Formula of anti-gravitational force

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ranku
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Formula
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of an anti-gravitational force, particularly in the context of its potential representation and relationship to gravitational force. Participants explore theoretical formulations, implications for cosmological expansion, and the nature of dark energy, with a focus on both classical and general relativity frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose a formula for anti-gravitational force analogous to gravitational force, suggesting F = \frac{r^{2}}{Gm_{1}m_{2}}, but question its validity and dimensional consistency.
  • Others argue that the concept of "anti-gravitational force" is problematic, asserting that dark energy does not necessitate a modification of gravitational theory.
  • A participant mentions that accelerated expansion can be explained without introducing anti-gravity by using a negative pressure fluid in general relativity.
  • There is a discussion about deriving an independent formula for anti-gravitational force that increases with distance, with some suggesting that the relationship between mass and distance must be defined appropriately.
  • Some participants clarify that the inverse square law applies to point masses, while a linear relationship with distance may arise in homogeneous distributions of mass.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of switching signs in equations, with participants debating whether this adequately represents the behavior of forces in different contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and formulation of anti-gravitational force, with no consensus reached on whether such a force can be defined or how it relates to gravitational force. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the appropriate conditions and formulas for anti-gravitational interactions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the definitions and assumptions related to gravitational and anti-gravitational forces, particularly concerning the nature of mass distributions and the implications for cosmological models.

Ranku
Messages
434
Reaction score
18
If we consider the classical formula of gravitational force F = [tex]\frac{Gm_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}[/tex], then can the antigravitational force responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe be represented by F = [tex]\frac{r^{2}}{Gm_{1}m_{2}}[/tex] ?
Thus, since the (MKS) magnitude of G = 10 [tex]^{-11}[/tex], would the antigravitational force be smaller than the gravitational force by a factor of 10 [tex]^{11}[/tex] ?
 
Space news on Phys.org
No, you switch signs, and let the equation otherwise unchanged.
 
Ranku said:
If we consider the classical formula of gravitational force F = [tex]\frac{Gm_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}[/tex], then can the antigravitational force responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe be represented by F = [tex]\frac{r^{2}}{Gm_{1}m_{2}}[/tex] ?
Thus, since the (MKS) magnitude of G = 10 [tex]^{-11}[/tex], would the antigravitational force be smaller than the gravitational force by a factor of 10 [tex]^{11}[/tex] ?

Unless you change G in your second expression, the units do not work out to units of force, they work out to 1/Newtons.

I don't think there's a well defined "anti-gravitational force" at all...Dark energy is quite mysterious at this point. There is no indication that a modified gravitational theory is needed.
 
Also want to mention that one does not need to modify gravitational theory to get "anti-gravitational force". By the way, I hate that phrase, considering there isn't any cosmological scale gravitational force affecting the expansion (the Newtonian potential is zero in a homogeneous universe) and the word "anti-gravity" has crackpot written all over it. In any case, you can get "anti-gravitational phenomena" (ie accelerated expansion) by just playing with the kind of gravitational source that you plug into the regular old equations of GR. In GR, one can get accelerated expansion by sourcing gravity with a negative pressure fluid.
 
Ich said:
No, you switch signs, and let the equation otherwise unchanged.

Ok, but is it possible to derive from the gravitational inverse square formula an independent formula of the antigravitational force that increases between unit masses over an unit distance?
 
Ok, but is it possible to derive from the gravitational inverse square formula an independent formula of the antigravitational force that increases between unit masses over an unit distance?
I thought we've been over this. For a homogeneous source, if you pick an origin and call is "non-accelerated", there is a force proportional to the distance to the source. Because M~r³ and F~M/r². That works equally well for matter and dark energy, if you endow with an appropriate negative effective gravitational mass.
 
Ich said:
I thought we've been over this. For a homogeneous source, if you pick an origin and call is "non-accelerated", there is a force proportional to the distance to the source. Because M~r³ and F~M/r². That works equally well for matter and dark energy, if you endow with an appropriate negative effective gravitational mass.

Yes, you explained it for a spherical distribution of mass, where the antigravitational force increases in proportion to distance, just like gravitational force decreases in proportion to distance. The same formula, ([tex]\frac{4Gm\pi\rho}{3}[/tex])r...(1), with switched signs indicating opposite directions, works because with antigravitational force the mass density is constant.

When it comes to the formula of interaction between two discrete masses over an unit distance, F = [tex]\frac{Gm_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}[/tex]...(2), switched signs alone merely indicate opposite directions - the negative signed formula of antigravitational force between discrete masses does not represent increase of force over distance, unlike the volume formula (1) of antigravitational force, which describes the increase of antigravitational force over distance.
So I am wondering what would be the formula/condition for antigravitational force to increase between discrete masses over unit distance?
 
Last edited:
So I am wondering what would be the formula/condition for antigravitational force to increase between discrete masses over unit distance?
Sorry, you lost me. The 1/r² equation is for two separate point sources. The ~r equation is nothing different, it follows in the limit when there are very many equal point sources. It's the same formula, but different sources.
And there's no difference in whether you consider gravitation or "antigravitation".
 
Ich said:
Sorry, you lost me. The 1/r² equation is for two separate point sources. The ~r equation is nothing different, it follows in the limit when there are very many equal point sources. It's the same formula, but different sources.
And there's no difference in whether you consider gravitation or "antigravitation".

The ~r equation is just fine. In the 1/r[tex]^{2}[/tex] equation the gravitational force decreases with distance; so how do you get the antigravitational force to increase with distance? Switching of signs alone only indicates oppositeness of direction.
In the ~r equation we mandate the mass density is to remain constant for antigravitational force to increase with distance. What do we mandate in the 1/r[tex]^{2}[/tex] equation for the antigravitational force between two discrete masses to increase with distance, even though distance goes as 1/r[tex]^{2}[/tex] ? Do we mandate mass [tex]\propto[/tex] r or r[tex]^{2}[/tex]?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K