# Does gravity play a role in particle interactions?

1. Jun 24, 2010

### TCS

I know that particles don't have much mass and that the "force" of gravity is weaker than elecromagneitic or nuclear force, but gravity isn't really a force, it's a warping of space time related to energy density. Particles are quite dense so they should significantly warp space on a small scale and even if a particle is in high energy space it will be scrunched in so it's energy density will be higher.

Also, when I look at the distribution of electrons around an atom, it makes me think of a spereical diffraction pattern. Accordingly, I think that the energy density of the nucleus is actually distributed in rings, so that space is scrunced in at the nucleas and at each of the rings, but it is expanded in the inbetween spaces so that the energy of any wave that passes by the atom will tend to concentrate in the rings as well as the nucleus. Passing electromagnetic waves should have a tendency to circle around an electron reinforcing the enrgy distribution and sort cirling the atom around the atom and making it pulse inward, although it wouldn't be an actual acceleration unless the photon interacted with the electron/atom.

2. Jun 24, 2010

### blechman

Well, first of all, what IS a "force"?! This "warping of spacetime related to energy density" is, by the equivalence principle, realized as a "force" to the body, so that's not really the right way to think of it. But in any event, I would rather stay away from these subtleties. I leave it to more qualified experts here to get into that.

But your second question I can answer: you answer it yourself when you say that a particle, being as dense as it is, "...will significantly warp space on a small scale...". HOW SMALL? The scale of gravity is set by Newton's constant (or equivalently, the Planck length). So on length scales of order the Planck length, we expect gravity WILL become quite strong. The best accelerators are probing at scales roughly $10^{15}$ times larger than this, so the warping of space around the particle at such astronomical distances (compared to the Planck length) is totally irrelevant for what we're doing at the LHC, for example.

But you are right that at distances of order the Planck length, you DO have to worry about these things. But in practice, we will not be probing at these distances anytime soon.

There are plenty of models that attempt to describe nuclear structure, each with their pros and cons (shell model, liquid drop model, etc). Check those out in your favorite nuclear physics textbook or Wikipedia, or on this forum.

3. Jun 24, 2010

### jerich1000

I would say no. This is because it takes 10^50 particles (i.e., a planet) to generate enough gravity to make any serious difference. That is how weak gravity is: very, very weak.

One small set of particles zipping past another small group of particles is not going to be affected by gravity between the two sets of particles. The other fundamental forces will severely overwhelm any puny gravity effects.

4. Jun 24, 2010

### TCS

We see gravity in an inverse square manner because of the scale we view gravity on, but for an atom, it's energy density isn't distributed equally. Almost all space exists either at the nucleus or at the peaks of the rings, which creates very strong gradients. All of the wave forms in the vicintiy of an atom are either at the nucleus or at the center of on one of the rings. I think an atom is really a nested series of very deep gravity crests. A nucleus is much more of a gravity well than think because the suroundiong space is stretched thin in energy until you get to the next ring but even that ring is a significant red shift . I think all attraction could be thought of gravity on some scale except that you have to account for the universe's desire to organize itself into distinct resonant shapes (maybe like fractals).

Until an electron interacts with an outside photon, it's universe is the ring that it's in.

Last edited: Jun 24, 2010
5. Jun 24, 2010

### nismaratwork

Regarding the bolded portion, what do you mean?

6. Jun 24, 2010

### humanino

Historical matherial :
http://library.ictp.trieste.it/DOCS/P/74/055.pdf [Broken]
Abdus Salam 1974

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
7. Jun 25, 2010

### TCS

If you think about space as being the ring of a diffraction pattern on the surface of a drum, where the surface is stretched into these really dense bands with very stretched out thin areas in between. Particles are like diffraction patterns that form in the thick bands where each particle is a distinct shape of diffraction pattern and where the energy of the diffraction pattern is modulated by shape of the particle (there is a sort of oscilation within the rings that corespond to the outward shape of the particle sort of like a fractal or a crystal). If the shapes that the particles form into are harmonic states of the elastic medium that forms the drum, then you can think of space as acting like a harmonic chamber harmonizing the energy into these preferred shapes like a guitar harmonizes sound waves.

Although, I think they only achive perfect harmonic shape momentarilly and then the rings evolve indpendantly.

However, you can think of those two dimensional rings as being manifolds in three dimensions. Similarly, you can think of a particle as being a nested set of four dimensional manifolds where the combined set forms a harmonic structure in an elastic four space. When enough of the right energy is in the right location for two such structures to form, they redistribute enrgy between them to create the pattern where different patterns have different Qs and the unverse is trying to maximize the Q.

I think that I want to take a look at some of the physics of crystal forming.

Last edited: Jun 25, 2010
8. Jun 25, 2010

### nismaratwork

That's very interesting, is there a paper I can read on the subject, and is this a matter of the holographic principle or standard cosmology?

9. Jun 28, 2010

### TCS

I'm still kind of working out the details, but as I see it now, each particle is comprised of a set of equal energy nested elastic manifolds in four space, where each layer is identical to all of the others, except for their energy density/space time dimensions. Accordingly, it would embody the holographic prinicple because each layer contains exactly the same encoded information, although it takes time for the information to spread through the four dimensional structure.

10. Jun 28, 2010

### Staff: Mentor

Discussion of personal theories is not permitted on PF. Please review our Posting Rules, which are linked at the top of every page.