Is Gravity a Residual Force from Fundamental Interactions?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the idea that gravity could be a residual force resulting from the balance of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions, which become more detectable on larger scales. It raises questions about the possibility of measuring gravity at the atomic level, specifically whether the gravitational force of an individual atom can be detected or measured in relation to larger structures like graphite. While the Earth's gravitational field can affect individual atoms, the gravitational force produced by an atom is too weak to measure with current technology. The conversation also touches on the concept of mass defect in compounds, indicating that the mass of a compound does not simply equal the sum of its atomic components due to chemical bonding effects. Overall, the feasibility of detecting atomic-scale gravity remains a theoretical possibility but is not practically achievable with existing instruments.
RobComer
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
If gravity is miniscule compared to the other three interactions, could it be a kind of resultant 'force' left over from balancing the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions? One which is then much more detectable on the larger scale, when all these tiny gravitational forces from each atom combine.
Is this a 'high school' over simplification and if so, where do I start to unravel this mystery?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note that 1) it is additive, the more mass you put, the more strong the force is. And 2) it goes as the inverse square. Such properties are not typical of residual forces.

Said that, the study of residual forces is interesting. Van der Waals etc. Also, in some sense you could look at tidal force as a residual, as it appears after you have substracted the "point-like body" gravity.
 
Thanks for the help on this one! Is it possible to detect gravity at the scale of individual atoms? So, would you be able measure it for (let's say) one atom of carbon and then for a known number in an allotrope like graphite? Would the measurement be directly proportional to the number of atoms you had? Or, are we talking about something that as yet can't be measured at this scale?
 
RobComer said:
Thanks for the help on this one! Is it possible to detect gravity at the scale of individual atoms? So, would you be able measure it for (let's say) one atom of carbon and then for a known number in an allotrope like graphite? Would the measurement be directly proportional to the number of atoms you had? Or, are we talking about something that as yet can't be measured at this scale?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2981
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3525

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RobComer said:
Is it possible to detect gravity at the scale of individual atoms?
The Earth's gravitational field can be detected by observing it's affect on an individual atom (the links provided by ZapperZ), but the gravitational field that an individual atom produces cannot be detected. The former is called the passive gravitational mass of the atom and the latter is called the active gravitational mass of the atom. The active force of gravity is far too weak to measure at this scale. You can use Newton's universal law of gravitation to calculate it.
 
Last edited:
RobComer said:
Thanks for the help on this one! Is it possible to detect gravity at the scale of individual atoms? So, would you be able measure it for (let's say) one atom of carbon and then for a known number in an allotrope like graphite? Would the measurement be directly proportional to the number of atoms you had? Or, are we talking about something that as yet can't be measured at this scale?

Theoretically it would be possible to detect the gravitation between individual atoms, but not practically. Our instruments are nowhere near that sensitive and precise.

And no, the mass of a compound is different than the sum of the masses of its component atoms, because there is some mass defect due to the chemical bonds. This is because mass is not conserved, it is an artifact of something else. We don't really understand much about this.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
Back
Top