PDA

View Full Version : Gravity question

04-12-02, 02:34 AM
Could gravity be sort of an accumulated influence of residual electroweak force or residual electromagnetic force? Not sure if that's what it's called. But I believe there is some "left over" from the equilibrium of both EM and EW combinations/matches.

Joeblow93132
04-12-02, 05:53 PM

No one is answering your post because most of the people here believe that gravity is the result of curved space. They freak out if you attempt to give an alternate theory.

"Could gravity be sort of an accumulated influence of residual electroweak force or residual electromagnetic force?"

I'm not very informed about the weak interaction, so I can't say whether it can be responsible for gravity. I can tell you that the electromagnetic force is probably not. As you know, the electromagnetic force has two poles. Opposite poles attract while like poles repel each other. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to construct the electromagnetic forces in objects in a way that the objects would ONLY attract each other, like in gravity.

Tom

thed
04-12-02, 06:01 PM
Or we could be busy with other things. Never ascribe to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity, or time pressure! It's mid-night here and I'm watching Sci-Fright as well. Really cheesy vampire film called Count Yorga rises again, or something.

For once, Tom, you are making sense. EM can not explain gravity. Nor can the other forces, weak and strong nuclear force, for the same reasons. Says a lot, doesn't it. Gravity is some how different yet acording to modern thought they are all aspects of some underlying principle or unified force.

James R
04-12-02, 10:02 PM
Tom,

If you'd like to learn about curvature and why your electromagnetic objection to curved space really doesn't work, investigate string theory a little. I highly recommend the book <i>The Elegant Universe</i> by Brian Greene. It doesn't assume any prior knowledge.

04-13-02, 01:37 AM
So, what happens to that residual nuclear force? It doesn't have any attractive effect on other mass?

Joeblow93132
04-13-02, 07:16 AM

If you are referring to the strong interaction, there is a possibility that gravity is ascociated with it.

As you know. the strong interaction works only at very short distances and is very powerful, while gravity works at large distances and is very weak.

If, however, if there are two spheres of gravity, the small sphere which is the about size of the atomic nucleus, and a larger sphere which extends light years, and if the strength of the gravity in the small sphere is much more powerful than the larger sphere, then gravity might actually be responsible for the strong interaction.

Tom

04-13-02, 08:21 AM
That is definitely one thing I do nto understand. How can a powerful force suddenly reduce in power at a given range? Wouldn't it lose power progressively the further out you go? How could it lose power say at range1=1/2, range2=1/4, range3=1/8, then suddenly nothing at all? (Just example figures.) It doesn't make much sense to me, not yet anyway.

Joeblow93132
04-13-02, 09:38 AM

"That is definitely one thing I do nto understand. How can a powerful force suddenly reduce in power at a given range? Wouldn't it lose power progressively the further out you go? How could it lose power say at range1=1/2, range2=1/4, range3=1/8, then suddenly nothing at all? (Just example figures.) It doesn't make much sense to me, not yet anyway."

It is accepted that all forces lose power progressivly as you move further away, just as you indicated. But the power of the strong interaction, whether you associate it with gravity or not, does sharply lose power as you move further away.

Also, you have to consider matter itself. If you consider matter to be a kind of force, then this force drops off suddenly, as well.

Example: Look at a neutron. It has no charge and a negligable gravitational field, but it has a set boundry, and a set radius. This radius might be an indication of a force that drops to zero suddenly, as well.

Tom

Crisp
04-15-02, 05:22 AM
Hi Tom,

Some small remarks:

A neutron does not have a well defined boundary (neither does any particle) because of the quantummechanical wave character involved. You can understand that this complicates things :).
A "sudden drop to zero" is not something scientists like. This would involve a discontinuity in the force (from a certain value immediatelly to zero), and scientists assume that nature works in a "continuous fashion". I believe it was Leibnitz who used the proverb "Natura non facit saltus", nature doesn't make jumps. (Ok, Leibnitz used it in a different context, but nevertheless I think it applies here). In mathematical models physicists use discontinuous examples (eg. the potential barrier) but the little footnotes always (should) say that in real life, the "jumps" are continous.

Bye!

Crisp

04-15-02, 05:47 AM
I recall that name Leibniz. Was he one of the guys who came up with calculus or something?

Neutrino_Albatross
04-17-02, 10:08 PM
Gravity probaly cant be residual strong and weak forces Here's why.

Leptons (electrons, Neutrinos, Muons Taus) are effected by gravity but not strong force. If Gravity is just left over strong force leptons wouldn't interact with it. If its both weak and strong than leptons would feel gravity but weaker than hadrons (protons, neutrons, mesons) which interact with both forces.

Also I think that theorists would have an easier time unifiying gravity with the other forces if it was actually the same force.

SpyFox_the_KMeson
04-18-02, 09:22 AM
Well, if gravity were residual strong and/or weak forces, it would have the same carrier particles, which it does not. And the strong force does not "drop off" at a certain distance, it just becomes very weak very quickly.

thed
04-18-02, 03:30 PM