B Gravitational acceleration and sub-atomic electric charge

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the idea that gravitational acceleration might arise from sub-atomic electric charge, which is ultimately rejected. Participants argue that gravity is a force that cannot be explained solely by electric charge, as it must be universally attractive and consistent with observed phenomena like planetary orbits. Claims suggesting a connection between gravity and electric charge fail to reproduce all gravitational effects and are deemed inadequate. Additionally, any alternative theories must be quantitatively correct and published to be considered valid. The thread concludes with a consensus that the proposed theory does not hold up under scrutiny.
rwh2100
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Vanadium 50, PeroK, topsquark and 1 other person
Back
Top