Can the force of gravity overcome the Planck force?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mister i
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Gravity Planck
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the claim that the force of gravity can exceed the Planck force, specifically in the context of the gravitational attraction between Sagittarius A and the black hole at the center of the Andromeda galaxy. Participants assert that the Planck force is not a maximum limit, referencing the inadequacy of classical general relativity and string theory to establish such a boundary. The conversation highlights the importance of valid references, with multiple citations provided that contradict the original claim about maximum force. Ultimately, the consensus is that there is no established limit to gravitational force as per current theoretical frameworks.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity (GR)
  • Familiarity with Planck units and their implications
  • Knowledge of black hole physics, specifically supermassive black holes (SMBH)
  • Ability to critically evaluate scientific references and claims
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Planck units in modern physics
  • Study the properties and behaviors of supermassive black holes
  • Examine the limitations of classical general relativity and string theory
  • Explore the concept of maximal acceleration and its relation to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, astrophysicists, and students of theoretical physics who are interested in gravitational forces, black hole dynamics, and the foundational principles of modern physics.

mister i
Messages
19
Reaction score
7
TL;DR
Can the force of gravity overcome the Planck force?
Can the force of gravity overcome the Planck force?
I remember that a long time ago I read that in the universe the Planck force was the maximum force that could be reached. But when Sagittarius A and the black hole at the center of the Andomeda galaxy approach, I have made the calculation that their gravitational attraction force will exceed that of Planck when they are approximately 100 million km away from each other. (Regardless of this, it is curious that if we put the constants of the GR equation on the other side we obtain precisely the Planck force, I don't know if this can make any sense)
 
Space news on Phys.org
mister i said:
I read
Where? Please give a reference.

mister i said:
the Planck force was the maximum force that could be reached
Any such claim is speculative given our best current theories of physics, which contain no such limit.
 
mister i said:
their gravitational attraction force
"Gravitational attraction" is not a force in GR. So even if "Planck force" is a valid concept (see my previous post), the comparison you are making would not be valid.
 
Planck quantities are not always the limit of our understanding of something. For example, Planck's mass is 21 micrograms, approximately the mass of a single eyelash.
 
PeterDonis said:
Please give a reference.
It doesn't really matter. If it says that, it's nonsense. Planck units are not the limit of anything. The Planck resistance is 30 ohms.

mister i said:
I have made the calculation that their gravitational attraction force will exceed that of Planck when they are approximately 100 million km away from each other.
Incorrectly, I am afraid.

M31's SMBH has a radius of ~500M km. So how does it get closer than that to another object?

This will happen for BH's of any size.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
It doesn't really matter.
Not as far as the "Planck force" claim is concerned, no.

But it does matter as far as the OP understanding the PF rules about references, which is why I posted the question. "I read somewhere" is not a valid reference, even if we can tell that whatever was "read somewhere" must have been wrong.
 
I completely agree/ "I read somewhere" is not an acceptable source. The fact that what he says he read is absolute nonsense does not help.
 
Your first reference is behind a paywall.

The second reference says "It is clear that a maximal acceleration or maximal temperature can come out of neither classical general relativity nor classical string theory." The paper proposes the exact opposite of what you are proposing, and further, it says the answer is (classically) "no" to the idea of a maximum force.

Why cite a paper that underlines your own case?
 
  • #10
Vanadium 50 said:
Your first reference is behind a paywall.

The second reference says "It is clear that a maximal acceleration or maximal temperature can come out of neither classical general relativity nor classical string theory." The paper proposes the exact opposite of what you are proposing, and further, it says the answer is (classically) "no" to the idea of a maximum force.

Why cite a paper that underlines your own case?
As for the first source, it points to another source that points to another source. Leading to https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02745135 where it only states that it can calculate a maximal acceleration for a particle. Not a maximum force. Independently of how the author achieves that result, this is already different from the original claim.

Edit here is the follow up paper without paywall: Maximal Acceleration as a Consequence of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relations 1984
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Thanks. However, after one paper that doesn't say what it is said to, I am done. I have played the game: "What is your source?" "Here it is." "That doesn't say what you said." "Then this one." "That doesn't say what you said either." "How about this one." It turns out this game is much more fun for the other player.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds and berkeman
  • #12
mister i said:
I also think there is no limit
Which makes the question you are asking in this thread pointless. Given that, and the issues with the references that have already been discussed, this thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K