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
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top