Gravity is a force, right? Well does a "force" have a physical appearance?
I was thinking...
- Thread starter JimmyJames
- Start date
Rock on!
Hi JimmyJames,
In classical Newtonian mechanics, gravity - along with electromagnetism and a bunch of other effects - is described as a force. You can not physically touch "a force", but only see the consequences of it (i.e. acceleration). Just ask any physicist, (s)he will have trouble explainging you what a force exactly is
.
Newton used the concept of "forces" to identify the mechanism that is responsible for changing the acceleration of an object. The concept was introduced because of the inability (at that time) to correctly describe what was going on. In modern physics, the concept of "force" is no longer used; modern theories prefer to use the potential (energy) derived from a force, since that is a lot easier to work with.
Bye!
Crisp
Hi JimmyJames,
In classical Newtonian mechanics, gravity - along with electromagnetism and a bunch of other effects - is described as a force. You can not physically touch "a force", but only see the consequences of it (i.e. acceleration). Just ask any physicist, (s)he will have trouble explainging you what a force exactly is
.Newton used the concept of "forces" to identify the mechanism that is responsible for changing the acceleration of an object. The concept was introduced because of the inability (at that time) to correctly describe what was going on. In modern physics, the concept of "force" is no longer used; modern theories prefer to use the potential (energy) derived from a force, since that is a lot easier to work with.
Bye!
Crisp
relpy...
A force is a push or a pull, I know that much. But what I really want to know is if a force has any atomic apperence, for example gravity may make the eletrons of an atom move faster or somthing like that. Because then you could alter an object to resist gravity there for you would float in the air. I really don't know what I am talking about, but I would appreciate some input.
A force is a push or a pull, I know that much. But what I really want to know is if a force has any atomic apperence, for example gravity may make the eletrons of an atom move faster or somthing like that. Because then you could alter an object to resist gravity there for you would float in the air. I really don't know what I am talking about, but I would appreciate some input.
I think I see what you are getting at.........i.e. if gravity had a particle attached to the force a Graviton that relays the message to another particle to tell it to behave in a certain way i.e. to fall down ...maybe I’m just babbling but I don’t think they have found any gravitons yet as they are (theoretically) extremely weakly interacting.
Gravity sucks.
Hi Jimmy James,
I am not entirely sure on what you mean, but gravity works on atomic scales aswell. The effect it would have is to make the electron move closer to the nucleus, and eventually let it crash into the nucleus.
Now appearantly/luckily this doesn't seem to happen. Why ? Well, we probably need a good quantum theory of gravity before we can answer that. Physics doesn't have all the answers yet.
Bye!
Crisp
Hi Jimmy James,
I am not entirely sure on what you mean, but gravity works on atomic scales aswell. The effect it would have is to make the electron move closer to the nucleus, and eventually let it crash into the nucleus.
Now appearantly/luckily this doesn't seem to happen. Why ? Well, we probably need a good quantum theory of gravity before we can answer that. Physics doesn't have all the answers yet
.Bye!
Crisp
okay, but
okay so if I understand you correctly then gravity effectes an object by forcing the eletrons of an atom closer to it's nucleus therefore effecting its motion, or making it move. In our case it would fall downward.
okay so if I understand you correctly then gravity effectes an object by forcing the eletrons of an atom closer to it's nucleus therefore effecting its motion, or making it move. In our case it would fall downward.
I agree with Chugar...
This is not the appropriate place to carry out this discussion, besides there are many other people who are interested in this subject who might have an interesting input on the subject, thats the whole point of differnent subjects for each forum. Plus it kinda makes me mad because I have posted a question and you are interfearing with my post by dragging it of the original subject. Please do not take this offencive.
Bye.
This is not the appropriate place to carry out this discussion, besides there are many other people who are interested in this subject who might have an interesting input on the subject, thats the whole point of differnent subjects for each forum. Plus it kinda makes me mad because I have posted a question and you are interfearing with my post by dragging it of the original subject. Please do not take this offencive.
Bye.
Hi Jimmy James,
Ehrr... no. Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear on this the previous post, and above all, I was wrong.
If you would picture a nucleus and an electron (for example, a hydrogen atom) with no other matter near it, then from a classical point of view you could expect that gravity would bring the two closer. I forgot to mention that from a classical point of view, you can explain why this doesn't happen (otherwise all electrons would crash into the nucleus). You can describe the Coulombforce and gravity as a central force, meaning that the electron circles the nucleus in a circular orbit, with the force always perpendicular to the electron's orbit. This would keep the electron in a perfect orbit, just as a satellite orbits earth. Note that gravity is about 10^40 times weaker on an atom scale than the Coulombforce, so gravitational effects are negligible here.
On earth it works a bit differently. Both the electron and nucleus are attracted to earth, but since an electron is 2000 times lighter than a proton, you can say that it is only the nucleus being drawn to earth, with the electron dragging behind it.
It's important to note that this is a Newtonian picture of an atom, and that it doesn't really work (you really should use quantummechanics for atom-scale systems, but as I mentioned before, we're still lacking a good quantumtheory of gravitation).
Bye!
Crisp
Ehrr... no. Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear on this the previous post, and above all, I was wrong
. If you would picture a nucleus and an electron (for example, a hydrogen atom) with no other matter near it, then from a classical point of view you could expect that gravity would bring the two closer. I forgot to mention that from a classical point of view, you can explain why this doesn't happen (otherwise all electrons would crash into the nucleus). You can describe the Coulombforce and gravity as a central force, meaning that the electron circles the nucleus in a circular orbit, with the force always perpendicular to the electron's orbit. This would keep the electron in a perfect orbit, just as a satellite orbits earth. Note that gravity is about 10^40 times weaker on an atom scale than the Coulombforce, so gravitational effects are negligible here.
On earth it works a bit differently. Both the electron and nucleus are attracted to earth, but since an electron is 2000 times lighter than a proton, you can say that it is only the nucleus being drawn to earth, with the electron dragging behind it.
It's important to note that this is a Newtonian picture of an atom, and that it doesn't really work (you really should use quantummechanics for atom-scale systems, but as I mentioned before, we're still lacking a good quantumtheory of gravitation).
Bye!
Crisp
Just wanna to say that the gravity exerted by an object will have impact on all objects within our universe. The gravitational field it created will extend outwards contineously and reducing its intensity as the distance gets furthur away, but it will always be there, pulling others towards it, even though its effect is insignificant.
Gravity is only zero at infinity, thus everything in this universe is affected by gravity. We can think that we are at the bottom of a potential well, and to get out of it, we need infinate amount of energy as to go past infinity, thus everything will always go towards the centre of gravity as it rolls down the hills of this potential well towards the centre.
<<...Both the electron and nucleus are attracted to earth, but since an electron is 2000 times lighter than a proton, you can say that it is only the nucleus being drawn to earth, with the electron dragging behind it...>>
Or you can say that the acceleration of gravity is independent of mass, or that the curvature of spacetime tells all masses to move similarly.
Or you can say that the acceleration of gravity is independent of mass, or that the curvature of spacetime tells all masses to move similarly.
Reign_of_Error
Registered Senior Member
quote Bebelina
I think that is an acceptable response to the topic
quote Chagur
quote Bebelina
I agree with that totally, science is nothing without the idea, and ideas are philosophy.
quote JimmyJames
Bebelina merely pointed out a belief that may be relevant to your topic if you open your mind...
I don't understand why it would make you mad because if it was left at her original post, and not responded to, it would not have gone any further, however, if someone had a post that could further her original input to this thread, then it would have had real meaning and maybe you could have learned something from it...
who are you mad at?
I think that is an acceptable response to the topic
quote Chagur
quote Bebelina
I agree with that totally, science is nothing without the idea, and ideas are philosophy.
quote JimmyJames
Bebelina merely pointed out a belief that may be relevant to your topic if you open your mind...
I don't understand why it would make you mad because if it was left at her original post, and not responded to, it would not have gone any further, however, if someone had a post that could further her original input to this thread, then it would have had real meaning and maybe you could have learned something from it...
who are you mad at?