coordinate systems allowed for the blending of algebraic and geometric methods that eventually led to the development of calculus. Reliance on coordinate systems, however, can result in a loss of geometric insight and an unnecessary increase in the complexity of relevant expressions. Tensor calculus is an effective framework that will avoid the cons of relying on coordinate systems.
    [Show full text]
  • PPN Formalism
    PPN formalism Hajime SOTANI 01/07/2009 21/06/2013 (minor changes) University of T¨ubingen PPN formalism Hajime Sotani Introduction Up to now, there exists no experiment purporting inconsistency of Einstein's theory. General relativity is definitely a beautiful theory of gravitation. However, we may have alternative approaches to explain all gravitational phenomena. We have also faced on some fundamental unknowns in the Universe, such as dark energy and dark matter, which might be solved by new theory of gravitation. The candidates as an alternative gravitational theory should satisfy at least three criteria for viability; (1) self-consistency, (2) completeness, and (3) agreement with past experiments. University of T¨ubingen 1 PPN formalism Hajime Sotani Metric Theory In only one significant way do metric theories of gravity differ from each other: ! their laws for the generation of the metric. - In GR, the metric is generated directly by the stress-energy of matter and of nongravitational fields. - In Dicke-Brans-Jordan theory, matter and nongravitational fields generate a scalar field '; then ' acts together with the matter and other fields to generate the metric, while \long-range field” ' CANNOT act back directly on matter. (1) Despite the possible existence of long-range gravitational fields in addition to the metric in various metric theories of gravity, the postulates of those theories demand that matter and non-gravitational fields be completely oblivious to them. (2) The only gravitational field that enters the equations of motion is the metric. Thus the metric and equations of motion for matter become the primary entities for calculating observable effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Gravity: a Primer for Philosophers∗
    Quantum Gravity: A Primer for Philosophers∗ Dean Rickles ‘Quantum Gravity’ does not denote any existing theory: the field of quantum gravity is very much a ‘work in progress’. As you will see in this chapter, there are multiple lines of attack each with the same core goal: to find a theory that unifies, in some sense, general relativity (Einstein’s classical field theory of gravitation) and quantum field theory (the theoretical framework through which we understand the behaviour of particles in non-gravitational fields). Quantum field theory and general relativity seem to be like oil and water, they don’t like to mix—it is fair to say that combining them to produce a theory of quantum gravity constitutes the greatest unresolved puzzle in physics. Our goal in this chapter is to give the reader an impression of what the problem of quantum gravity is; why it is an important problem; the ways that have been suggested to resolve it; and what philosophical issues these approaches, and the problem itself, generate. This review is extremely selective, as it has to be to remain a manageable size: generally, rather than going into great detail in some area, we highlight the key features and the options, in the hope that readers may take up the problem for themselves—however, some of the basic formalism will be introduced so that the reader is able to enter the physics and (what little there is of) the philosophy of physics literature prepared.1 I have also supplied references for those cases where I have omitted some important facts.
    [Show full text]
  • Gravity Pulls Objects Toward It Without Touching Them
    Science Benchmark: 03 : 04 Forces cause changes in the speed or direction of the motion of an object. The greater the force placed on an object, the greater the change in motion. The more massive an object is, the less effect a given force will have upon the motion of the object. Earthʼs gravity pulls objects toward it without touching them. Standard IV: Students will understand that objects near Earth are pulled toward Earth by gravity. STUDENT BACKGROUND INFORMATION Gravity - What Goes Up, Must Come Down Jump up in the air and you will fall back down again. Try to stay up above the ground. Pretend you are a super hero getting ready to save the world from evil. Flap your arms a little and see if it helps. Can’t do it? That’s because of an invisible force called gravity. You can’t see it, but it is a powerful force that affects all things on Earth. Earth’s gravity is strong and pulls objects without touching them. As you stand still or run as fast as you can, Earth’s gravity is pulling down on you all the time. Skyscrapers, ele- phants, apples and even you cannot get away from Earth’s gravity. Even when you jump up into the air and you are not touching the ground, Earth’s gravity will pull you back! force - a push or pull gravity - the force that pulls objects on or near Earth toward its center Grade Benchmark Standard Page 03 03 : 04 04 11.1.1 The measurement of the force it takes to work against gravity is called weight.
    [Show full text]