Absence of gravity at atomic level at all?

In summary: Warren,Atomic nuclei have diameters in the range of 10^{-15} to 10^{-14} m, so 10^{-15} is a reasonable order of magnitude estimate for the separation of two "neighboring" nucleons in a nucleus.More than "absence of gravity", I like to think of "presence of gauge forces". The point is, suppose you put a general cut-off asking that no force between two particles can be greater than the Force of Planck F_P \propto {\hbar c \over l_P^2 . If we had only gravity, this cut-off happens to be milder than the Planck Length
  • #1
heartless
220
2
Hello,
I'm not familiar with what scientists working at accelerators say, but almost every book, and documentary movie say that Quantum Mechanics don't cover the gravity. I just gave a quick thought, well, maybe the gravity isn't there at all? Atomic level simply lacks the gravity and is only based upon 3 forces, electro-magnetism, strong and weak force? If the gravity, exists there, it must be very weak, but wouldn't atoms fall into the gravitational field of one another and start circling around each other? Hey, so how is it with this gravity at atomic level? And well, maybe I'm just out of time, and every one knows the answer except for me :)

P.S, just a quick question, what keeps the electrons tied up to an atom?

Thanks for all the help :shy:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Gravity certainly exists at atomic scales, but its strength is negligible when compared to the other three forces.

- Warren
 
  • #3
Let's calculate the gravitational potential energy of two protons or neutrons (mass about [itex]m = 2.7 \times 10^{-27}[/itex] kg) in a nucleus, separated by about [itex]r = 10^{-15}[/itex] m. The gravitational constant is about [itex]G = 6.7 \times 10^{-11}[/itex]N-m^2/kg^2. The potential energy is

[tex]U = - \frac{Gm^2}{r}[/itex]

which gives about [itex]-4.9 \times 10^{-49}[/itex] J, or about [itex]-3.0 \times 10^{-30}[/itex] eV.

To put this in perspective, the binding energy per proton or neutron in most nuclei is in the general ballpark of a few million ([itex]10^{+6}[/itex]) eV. So, unless gravity behaves wildly differently on a nuclear scale than on a macroscopic scale, its effects are insignificant compared to those of the other forces.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Thanks,
now let me ask you another question, suppose the gravity at atomic level is stronger than nuclear strong force. How would if affect atoms, and all the particles?
 
  • #5
jtbell said:
Let's calculate the gravitational potential energy of two protons or neutrons (mass about [itex]m = 2.7 \times 10^{-27}[/itex] kg) in a nucleus, separated by about [itex]r = 10^{-15}[/itex] m. The gravitational constant is about [itex]G = 6.7 \times 10^{-11}[/itex]N-m^2/kg^2. The potential energy is

[tex]U = - \frac{Gm^2}{r}[/itex]

which gives about [itex]-4.9 \times 10^{-49}[/itex] J, or about [itex]-3.0 \times 10^{-30}[/itex] eV.

To put this in perspective, the binding energy per proton or neutron in most nuclei is in the general ballpark of a few million ([itex]10^{+6}[/itex]) eV. So, unless gravity behaves wildly differently on a nuclear scale than on a macroscopic scale, its effects are insignificant compared to those of the other forces.

You used [itex]r = 10^{-15}[/itex]. I don't know if, from a particle perspective, that is close or not, but the closer the better. If we were to take r arbitrarily close to 0 we would get a significant value. I'm not suggesting we take the limit of the gravitational potential as r goes to 0, but i wonder why you used the value of r that you used. How small can r be, in theory? Naturally, at this small scale things would have to be extremely close in order for gravity to have a chance, but in the event that they did, it sounds like it would be hard to get them apart. What are some of the main reasons why the nuclear forces are not caused by gravity?
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Well, the smaller "r" gets in gravity, the more you'd have to use GR...

Daniel.
 
  • #7
-Job- said:
i wonder why you used the value of r that you used.

Atomic nuclei have diameters in the range of [itex]10^{-15}[/itex] to [itex]10^{-14}[/itex] m, so [itex]10^{-15}[/itex] is a reasonable order of magnitude estimate for the separation of two "neighboring" nucleons in a nucleus.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
More than "absence of gravity", I like to think of "presence of gauge forces". The point is, suppose you put a general cut-off asking that no force between two particles can be greater than the Force of Planck [tex]F_P \propto {\hbar c \over l_P^2[/tex] . If we had only gravity, this cut-off happens to be milder than the Planck Length cut-off because two electrons have a gravity force

[tex]
F_G=\hbar c ({m_e\over m_P})^2 {1\over r^2}
[/tex]

so they can approach a lot without violating the Planck Force.

Fortunately they also happen to have an electromagnetic force

[tex]
F_E=\alpha(r) \hbar c {1\over r^2}
[/tex]

so that at distances of order Planck Length, the *electromagnetic* force is the one causing a force of order Planck Force, and then hitting the cut-off. Thus the gauge forces are needed to make the Force cutoff and the Distance cutoff compatible. Best said, Force cut-off + Gauge forces imply the length cut-off. Without gauge forces, the Force cut-off and the length (area, if you prefer) cutoff are two separate hypothesis.
 
Last edited:

1. What is the concept of absence of gravity at the atomic level?

The absence of gravity at the atomic level refers to the fact that gravity, as a force, has very little impact on the behavior and movement of individual atoms. This is because the mass of an individual atom is incredibly small, and the force of gravity is proportional to the mass of an object. Therefore, at the atomic level, the influence of gravity is negligible.

2. Why is gravity absent at the atomic level?

Gravity is absent at the atomic level because the force of gravity is dependent on the mass of an object. At the atomic level, the mass of an individual atom is incredibly small, making the force of gravity negligible. Additionally, at the atomic level, other forces such as electromagnetic and nuclear forces are much stronger and dominate the behavior of atoms.

3. Does this mean there is no gravity in the universe?

No, this does not mean that there is no gravity in the universe. Gravity still exists and has a significant impact on the behavior of larger objects such as planets, stars, and galaxies. However, at the atomic level, the force of gravity is very weak and has little influence.

4. How does this concept impact our understanding of the universe?

The concept of absence of gravity at the atomic level is important in understanding the fundamental forces and interactions in the universe. It helps us understand why objects at the atomic level behave differently than larger objects, and how other forces such as electromagnetic and nuclear forces play a role in shaping the universe.

5. Are there any practical applications of this concept?

Yes, there are practical applications of the concept of absence of gravity at the atomic level. For example, in microgravity environments such as space, scientists can study the behavior of individual atoms without the interference of gravity. This has led to advancements in fields such as materials science and pharmaceutical research. Additionally, the concept has also been used in the development of technologies such as atomic clocks and quantum computers.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
187
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
969
Replies
5
Views
989
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
0
Views
738
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top