Is Gravity Really a Fundamental Force?

[Searching]

I am an engineer with a Learning Channel level of knowledge of physics. I can't get past the idea that gravity is not a fundamental force. Can someone help me?

Hear is my problem:
If gravity is truly a fundamental force, why can we not find the particle associated with it? Why is so much weaker than the other forces? Should we really need 11 dimensions connect it to the others?

It makes logical sense to me that gravity is merely an effect. Perhaps space-time is made up of these "string" or similar particles that have properties of matter and energy (dark matter/dark energy), but are too small to be detected. We observe dark matter (by its effects) clustered around black holes at the center of galaxies. Perhaps is only more dense do to the black hole and is actually everywhere and makes up the fabric or space.

Otherwise, are we saying that space-time is made of nothing? It seems logical that there may be no such thing as empty space.

Can someone help me understand in a way that I can comprehend why we are some certain gravity is a fundamental force?

Sorry in advance for the simplicity, but play that cards we have.

 

[pallidin]

Welcome to PF and do enjoy it !

Gravity is, apparently, difficult to nail-down. We can readily observe it's effects but seem hard-pressed to come-up with some type of accepted theory as to "cause"

Perhaps in time we will understand.

 

[guillefix]

But doesn't general relativity says that gravity is not a force but just a deformation of sapce-time caused by energy-mass?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Gravity is weak on the small scale because elementary particles have small masses as relative to elementary charge. If you want to define gravity rigorously you have pick what framework of gravity you wish to look at. Newtonian mechanics classifies gravity as a force that attracts objects based on potentials but in GR gravity not a force but rather the effect of falling in arbitrarily curved spacetimes.

 

[pallidin]

But doesn't general relativity says that gravity is not a force but just a deformation of sapce-time caused by energy-mass?

That's the problem. We do NOT understand the cause of "mass"

 

[Polyrhythmic]

That's the problem. We do NOT understand the cause of "mass"

What do you mean by the "cause" of mass? Mass is, just like charge, a fundamental property of matter.

I also don't see a reason why one shouldn't call gravity a force. The "fact" that gravitational effects can be traced back to a curvature in spacetime doesn't change what we actually experience: particles being accelerated in the presence of other masses. If this is not the mechanism of a force, I don't know what a force is.

 

[Polyrhythmic]

I am an engineer with a Learning Channel level of knowledge of physics. I can't get past the idea that gravity is not a fundamental force. Can someone help me?

Hear is my problem:
If gravity is truly a fundamental force, why can we not find the particle associated with it? Why is so much weaker than the other forces? Should we really need 11 dimensions connect it to the others?

It makes logical sense to me that gravity is merely an effect. Perhaps space-time is made up of these "string" or similar particles that have properties of matter and energy (dark matter/dark energy), but are too small to be detected. We observe dark matter (by its effects) clustered around black holes at the center of galaxies. Perhaps is only more dense do to the black hole and is actually everywhere and makes up the fabric or space.

Otherwise, are we saying that space-time is made of nothing? It seems logical that there may be no such thing as empty space.

Can someone help me understand in a way that I can comprehend why we are some certain gravity is a fundamental force?

Sorry in advance for the simplicity, but play that cards we have.

Since virtual particles mediating forces are just mathematical constructs and nothing more, I don't see why the presence of such a gauge boson would be a criteria for the existence of a force.

You mention the possibility that it is just an effect. Isn't anything just an effect of something? For example lectromagnetic interaction being the effect of particles having charge?

 

[MegaDeth]

What do you mean by the "cause" of mass? Mass is, just like charge, a fundamental property of matter.

I also don't see a reason why one shouldn't call gravity a force. The "fact" that gravitational effects can be traced back to a curvature in spacetime doesn't change what we actually experience: particles being accelerated in the presence of other masses. If this is not the mechanism of a force, I don't know what a force is.

I agree, to me, it's just an effect of the mass of objects in space. Big objects anyway.

 

[WannabeNewton]

What do you mean by the "cause" of mass? Mass is, just like charge, a fundamental property of matter.

I also don't see a reason why one shouldn't call gravity a force. The "fact" that gravitational effects can be traced back to a curvature in spacetime doesn't change what we actually experience: particles being accelerated in the presence of other masses. If this is not the mechanism of a force, I don't know what a force is.

GR states that there is no acceleration due to any "Force" when a particle in free fall enters the presence of a mass; particles in free fall simply start following the geodesics of the curved geometry due to whatever mass - energy distribution is causing the curvature. The equation of geodesic deviation is what quantifies "force" or acceleration in the sense that it gives deviations from this kind of free fall due to the presence of tidal gravitaitonal forces and one can add other forces to the equation.

 

[Polyrhythmic]

I agree, to me, it's just an effect of the mass of objects in space. Big objects anyway.

Small objects as well, it's just that the effects become rather small.

 

[Polyrhythmic]

GR states that there is no acceleration due to any "Force" when a particle in free fall enters the presence of a mass; particles in free fall simply start following the geodesics of the curved geometry due to whatever mass - energy distribution is causing the curvature. The equation of geodesic deviation is what quantifies "force" or acceleration in the sense that it gives deviations from this kind of free fall due to the presence of tidal gravitaitonal forces and one can add other forces to the equation.

That is correct, yet I'd still say that the effect of one mass on another (be it through a curvature of spacetime) qualifies as some kind of interaction, or force (I think the term should be applied more loosely in this case). Even though its nature may be different than for example in the electromagnetic case.

 

[guillefix]

Why do we have to think about the cause of mass (which might be the Higgs boson), why couldn't it be that it's not mass which causes space-time curvature, but that mass is space-time curvature, i.e. we call mass points to bumps in the shape of the four-dimensional universe? I don't know the technical stuff of GR but I am just wondering..

 

[Polyrhythmic]

Why do we have to think about the cause of mass (which might be the Higgs boson), why couldn't it be that it's not mass which causes space-time curvature, but that mass is space-time curvature, i.e. we call mass points to bumps in the shape of the four-dimensional universe? I don't know the technical stuff of GR but I am just wondering..

I'm not sure how the statement "mass is space-time curvature" could make sense. The concept at hand, which general relativity gives us seems sufficient. It kind of works two ways: mass moves through spacetime and mass curves spacetime.

 

[LostConjugate]

The problem is that space-time curvature is simply an elegant mathematical solution to, typically round, gravitational objects. It does not give us any hints as to WHY gravity exists.

 

[Debt]

course so. Is em a force? I mean we have an understanding of physics, so what. gravity will pull your butt to the ground, it's a force.

 

[MegaDeth]

Small objects as well, it's just that the effects become rather small.

Oh right, do objects on the Earth curve space time as well or does it only account for in space?

 

[Polyrhythmic]

Oh right, do objects on the Earth curve space time as well or does it only account for in space?

Yes. Everything that carries mass, or energy, curves spacetime. Even if it is not as heavy as a planet or a sun.

 

[MegaDeth]

Ahh right, thanks for your help. Oh yeah, one thing I don't understand is, you know you see diagrams of curved spacetime, well, how would you perceive that curvature in 3 dimensions? As in, what would the curvature look like all around a planet/object?

 

[Polyrhythmic]

Ahh right, thanks for your help. Oh yeah, one thing I don't understand is, you know you see diagrams of curved spacetime, well, how would you perceive that curvature in 3 dimensions? As in, what would the curvature look like all around a planet/object?

Do you mean three space dimensions or two space + one time dimension?
In any case, the popular picture that is often used to describe curvature isn't accurate. It's rather misleading. I personally don't know how to accurately visualize spacetime curvature, since time is something we usually don't "see".

This is the misleading picture I was referring to: http://www.netzartig.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Spacetime_curvature.png"

 

[WannabeNewton]

Ahh right, thanks for your help. Oh yeah, one thing I don't understand is, you know you see diagrams of curved spacetime, well, how would you perceive that curvature in 3 dimensions? As in, what would the curvature look like all around a planet/object?

Talking specifically for a typically spherical planet you can perceive the spatial geometry of the curved space - time as a 3 - sphere.

 

[MegaDeth]

Do you mean three space dimensions or two space + one time dimension?
In any case, the popular picture that is often used to describe curvature isn't accurate. It's rather misleading. I personally don't know how to accurately visualize spacetime curvature, since time is something we usually don't "see".

This is the misleading picture I was referring to: http://www.netzartig.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Spacetime_curvature.png"

I actually mean 3 dimensions of space. Because in the picture, it only shows what happens at the bottom half of the Earth.

 

[MegaDeth]

Talking specifically for a typically spherical planet you can perceive the spatial geometry of the curved space - time as a 3 - sphere.

So how does gravity actually work in the case of a 3-sphere?

 

[Polyrhythmic]

Talking specifically for a typically spherical planet you can perceive the spatial geometry of the curved space - time as a 3 - sphere.

And how would you visualize that? A 3-sphere is a threedimensional object in a four dimensional space.

 

[WannabeNewton]

So how does gravity actually work in the case of a 3-sphere?

Much like that of Newtonian gravity with some more subtleties like the bending of light, gravitational time dilation, gravitational redshift etc. I don't know how much of the schwarzchild metric you already know but try this website it might help: http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html

 

[WannabeNewton]

And how would you visualize that? A 3-sphere is a threedimensional object in a four dimensional space.

You can't really visualize the temporal geometry so just for the purpose of visualization you can suppress the time dimension and view the curvature of space - time to be that of a 3 - sphere.

 

[Polyrhythmic]

You can't really visualize the temporal geometry so just for the purpose of visualization you can suppress the time dimension and view the curvature of space - time to be that of a 3 - sphere.

And what does a three-sphere look like? I've never seen one and I guess it's quite hard to visualize since we can only perceive objects embedded in three-dimensional space.

 

[MegaDeth]

And what does a three-sphere look like? I've never seen one and I guess it's quite hard to visualize since we can only perceive objects embedded in three-dimensional space.

Use google images.

 

[Polyrhythmic]

Use google images.

Google images is quite reliable, especially since the first result shows some business strategy stuff. ;)

Anyways, it's not possible to take a picture of a three-sphere, since it is by definition a three dimensional object which can be embedded in a four dimensional space. What we can see is a two-sphere, a two dimensional object which we can embed in a three dimensional space. It is very familiar to us: it's basically the surface of a ball.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is possible to create an image showing a gravity well in three dimensions.


You still have the xyz grid but, rather than joining points on the grid with lines, you put a little vector at each intersection pointing in the direction of the apparent force.

Maybe someday I'll sit down and make it.

 

[WannabeNewton]

You can naturally think of the 3 - sphere as a boundary/ surface in 4 - space and in terms of the space - times in question I'm not sure there is a good physical interpretation, maybe a 2 - sphere evolving in time (although in this space - time there exists time - like symmetry so the sphere would look the same as time varies)?

 

[Polyrhythmic]

It is possible to create an image showing a gravity well in three dimensions.


You still have the xyz grid but, rather than joining points on the grid with lines, you put a little vector at each intersection pointing in the direction of the apparent force.

Maybe someday I'll sit down and make it.

Drawing force lines sounds possible. Have fun ;)

 

[Searching]

I'm not sure how the statement "mass is space-time curvature" could make sense. The concept at hand, which general relativity gives us seems sufficient. It kind of works two ways: mass moves through spacetime and mass curves spacetime.

First of all, thanks you guys. This place is great! But to the question of what is spacetime. It seems that everything is matter/energy. Wouldn't space time also have to be? Otherwise, what is it made of?

Before we could detect the atmosphere people must have thought the it was empty space. Couldn't the same be true for the matter/energy that makes up spacetime?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Oh right, do objects on the Earth curve space time as well or does it only account for in space?

FYI, you're never going to find a fundamental theory in physics where something only happens "in space" and not "on earth" (or vice versa), i.e. that there is anything special about Earth vs. anywhere else in the universe. The laws of physics (as far as we know) are the same everywhere. All of them.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I actually mean 3 dimensions of space. Because in the picture, it only shows what happens at the bottom half of the Earth.

You can't visualize 3 dimensional surfaces, we only see 3 dimensions, so we can only visualize 2-dimensional surfaces. However, MATHEMATICALLY it's quite easy to work with such things. This is a point that never comes across when PBS Nova or whatever talks about higher dimensions and such. Physicists don't VISUALIZE 11 dimensions or any such nonsense, it's all in the math, and the math of higher dimensions isn't particularly difficult and ideally (stressing ideally) you then get some number which predicts the value of a certain experiment, if you then do the experiment and get that value then you may have been on to something with your higher-dimensional theory.

However, to get some idea of how space-time curves in 3 dimensions look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_hole_lensing_web.gif this is an example of what is called gravitational lensing. Light (photons) have no mass and thus if gravity really worked like Newton thought (G M m/r^2) it would not feel gravity, but GR says gravity is really a distortion of space-time and thus light, just light everything, just travels in a straight line, except in the presence of mass a "straight" line becomes curved by the distorted geometry. So what you're seeing there is the light from some far-away galaxy or nebula being curved around the space-time distortion caused by some large mass between us and the galaxy in the background (like a lense).

 

[Polyrhythmic]

First of all, thanks you guys. This place is great! But to the question of what is spacetime. It seems that everything is matter/energy. Wouldn't space time also have to be? Otherwise, what is it made of?

Before we could detect the atmosphere people must have thought the it was empty space. Couldn't the same be true for the matter/energy that makes up spacetime?

I'm not sure how the statement "space is matter/energy" makes sense. Space is what contains matter/energy. It's some kind of dynamical background everything takes place on. If space actually was something, you could ask even further: What contains space?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I'm not sure how the statement "space is matter/energy" makes sense. Space is what contains matter/energy. It's some kind of dynamical background everything takes place on. If space actually was something, you could ask even further: What contains space?

Science Fiction tell us this this is obviously subspace.

 

[Polyrhythmic]

Hah. Right.

 

[Naty1]

Can someone help me understand in a way that I can comprehend why we are some certain gravity is a fundamental force?

Maybe a little bit:
From nothing, thanks to a big bang, everything, EVERYTHING, we observe popped out or had it's origins in "nothing"...maybe a virtual particle fluctuation of some type...nobody knows...nor what caused the big bang nor ANY of the 'fundamental' entities which emerged.

It is believed that from the big bang, spontaneous symmetry breaking led a unified (combined) entity of some type to breakdown into the entities we see today...and which now eappear as separate "fundamental" entities, those that appeared almost togther...forces, mass, energy, space, time,etc, and later all the particles we observe.

We don't have a complete theory of gravity...Einstein's GR is the large scale view and Quantum mechanuics offers some small scale view of gravity...but combining them so they agree is as yet incomplete...right now that unification effort falls under the general heading "quantum gravity".

You can check out any of these terms in Wikipedia.

 

[Polyrhythmic]

[...] Quantum mechanuics offers some small scale view of gravity [...]

How does quantum mechanics offer a small scale view of gravity? Quantum mechanics tells us nothing about gravity. The problem is to apply the formalism of quantum mechanics on gravity, to quantize gravity. But it has not been solved so far.

 

[Haroldingo]

You can't say that gravity is just something that forces certain large objects of mass in space together because of how gravity affects us on earth.

See I think a lot about gravity because of the potential that comes with understanding it. Gravitational travel, and ways of generating energy through existing forces such as gravity, is something that interests me a great deal.

I see what you're saying and on some levels I agree, to me it feels more likely that gravity is an electrical force. All particles in matter have electrical energy and every interaction that objects have with one another is electrical because electricity within particles is the key to their information. If we assume for a moment that gravity is electrical particles trying to establish a meak connection then gravity really comes across a sort of magnetism.

I mean this in a way similar to how atoms are kept in perfect balance by electro-statical forces.

Of course I'm tired, it's late, and that means that my lack of knowledge for this subject is shining through more than ever. I really just know words, and that's why when I put them together to try and establish a proposition on a forum like this, full of people who know their stuff, it's really just to find out some more information that can help me develop my capacity for this subject.

 

[Drakkith]

You can't say that gravity is just something that forces certain large objects of mass in space together because of how gravity affects us on earth.

We've sent men and spacecraft to the moon, spacecraft to every single planet in the solar system and to some non planets as well, we can see the effects within other solar systems and how they interact, and all of it points to gravity and all other forces to be exactly the same everywhere.

See I think a lot about gravity because of the potential that comes with understanding it. Gravitational travel, and ways of generating energy through existing forces such as gravity, is something that interests me a great deal.

We already understand the effects of gravity. I can't see any realistic way of generating gravitational travel nor energy (barring things like hydroelectric power and fusion inside stars and etc). I hope you aren't referring to something similar to "free energy" devices.

If we assume for a moment that gravity is electrical particles trying to establish a meak connection then gravity really comes across a sort of magnetism.

That doesn't make any sense.

I mean this in a way similar to how atoms are kept in perfect balance by electro-statical forces.

I can't see any relation between how atoms behave and gravity. Could you elaborate?

 

[Debt]

i believe elec-stat force works like em and gravity. the four forces work their jobs and i believe that they are a lot alike. desite the diff in scale. they hold everything together.

 

[Drakkith]

i believe elec-stat force works like em and gravity. the four forces work their jobs and i believe that they are a lot alike. desite the diff in scale. they hold everything together.

The electro-static force is another name for the electromagnetic force. While the four forces are similar in function, they are still very different in the details. For example, the EM force has 2 charges, + and -. Gravity, if treated similarly, only has 1 charge. On the flip side, the strong force has at least 3 different charges, or "colors", that quarks can have.

 

[Haroldingo]

We've sent men and spacecraft to the moon, spacecraft to every single planet in the solar system and to some non planets as well, we can see the effects within other solar systems and how they interact, and all of it points to gravity and all other forces to be exactly the same everywhere.

Yes, but not always with the same strength? In some places gravity is stronger than others. I mean that has nothing to do with my initial response but ah well.

We already understand the effects of gravity. I can't see any realistic way of generating gravitational travel nor energy (barring things like hydroelectric power and fusion inside stars and etc). I hope you aren't referring to something similar to "free energy" devices.

Well if we could use gravity to pull things together then 1) Nuclear fusion would be possible 2) We could contain without electromagnetism.

That doesn't make any sense.

Electricity is formed by a charged particle right? All I mean to say is, would it be possible that the type and power of the charge from every particle affects how they attract others? In this sense Gravity could work on a much larger scale, just like magnetism but with a basis in motion. Everything with gravitational pull has a constant motion.

I can't see any relation between how atoms behave and gravity. Could you elaborate?

That's the point, and that's the problem. Quantum physicists and Cosmologists are still looking for a way to quantify everything large by everything small. The idea I was proposing that atoms can be related to much larger systems like planetary orbits if we assume that there is a correlation between the forces at work in an atom and the forces at work in a planetary system.

 

[Haroldingo]

The electro-static force is another name for the electromagnetic force. While the four forces are similar in function, they are still very different in the details. For example, the EM force has 2 charges, + and -. Gravity, if treated similarly, only has 1 charge. On the flip side, the strong force has at least 3 different charges, or "colors", that quarks can have.

Really? I always thought that Electro magnetism is a force generated by moving charges, and electro static is from startic charges?

 

[Drakkith]

Really? I always thought that Electro magnetism is a force generated by moving charges, and electro static is from startic charges?

Back in the 18th and 19th centuries (1700's-1800's), it was believed that the Magnetic and Electric forces were two different forces. However experiments showed that a magnet can generate electric forces, and an electric force can generate a magnetic force. Eventually it was realized that both were a manifestation of the same force, the Electromagnetic force. Similarly it was realized that the Weak force and the Electromagnetic force could be combined as well, into the Electroweak force.

 

[Polyrhythmic]

Yes, but not always with the same strength? In some places gravity is stronger than others. I mean that has nothing to do with my initial response but ah well.

The gravitational laws are the same everywhere. Gravity is just stronger in the presence of heavier objects.

Well if we could use gravity to pull things together then 1) Nuclear fusion would be possible 2) We could contain without electromagnetism.

But gravity is much weaker than electromagnetism. By a huge amount, the difference is around the order of 10^40.

Electricity is formed by a charged particle right? All I mean to say is, would it be possible that the type and power of the charge from every particle affects how they attract others? In this sense Gravity could work on a much larger scale, just like magnetism but with a basis in motion. Everything with gravitational pull has a constant motion.

Gravity pulls, that is correct and nothing new. What do you mean by constant motion?

That's the point, and that's the problem. Quantum physicists and Cosmologists are still looking for a way to quantify everything large by everything small. The idea I was proposing that atoms can be related to much larger systems like planetary orbits if we assume that there is a correlation between the forces at work in an atom and the forces at work in a planetary system.

Even though the idea seems tempting, there's no reason to assume that atoms behave in any way like planetary systems. The introduction of quantum mechanics has definitely destroyed any possibility for such a view.

 

[Drakkith]

Yes, but not always with the same strength? In some places gravity is stronger than others. I mean that has nothing to do with my initial response but ah well.

The amount of gravity an object has is DIRECTLY proportional to its mass. Gravity has never been shown to vary anywhere. Only the amount of mass nearby to our probes and spacecraft changes as they move around.

Well if we could use gravity to pull things together then 1) Nuclear fusion would be possible 2) We could contain without electromagnetism.

The universe already does that via stars. The amount of mass required for gravitational confinement is staggering to say the least. Honestly just throwing up solar panels or harnessing the heat from the sun is doing what you are talking about anyways.

Electricity is formed by a charged particle right? All I mean to say is, would it be possible that the type and power of the charge from every particle affects how they attract others? In this sense Gravity could work on a much larger scale, just like magnetism but with a basis in motion. Everything with gravitational pull has a constant motion.

Well, with a charged particle, two opposite charges bound together, for example in a Hydrogen atom, effectively cancel each others charges and make the atom overall neutral. However gravity only has one "charge" so to speak. Also I don't understand what you mean by everything with gravity has a constant motion.

That's the point, and that's the problem. Quantum physicists and Cosmologists are still looking for a way to quantify everything large by everything small. The idea I was proposing that atoms can be related to much larger systems like planetary orbits if we assume that there is a correlation between the forces at work in an atom and the forces at work in a planetary system.

But you are missing a very key point here. There is no correlation beyond vague similarity between planetary orbits and atomic orbitals. Electrons are not little spheres going in circles around the nucleus. They are wave packets that occupy set orbitals based on the energy level of the electron. (Warning: Incoming terrible explanation from an amateur) Imagine a guitar string with both ends wrapped around touching themselves so it forms a circle. If you could pluck the string the whole thing would vibrate as a "Standing Wave". Take this analogy, make it into a 3d version like a sphere, and you have an electron orbital. Each energy level can only vibrate at a specific frequency. The others don't "fit".

 

[Haroldingo]

The amount of gravity an object has is DIRECTLY proportional to its mass. Gravity has never been shown to vary anywhere. Only the amount of mass nearby to our probes and spacecraft changes as they move around.

Ah. Black holes. As far as we know their gravitational pull isn't from a huge amount of mass?

The universe already does that via stars. The amount of mass required for gravitational confinement is staggering to say the least. Honestly just throwing up solar panels or harnessing the heat from the sun is doing what you are talking about anyways.

So you're saying that energy via nuclear fusion is useless? Harnessing the heat of 100 Million degrees centigrade is nothing to be laughed at. We wouldn't need fossil fuels at all.

Well, with a charged particle, two opposite charges bound together, for example in a Hydrogen atom, effectively cancel each others charges and make the atom overall neutral. However gravity only has one "charge" so to speak. Also I don't understand what you mean by everything with gravity has a constant motion.

Ok :) What I mean by everything with gravity having constant motion is that all planetary bodies spin, or turn, or whatever. The same, supposedly, is true for black holes but on a much more extreme level.

But you are missing a very key point here. There is no correlation beyond vague similarity between planetary orbits and atomic orbitals. Electrons are not little spheres going in circles around the nucleus. They are wave packets that occupy set orbitals based on the energy level of the electron. (Warning: Incoming terrible explanation from an amateur) Imagine a guitar string with both ends wrapped around touching themselves so it forms a circle. If you could pluck the string the whole thing would vibrate as a "Standing Wave". Take this analogy, make it into a 3d version like a sphere, and you have an electron orbital. Each energy level can only vibrate at a specific frequency. The others don't "fit".

I understand Schrödinger's equation, energy levels of electrons and orbits of precise integers via the bohrian model. I'm just stating that there is some kind of correlation, and perhaps there are things that can be learned from atoms about the universe as a whole, and vice versa.

 

[Drakkith]

Ah. Black holes. As far as we know their gravitational pull isn't from a huge amount of mass?

Perhaps I didn't word it right. The amount of gravity per "unit" of mass is always the same. Black holes are most definitely caused by massive amounts of mass.

So you're saying that energy via nuclear fusion is useless? Harnessing the heat of 100 Million degrees centigrade is nothing to be laughed at. We wouldn't need fossil fuels at all.

I was talking about Fusion due to gravitational confinement. Not magnetic or inertial or any other man made way.

Ok :) What I mean by everything with gravity having constant motion is that all planetary bodies spin, or turn, or whatever. The same, supposedly, is true for black holes but on a much more extreme level.

Sure, but that isn't the cause of gravity nor does it have an effect on it.

I understand Schrödinger's equation, energy levels of electrons and orbits of precise integers via the bohrian model. I'm just stating that there is some kind of correlation, and perhaps there are things that can be learned from atoms about the universe as a whole, and vice versa.

Alright.