Gravitational acceleration and sub-atomic electric charge

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the question of whether gravity is fundamentally a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge. Participants explore this concept in the context of gravitational acceleration, the behavior of objects under gravity, and the relationship between sub-atomic particles and gravitational phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the acceleration of a ball under gravity is influenced by sub-atomic particles reacting to a gravitational space-time gradient, proposing a link between gravity and electric charge.
  • Multiple participants assert that gravity cannot be fundamentally derived from electric charge, noting that gravity is always attractive, while electric forces can be both attractive and repulsive.
  • Concerns are raised that any alternative theory of gravity must be quantitatively correct and published before being discussed, emphasizing the need for adherence to established scientific literature.
  • Some participants highlight that gravity affects all matter, including those without intrinsic charge, challenging the initial proposition.
  • There are repeated assertions that claims about gravity arising from electric charge must be able to explain all gravitational phenomena, including planetary orbits, which the initial claim fails to do.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the proposition that gravity is fundamentally a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge. The discussion remains unresolved, with strong opposition to the initial claim and no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants emphasize the need for any proposed theories to be consistent with established scientific observations and literature. The discussion reflects a reliance on conventional understandings of gravity and electric forces.

rwh2100
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Is gravity (fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge?
Wak a ball with a bat and the ball accelerates. Now under gravity, hold the ball out horizontally, let go and the ball accelerates ... without a wak. Given that gravity arises from curved space-time, I suggest further that the acceleration of the ball arises when sub-atomic particles (in the ball) react to the gravitational space-time gradient ... with the electric force between sub-atomic particles being dependent on particle separations ... and particle separations being affected by a space-time gradient. Hence, is gravity (fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
No.

You might notice that *everything* responds to gravity. Including, things with no intrinsic charge.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark
rwh2100 said:
Summary: Is gravity (fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge?
No. Such a force cannot be always attractive, like gravity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark and hutchphd
Can I vote "no" too?

Furthermore, if you want to posit an alternative theory of gravity, a) it needs to be quantitatively correct, and b) needs to be published before we can discuss it on PF.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and topsquark
Dale said:
No. Such a force cannot be always attractive, like gravity.
not the absolute value ... just consider the space-time *gradient* across an object with mass ... gravity squeezes the bottom of a tennis ball more than the top of a tennis ball (given the Earth beneath) ... and the amount of squeeze is graded in between
 
  • Sad
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and Dale
(Thread title prefix changed A-->B)
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Can I vote "no" too?

Furthermore, if you want to posit an alternative theory of gravity, a) it needs to be quantitatively correct, and b) needs to be published before we can discuss it on PF.
I invite discussion ... not votes.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
hmmm27 said:
No.

You might notice that *everything* responds to gravity.
... tell me more, thanks
 
rwh2100 said:
not the absolute value ... just consider the space-time *gradient* across an object with mass ... gravity squeezes the bottom of a tennis ball more than the top of a tennis ball (given the Earth beneath) ... and the amount of squeeze is graded in between
This is not acceptable. If you want to make a broad claim that gravity is “(fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge” then it must broadly reproduce all gravitational phenomena, not just some specially selected fractions of features.

Gravity is not fundamentally arising from charge. Such a claim cannot reproduce even ordinary gravitational observations, like planetary orbits. There is simply no way to massage the claim into something that fits even the most basic observations of gravity
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz, PeroK and topsquark
  • #10
Vanadium 50 said:
Can I vote "no" too?

Furthermore, if you want to posit an alternative theory of gravity, a) it needs to be quantitatively correct, and b) needs to be published before we can discuss it on PF.
I invite discussion ... not votes. I have posted to open a discussion ... hence a) and b) do not apply
 
  • #11
rwh2100 said:
I invite discussion ... not votes. I have posted to open a discussion ... hence a) and b) do not apply
He is correct. b) always applies on PF. All posts on PF are required to be consistent with the professional scientific literature
 
  • #12
Dale said:
This is not acceptable. If you want to make a broad claim that gravity is “(fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge” then it must broadly reproduce all gravitational phenomena, not just some specially selected fractions of features.

Gravity is not fundamentally arising from charge. Such a claim cannot reproduce even ordinary gravitational observations, like planetary orbits. There is simply no way to massage the claim into something that fits even the most basic observations of gravity
I have suggested that gravity is “(fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge” ... and invite your consideration of the physics presented
 
  • #13
rwh2100 said:
I have suggested that gravity is “(fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge” ... and invite your consideration of the physics presented
It has been considered and rejected because it doesn’t work. It cannot even explain the solar system because gravity is always attractive.

As there is nothing else to say, this thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50, PeroK, topsquark and 1 other person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
683
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K