Gravity (over extremely long distances)

  • Thread starter jspstorm
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Gravity
In summary, the two neutrons will eventually come together due to the weak gravity between them. However, the resulting protons and electrons will eventually drift apart again due to the laws of quantum mechanics.
  • #1
jspstorm
8
0
This question may be a little vague or difficult to answer definatively.

Take an empty universe, completely bereft of all energy and matter, with the exception of two neutrons. These two neutrons are placed a trillion light years apart from each other and each have no velocity with respect to the other.

My question is: Will gravity eventually pull them together?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yes.
 
  • #3
Yes and no. Neutrons are radioactive with a half life of about 15 minutes. As a result, they will be long gone before they can come together. However the resultant protons and electrons will eventually come close enough that quantum effects will come into play.
 
  • #4
Isn't that assuming that there's no lower limit to the strength of gravity? Doens't everything have a lower limit in QM?

That's even besides the fact it'd take a trillion years before they'd even notice the gravity from each other (if it can reach that far)
 
  • #5
Yeah and then there's that whole dark energy thing which is supposed to make up most of the universe.

I think it's safe to assume that in this case, we don't know.
 
  • #6
Without complicating the question beyond the intent of the OP, fatra2 is correct.

As far as we know, gravity has an infinite reach.
 
  • #7
Just a thought:
In this case as described by the OP, I think the gravity over that distance would be so extraordinarily weak as to unable to break the inertia of the non-moving neutrons to initiate attractive motion.
Could be wrong, of course, but I tend to agree that there should be some lower limit.
 
  • #8
Inertia is not like static friction.
 
  • #9
JDługosz said:
Inertia is not like static friction.

Understood, but can a stationary bowling ball(for example) move from a stationary position in space if a light feather impacts it slowly?
There is simply not enough force to break inertia.
At least in my thoughts. Could be wrong!
 
  • #10
To my understanding, an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by outside forces.
Fine, but surely there must be some lower limit which defines at what "force level" the object will start to move.
After all, could I responsibly say that a force of .000000000000000000000000000001 grams will even slightly move a bowling ball in space?
 
  • #11
pallidin said:
Understood, but can a stationary bowling ball(for example) move from a stationary position in space if a light feather impacts it slowly?
Yes. Absolutely.

Inertia is not something that can be "broken". There is no predicted or observed lower limit for the amount of net force that it takes to make an object move. So as far as we can tell, any force, no matter how tiny, applied to any mass, no matter how large, will induce some acceleration.
 
  • #12
Ok. Interesting. Thanks.
 
  • #13
Just our of curiosity, could anyone calculate the magnitude with what kind of Newton force we are dealing with between these 2 neutrons? Remember, 2 neutrons and a trillion light years apart :smile:

I'd do it myself but I don't know what equations to use.
 
  • #14
The equation would be
[tex]F = \frac{G m_n^2}{r^2}[/tex]
Now we have
[tex]m_n = 1.67 \cdot 10{-27}kg[/tex]
[tex]G = 6.67\cdot 10^{-11}N\frac{m^2}{kg^2}[/tex]
[tex]r= 10^{12}ly = 10^{12}\cdot 9.46 \cdot 10^{15}m=9.46\cdot 10^{27}m[/tex]
Together
[tex]F \approx 2\cdot 10^{-120}N[/tex]
 
  • #15
That's one hell of a force!

Assuming the force stays constant on both neutrons attracting each other, then it would take approx 1053 years for them to collide. At the time of their collision, they'll be slamming into each other at a whopping 200 Planck lengths per second.

But what bothers me is that I've used a simplified version of events with my assumption. Of course the attractive force will increase as they get closer to each other. Anyone know how this could be calculated?
 
  • #16
Mentallic said:
Assuming the force stays constant on both neutrons attracting each other,
Why would you assume this? It's like assuming a jumper will reach the ground at the same velocity with which they left the top of the building.
 
  • #17
I was just astonished to find out how you guys get such brilliant ideas. jspstorm, I liked your query.

Going by the law of physics and usual calculation , the attraction surely look possible though very negligible.But what I feel is that the gravitons responsible for creating gravity that too emitted by a neutron for attracting another neutron even 1 cm away is impossible. Gravitational force has always been used to calculate the force between bodies with large mass.The value of G by definition is found wrt object with huge masses. I don't think this thing practically exists at atomic level though we can prove it theoretically

And one more thing that I strongly believe is that the laws of physics though seem to be applicable in Earth and in nearby galaxies, it might just be a coincidence and different law of physics exists there. Let's take example of an atom - though we can't exactly tell or see if the atomic model is correct, it has been working fairly good for required calculations and reactions. Might be there's some more complex part that has been abstracted to justify a simple model by the atom itself. We are still debating on it aren't we- quantum theory , string theory etc...

So I strongly believe that universe got itself different kind of laws and and it doesn't follow the earthly law of physics. We can't argue that astrophysics is the most mysterious and interesting field of science.

So, the answer for me - NO! if earthly knowledge is applied.

Yes , if there exists any other universal surprise.
 
  • #18
DaveC426913 said:
Why would you assume this? It's like assuming a jumper will reach the ground at the same velocity with which they left the top of the building.

Because I couldn't calculate it properly otherwise :blushing:
 
  • #19
To calculate it properly you would have to use the equations of motion
[tex] 2m \ddot r = -G\frac{m^2}{r^2}[/tex]
Or use the easier way of energy conservation
[tex] E = 2m \dot r^2 - G\frac{m ^2}{r}=E_0=-G\frac{m^2}{r_0}[/tex]
Integrating this for r from [tex]r_0[/tex] to 0 gives
[tex]
T=\sqrt{\frac{4}{\pi}}\Gamma\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^2\frac{1}{\sqrt{G m}} \sqrt{r_0}^3[/tex]
For [tex]r_0=10^{12}ly[/tex] this is [tex] T = 5 10^{60}s \approx 10^{53} y[/tex]

Of course this calculation is only using Newtonian Gravity and neglecting any effects from Quantum processes or General Relativity. The last has to be taken into account for the last few seconds.
 
  • #20
Mentallic said:
But what bothers me is that I've used a simplified version of events with my assumption. Of course the attractive force will increase as they get closer to each other. Anyone know how this could be calculated?

I am guessing that you haven't taken calculus 2. Essentially an integral is a way of adding up little bits of an equation evaluated at different points.

In this case, it'd be a matter of finding the time it takes to travel some small distance x based on the radius (distance between the two neutrons), and integrating that over the entire distance.

On a side note, our definition of time is completely invalid in this case, as "earth time" is not the same as "universe time", and if there is no earth, then any measurement of time is invalid.
 
  • #21
KingNothing said:
On a side note, our definition of time is completely invalid in this case, as "earth time" is not the same as "universe time", and if there is no earth, then any measurement of time is invalid.

:uhh:

Could you elaborate your reasoning of this?
 
  • #22
KingNothing said:
I am guessing that you haven't taken calculus 2. Essentially an integral is a way of adding up little bits of an equation evaluated at different points.

In this case, it'd be a matter of finding the time it takes to travel some small distance x based on the radius (distance between the two neutrons), and integrating that over the entire distance.

On a side note, our definition of time is completely invalid in this case, as "earth time" is not the same as "universe time", and if there is no earth, then any measurement of time is invalid.

I've studied integration, I couldn't wrap my head around the required equation.

Why is Earth required to measure time? So if we lived on Mars then the measurement of time would be invalid? Nonsense...
 
  • #23
betel said:
To calculate it properly...
[tex] T = 5 10^{60}s \approx 10^{53} y[/tex]

That doesn't seem right, since I already calculated the time to be exactly that, but with the assumption that the gravitational attraction between them increases as they get closer. I'm expecting it to be orders of magnitude faster than that value.
 
  • #24
KingNothing said:
On a side note, our definition of time is completely invalid in this case, as "earth time" is not the same as "universe time", and if there is no earth, then any measurement of time is invalid.

Yeah, that is kind of strange.

So, do you claim that these two neutrons do not have a decay rate if there is no Earth? The lack of an Earth somehere in the universe means that these neutrons behave by different laws of physics?
 
  • #26
Mentallic said:
That doesn't seem right, since I already calculated the time to be exactly that, but with the assumption that the gravitational attraction between them increases as they get closer. I'm expecting it to be orders of magnitude faster than that value.

I got 6.9e52 years.

Here's how:

Two objects sitting at rest at a given distance from each can be treated like two objects in orbit around each other but in extremely eccentric orbits, with a semi-major axis equal to half the distance between them with each at the periapsis of its orbit.

The period of the orbits of such bodies is found by:

[tex]P^2 = 4 \pi^2\frac{a^3}{G(M_1+M_2)}[/tex]

Since falling in from periapsis to collision represents 1/2 of an orbit,

The time will be half that of the period of a whole orbit.
 
  • #27
Janus said:
I got 6.9e52 years.

Here's how:

Two objects sitting at rest at a given distance from each can be treated like two objects in orbit around each other but in extremely eccentric orbits, with a semi-major axis equal to half the distance between them with each at the periapsis of its orbit.

The period of the orbits of such bodies is found by:

[tex]P^2 = 4 \pi^2\frac{a^3}{G(M_1+M_2)}[/tex]

Since falling in from periapsis to collision represents 1/2 of an orbit,

The time will be half that of the period of a whole orbit.
And what is their speed at perigee?
 
  • #28
I recheck my calc. I got the integral wrong but this will only change the numerical factor.
[tex]T= \sqrt{r_0}^3\frac{1}{\sqrt{Gm}}\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{2}}=1.9e53y[/tex]
My formula is the same as Janus' but I get a different numerical result.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Is T in years or seconds?
 
  • #30
This is in years
 
  • #31
DaveC426913 said:
And what is their speed at perigee?

Assuming it is when the neutrons are about two neutron radii apart, I get about 0.1 Angstrom/sec
 
  • #32
Janus said:
Assuming it is when the neutrons are about two neutron radii apart, I get about 0.1 Angstrom/sec

That's pretty slow for 1 trillion years of acceleration.. :tongue:
 
  • #33
Janus said:
Assuming it is when the neutrons are about two neutron radii apart, I get about 0.1 Angstrom/sec

betel said:
I recheck my calc. I got the integral wrong but this will only change the numerical factor.
[tex]T= \sqrt{r_0}^3\frac{1}{\sqrt{Gm}}\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{2}}=1.9e53y[/tex]
My formula is the same as Janus' but I get a different numerical result.

Mentallic said:
That doesn't seem right, since I already calculated the time to be exactly that, but with the assumption that the gravitational attraction between them increases as they get closer. I'm expecting it to be orders of magnitude faster than that value.

You guys seem to be genius trying to crack this riddle. In fact you are doing it the way it should be done. Don't take it otherwise but I have second thoughts over the matter.

It might be easy to prove theoretically that any phenomena abiding by the contemporary law of physics can happen and the numbers can also be calculated accordingly. We also know that many of the laws of physics were proven wrong or modified through time for some specific conditons and were tagged limited for certain attributes.For eg E=mv2 is not always applicable until v=c i.e. speed of light(I don't think that has been proven yet as well)

I surely don't think that the numbers obtained here would actually occur in practical scenario.
Talking pragmatically, we should better try to challenge the existing laws and modify them if required because every law should necessarily have some limitations and it would be better if we could find them and fix the bugs.

We are the same who made the formula and they obviously contain some errands. So I think it would be more rational to revise the laws of physics and modify it and get a more applicable and acceptable law , especially for the cases like this rather than blindly insisting on the theoretical possibilities generated by existing law.

So from my side there's a straight NO for the answer.
My proof: No one can prove it right practically and no one can prove me wrong.
I don't think the gravitational field created by a mere neutron would extend so long distance. We need to somehow embed this limitation into formula and modify it.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
.physics said:
I don't think the gravitational field created by a mere neutron would extend so long distance.
OK, based on what evidence? Is there precedent for thinking that gravity would not extend this far?

If not, why would you even invent such a limitation? And what is preventing me from inventing, like you, a hypothesis that, say the scenario spontaneously generates a unicorn?

The scientific method is not about some sort of 'knowing what really happens'; it is about rationality - observing and developing rational rules that seem to describe how the universe works.
 
  • #35
.physics said:
For eg E=mv2 is not always applicable until v=c i.e. speed of light(I don't think that has been proven yet as well)
There is no such equation as E=mv2. The equation is E = mc2. Energy = mass × (a constant). It just happens that the constant has the numerical value and units of the speed of light squared. The equation applies only to objects at rest, i.e. v=0, and it has been well verified by experiments. See e.g. this thread for more information.
 
<h2>1. What is gravity?</h2><p>Gravity is a force that exists between any two objects with mass. It is responsible for keeping objects in orbit, as well as pulling objects towards the center of the Earth.</p><h2>2. How does gravity work over extremely long distances?</h2><p>Gravity works over extremely long distances through the exchange of particles called gravitons. These particles carry the force of gravity between objects with mass.</p><h2>3. How does gravity affect the motion of objects over extremely long distances?</h2><p>Gravity affects the motion of objects over extremely long distances by causing them to accelerate towards each other. This acceleration is dependent on the masses of the objects and the distance between them.</p><h2>4. Can gravity be blocked or shielded?</h2><p>No, gravity cannot be blocked or shielded. It is a fundamental force of nature and is always present between objects with mass, regardless of any barriers or shields.</p><h2>5. How does the force of gravity change over extremely long distances?</h2><p>The force of gravity decreases as the distance between objects increases. This is described by the inverse square law, which states that the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects.</p>

1. What is gravity?

Gravity is a force that exists between any two objects with mass. It is responsible for keeping objects in orbit, as well as pulling objects towards the center of the Earth.

2. How does gravity work over extremely long distances?

Gravity works over extremely long distances through the exchange of particles called gravitons. These particles carry the force of gravity between objects with mass.

3. How does gravity affect the motion of objects over extremely long distances?

Gravity affects the motion of objects over extremely long distances by causing them to accelerate towards each other. This acceleration is dependent on the masses of the objects and the distance between them.

4. Can gravity be blocked or shielded?

No, gravity cannot be blocked or shielded. It is a fundamental force of nature and is always present between objects with mass, regardless of any barriers or shields.

5. How does the force of gravity change over extremely long distances?

The force of gravity decreases as the distance between objects increases. This is described by the inverse square law, which states that the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
946
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
17
Views
2K
Back
Top