Are there examples where gravity works indendent of nuclear forces ?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between gravity and nuclear forces, questioning whether gravity operates independently of nuclear interactions. Participants note that while classical gravity is understood as a property of mass, the mechanisms behind it remain unclear, especially at large distances where measurements are challenging. There is no definitive evidence ruling out a connection between gravity and nuclear forces, although current models do not indicate a relationship. The conversation suggests that gravity might be an emergent property resulting from multiple forces. Overall, the complexities of both gravity and nuclear forces highlight the gaps in our understanding of fundamental physics.
rogerharris
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
Yes i am aware this may appear a stupid question, but I am just starting science refresher course and was not able to find an answer so far by googling.

So far we are being taught the classical view of gravity. Its a property of mass... and that appears to be it. There is no mechanism, particles etc so i was wondering if anybody had tested if gravity is at play where there is no general nuclear or electromagnetic force involved.

i.e. How do we actually know gravity is not a nuclear force is my question ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Curl said:
Is this good enough for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave

This doesn't help me know if gravity is not the mechanical result of nuclear forces
 
rogerharris said:
This doesn't help me know if gravity is not the mechanical result of nuclear forces
We don't know how gravity works at very large distances (ie. at inter-galactic distances on the order of millions of light years). We simply cannot measure it. We cannot measure gravity at the distance of a nuclear radius. The coulomb force is over 10^40 times stronger than gravity. And the nuclear force is hundred times stronger than that.

We do not understand what causes any of the forces: nuclear, electric, gravity. So to say that two forces (nuclear and gravity) that we do not understand at all cannot be related may seem rather pretentious. All we can say is that our models for understanding gravity and nuclear forces do not show any relationship between the two forces.

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that rules out a possible relationship between gravity and nuclear force. There just isn't any evidence that they are related, other than: the fact that the two forces are only attractive (there is some suggestion that the nuclear force is repulsive at distances much smaller than a proton diameter, but we don't know how gravity operates on that scale); the fact that the magnitudes of both forces depend on the quantity of matter (number of protons/neutrons) involved as well as the distances of separation; and the fact that we don't understand what causes either force.

AM
 
Andrew Mason said:
We don't know how gravity works at very large distances (ie. at inter-galactic distances on the order of millions of light years). We simply cannot measure it. We cannot measure gravity at the distance of a nuclear radius. The coulomb force is over 10^40 times stronger than gravity. And the nuclear force is hundred times stronger than that.

We do not understand what causes any of the forces: nuclear, electric, gravity. So to say that two forces (nuclear and gravity) that we do not understand at all cannot be related may seem rather pretentious. All we can say is that our models for understanding gravity and nuclear forces do not show any relationship between the two forces.

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that rules out a possible relationship between gravity and nuclear force. There just isn't any evidence that they are related, other than: the fact that the two forces are only attractive (there is some suggestion that the nuclear force is repulsive at distances much smaller than a proton diameter, but we don't know how gravity operates on that scale); the fact that the magnitudes of both forces depend on the quantity of matter (number of protons/neutrons) involved as well as the distances of separation; and the fact that we don't understand what causes either force.

AM


Thanks Andrew. I guess that sums it up. There is macro and microscopic aspects we haven't figured. or maybe gravity could be some kind of emergent property of several forces together.

i.e. i found these newer theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top