Is it possible that the Strong Force and gravity are the same thing?

[PeterLouis]

Because the Strong Force and gravity are both forces that attract, could they actually be the same thing, manifesting in different ways at different distances?

 

[Bobbywhy]

PeterLouis, Welcome to Physics Forums!

Do you have some reference material or some source I can read to study up on your idea? Have you read anything about this idea? If so, please post it here.

True, both the Strong Force and Gravity are attractive forces. But they seem to have hugely different strengths and also, the S.F. only acts over tiny distances. G. acts over astronomical distances.

 

[PeterLouis]

I have no source material - actually just thought of this question, which seems to be pretty basic, but can find no discussion of it on the internet.
And, thanks for making me feel welcome!

Agreed that these two forces "have hugely different strengths," etc., but is there any possible way they can be the same thing in different iterations? Whether the answer is "no," "we don't know" or "maybe," I would love an explanation.

 

[Bobbywhy]

PeterLouis, Google is your friend. Never before has mankind (that means you and I) had so much information at our fingertips! We live in the information age, and you can become a part of it. Learn how to find stuff and you will learn lots. As you progress you will begin to recognize the whackos and crackpots who post BS, and just ignore them. It is easy to find reliable sources you can trust to give the straight scoop on scientific questions. For example, using Google I found these four sites concerning the "strong force":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force
http://aether.lbl.gov/elements/stellar/strong/strong.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html

Just to get you started, I suggest the last one first, then the other three.

Then, when you are finished, Google "gravity" and compare the two. I am confident you can decide if they are "the same thing in different iterations" or not. If you have any questions or doubts about what you find, then come right back here and post them. Members here are always ready to help if they can.
Cheers,
Bobbywhy

 

[thunderhadron]

Hi members.
I was thinking that there is two differences between the two.
1. S.F. doesn't follow inverse square law WHILE G. follows it.
2. G. Force is conservative in nature but for the strong force it is not found yet.

 

[xlines]

Because the Strong Force and gravity are both forces that attract, could they actually be the same thing, manifesting in different ways at different distances?

Hello!

I've heard suggestions (e.g. Griffits in his "Introduction to Elementary Particles") that if singlet gluon could be photon itself then it would be beautiful unification of the electrodynamics with strong force, but have never actually heard of suggestion that it's connected to gravity. I think this line of thought is a dead end.

 

[ZapperZ]

Because the Strong Force and gravity are both forces that attract, could they actually be the same thing, manifesting in different ways at different distances?

I have no source material - actually just thought of this question, which seems to be pretty basic, but can find no discussion of it on the internet.
And, thanks for making me feel welcome!

Agreed that these two forces "have hugely different strengths," etc., but is there any possible way they can be the same thing in different iterations? Whether the answer is "no," "we don't know" or "maybe," I would love an explanation.

In both of your posts, you have provided no reasons for your thinking on why they should be the same thing. Instead, everyone else has brought the characteristics of the two that make them VERY different.

This is not how we do science, I.e. by shooting at things in the dark. If you cannot provide source material or rational reasons for something, then you are making baseless speculation, which in violation of the PF rules.

Zz.

 

[PeterLouis]

ZapperZ: If we lived in the 15th century and I asked, "Could the world be round?" would you tell me that is not how we do science?

Bobbywhy: There is nothing on any of the sites you mentioned that specifically addresses the question I posed.

I asked a legitimate, and obvious question and am being criticized for asking it. Yet there is no clear response.

 

[kloptok]

The physical theories of gravity and the strong force are very different. For instance, the strong force is described by QCD which is a quantum field theory and gravity is described by the non-quantum theory of general relativity. I would say there is clear response to your question among physicists - gravity and QCD are not the same thing. People with more insight in these theories will be able to provide you with good explanations of the differences between the theories. What is vague in the answers you have received?

 

[PeterLouis]

Kloptok: Thank you - although details are still wanting.
While these two forces have very different evident characteristics, note the way the question asked: "is it possible..." The fact that they ultimately do the same thing, begs the question.

 

[Nabeshin]

Kloptok: Thank you - although details are still wanting.
While these two forces have very different evident characteristics, note the way the question asked: "is it possible..." The fact that they ultimately do the same thing, begs the question.

It actually doesn't beg the question. Just because two things have one property in common doesn't really suggest that they're the same, but OK suppose you want to pursue that line. Like has been said above, we know the description of the strong force in terms of QCD, no such description exists for gravity. One can go into a long description along this lines, but I don't want to go into it here. One striking feature is that gravity is manifestly long ranged, while the strong force obviously is not. This alone tells you there is something fundamentally different about the two forces.

You can always ask 'is it possible...' no matter how robust our understanding of physics is. The nature of science is not to ever absolutely exclude such things, but at a certain point the question becomes extremely unproductive. And unless you are talking about some grand unified theory (which I highly suspect you were not, judging by your posts), we're at that point for the low energy description of the strong force and gravity.

 

[Dickfore]

ZapperZ: If we lived in the 15th century and I asked, "Could the world be round?" would you tell me that is not how we do science?

Probably, since even Ancient Greeks knew that the Earth is round. See Erathostenes.

 

[PeterLouis]

I fear that I am becoming a nuisance. Nevertheless:

Nabeshin:
The one property they have in common - they each attract mass - is the very thing that determines them to be fundamental forces - so whether they are actually different, or somehow just different expressions of the same thing, goes to the heart of the matter. Despite the fact of their obvious differences, obvious similarities are glaring

Regarding "descriptions," I refer you to the parable of the blind men describing an elephant: The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope, etc.

Differing descriptions does not establish dissimilarity.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I fear that I am becoming a nuisance. Nevertheless:

Nabeshin:
The one property they have in common - they each attract mass - is the very thing that determines them to be fundamental forces - so whether they are actually different, or somehow just different expressions of the same thing, goes to the heart of the matter. Despite the fact of their obvious differences, obvious similarities are glaring

Regarding "descriptions," I refer you to the parable of the blind men describing an elephant: The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope, etc.

Differing descriptions does not establish dissimilarity.

There's nothing with asking questions so long as you take on board the answers. To use your own analogy, you are the blind man grabbing an elephant leg in one hand and a pillar in the other and not listening to the people with sight telling you why they are not the same.

 

[Whovian]

As for your blind men describing an elephant, we do have some suspicion that all four (three now) fundamental forces are manifestations of the same one, though we're pretty sure we should unify the Electroweak and Strong forces before we unify that with Gravity.

Another obvious difference is the fact that Gravity and the Strong force have different charges.

 

[Nugatory]

ZapperZ: If we lived in the 15th century and I asked, "Could the world be round?" would you tell me that is not how we do science?

Probably not, because the scientific method was far less understood then.

But if we were to apply the scientific method in that context, the answer you would hear would indeed be: "Yes, it is possible that the Earth is round, but that's not how we do science."

Now, if you were to try statements along the lines of:
- "If the world were round, it would be possible to sail east and come back to your starting point from the west - and somehow you'd have recorded the passage of one fewer day - that would be an interesting experiment that would tell us something about the shape of the earth".
- "If the world were round, that would explain why its shadow on the moon appears curved during a lunar eclipse - we've looked at the eclipse last night, and damned if the shadow wasn't curved".
- "If the world is round, there should be places where the sun is precisely exactly overhead at noon. Do we know of any, or could we find some?" (One of the reasons the Greeks believed the Earth was round is that they had found such a place).

you'd get a very different and much more open reception from the (hypothetical) 15th-century scientific community.

 

[Dead Boss]

The strong force acts only on quarks and gluons. The gravity acts on everything. There's a huge difference right there.

 

[PeterLouis]

Ryan M B: you are telling me to "just believe" people who know more then me, without offering details.

Aside from differences based on distance, in this whole discussion, only two facts have been stated explaining why these two forces couldn't be the same:
1) Gravity and the Strong force have different charges
2) S.F. doesn't follow inverse square law WHILE G. follows it.

This is not enough proof to overcome the presumption of similarity based on observation.

Gravity and EMF clearly do different things. One is an apple and one is a zebra.
Gravity and SF look like they do the same thing: attract. Perhaps one is a Red Delicious and one is a Macintosh (no pun intended). While I am not advocating any position, the burden of proof is on those advocating positions which refute observable truth: that they both are apples.

 

[Dickfore]

This thread deserves to be deleted.

 

[PeterLouis]

This thread deserves to be deleted.

When did science become so antagonistic to questions "outside the box"?
If this is such a silly question, where is conclusive answer?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ryan M B: you are telling me to "just believe" people who know more then me, without offering details.

I am not telling you to just believe at all, I am telling you to listen to the answers you are given. Ask specific questions about what you don't understand. Be polite and be prepared to learn. Quoting parables at people and acting in an arrogant manner, insisting that your idea has merit even though you have no reason to think so is not a good attitude to have.

When did science become so antagonistic to questions "outside the box"?
If this is such a silly question, where is conclusive answer?

When you are confronted by people who know what they are talking about and have become frustrated with you for a reason that eludes you it is rarely good to play the "I'm thinking outside the box, you experts don't have my level of understanding" card. People are here on this sight to answer questions and share knowledge of science, they do it hundreds of times every day. For you to be this insulting and expect people to help you after is baffling.

Now I hope this thread doesn't have to be locked. If you are prepared to ask questions and listen to the answers rather than repeating your idea and insulting the volunteers giving up their time to help you then you will realize that this site is a great resource.

 

[PeterLouis]

No insult was intended - pardon me if it came off that way. I very much appreciate the time you are taking. I am here to learn and you are volunteering to help me with that.

To the eyes of this "innocent" there seems to be a contradiction - or at least a conclusion, that is not justified by the documentation. I have searched the internet and the links provided, and carefully examined the suggestions provided here, but clear details that address my question are pending.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

No insult was intended - pardon me if it came off that way. I very much appreciate the time you are taking. I am here to learn and you are volunteering to help me with that.

To the eyes of this "innocent" there seems to be a contradiction - or at least a conclusion, that is not justified by the documentation. I have searched the internet and the links provided, and carefully examined the suggestions provided here, but clear details that address my question are pending.

Given that let's start afresh, how about you read over the replies you've been given and respond to the specific points so that people know what questions to address?

 

[PeterLouis]

Thank you.

(From an earlier post, copied here) I believe this has the information you just requested:

"Aside from differences based on distance, in this whole discussion, only two facts have been stated explaining why these two forces couldn't be the same:
1) Gravity and the Strong force have different charges
2) S.F. doesn't follow inverse square law WHILE G. follows it.

This is not enough proof to overcome the presumption of similarity based on observation.

Gravity and EMF clearly do different things. One is an apple and one is a zebra.
Gravity and SF look like they do the same thing: attract. Perhaps one is a Red Delicious and one is a Macintosh (no pun intended). While I am not advocating any position, the burden of proof is on those advocating positions which refute observable truth: that they both are apples."

 

[theorem4.5.9]

I like this question, and I think there is some merit to wondering if 'gravity' manifests itself differently at small scales. The inverse square law may only be an approximation at large scales just as vector velocities are to special relativity.

However, Dead Boss readily convinced me otherwise.

The strong force acts only on quarks and gluons. The gravity acts on everything. There's a huge difference right there.

SF and gravity are without doubt different animals entirely because of their different actions ('action' is borrowed from math, not sure if it translates into physics). I'm just wondering why this response has gone without a reply.

 

[cosmik debris]

Some of the Supersymmetry theories involve a unification of at least the three forces of the standard model at TeV energies and some include Supergravity models. It is thought by some that the 4 forces are unified at some high energy level such as those present shortly after the Big Bang.

 

[jtbell]

When did science become so antagonistic to questions "outside the box"?

Thinking "outside the box" is an important part of scientific progress. So important, in fact, that we at PF prefer to leave it to professionals who know where the walls of the box are, and what is inside the box. They already have their venues for this, and so we do not allow that sort of speculation here. If you haven't seen our rules already, click the "Rules" link at the top of any page here and note the Scientific Discussion Guidelines.

To get some idea of where the walls of the box are, etc., I would suggest learning something about our current theories of gravity (general relativity) and the strong force (quantum chromodynamics, QCD), and see for yourself how different they are.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ryan M B: you are telling me to "just believe" people who know more then me, without offering details.

Aside from differences based on distance, in this whole discussion, only two facts have been stated explaining why these two forces couldn't be the same:
1) Gravity and the Strong force have different charges
2) S.F. doesn't follow inverse square law WHILE G. follows it.

This is not enough proof to overcome the presumption of similarity based on observation.

Remember, the amount of literature and research on the two subjects could probably fill buildings large enough to house entire fleets of aircraft. It's impossible to convey all that information to someone who is not versed in science or in the field. The two points you mentioned are extraordinarily condensed and possibly vague versions of how we know the two phenomena are not the same. Simply asking for more details is like asking to open Pandora's box. It is extraordinarily likely that "the details" are entirely beyond your mathematical comprehension.

If you really want the details, you have to tell us what your mathematical abilities are. One can't prove how something simple such as compound interest works to someone that doesn't know algebra (or properly, differential equations). QCD (the theory behind the strong force) and GR's differences can't be proven to someone without vast amounts of physical and mathematical knowledge. At some point you have to just say to them "this is how it is and you just have to deal with it unless you want to learn the math".

 

[PeterLouis]

Very informative responses.

More observations from my innocent eyes:

One of the more significant things we know about the SF is that it changes character. Within the quark-gluon interaction, it has infinite strength. Between nucleons, it has the considerably smaller "non-infinite" amount of strength (considered to be a "residual" color force). Since we know that SF is capable of radically different manifestations depending on sphere of influence, might it then change character a third time outside the nucleus, to look exactly like gravity (accounting for Dead Boss' point)?

 

[theorem4.5.9]

Very informative responses.

More observations from my innocent eyes:

One of the more significant things we know about the SF is that it changes character. Within the quark-gluon interaction, it has infinite strength. Between nucleons, it has the considerably smaller "non-infinite" amount of strength (considered to be a "residual" color force). Since we know that SF is capable of radically different manifestations depending on sphere of influence, might it then change character a third time outside the nucleus, to look exactly like gravity (accounting for Dead Boss' point)?

Does the SF interact with quarks and gluons differently than nucleons only because of their distances? I took Dead Boss' comment as the SF interaction operates on a different set of particles than Gravity does (I hope I'm not embarrassing myself too badly here).

 

[sankalpmittal]

Because the Strong Force and gravity are both forces that attract, could they actually be the same thing, manifesting in different ways at different distances?

No this is not at all correct. Strong forces are also known as nuclear forces as they have their origin from nucleus. Gravitational forces act universally and have nothing to do with nucleus or quantum. Moreover you're analyzing only one property of the two and then thinking them to be the same. This is the basic knowledge. In 15th century if you ask why world is round then its just justified as the knowledge at that time was meagre. Now our knowledge relating to these are quite rich and modern so in this century you can't just shoot in the dark.

Now I am listing out their properties. Compare them yourself and see how much difference they have :

1. Gravitational forces are weakest forces of nature while Strong (or nuclear) forces are strongest forces of nature.

2. Strong forces are limited to nucleus -> neutron-neutron attractive force , proton-neutron etc , but gravitational forces have nothing to do with nucleus and act universally.

3. Gravitational forces are always attractive. Not so with strong forces. Example : proton-proton repulsive forces.

4. Ratio of strength of strong forces to gravitational forces is 1:10³⁹ .

5. Gravitational forces follow inverse distance square laws : inversely proportional to square of distance between centre of mass of two bodies. Not so with strong forces.

6. Gravitational forces are conservative while strong forces are non-conservative.

7. Gravitational forces can act through very long distances while strong forces can act only through distances in the order of magnitude of 10^-15m .

I think , now you can see the differences between these two forces though.

 

[Whovian]

3. Gravitational forces are always attractive. Not so with strong forces. Example : proton-proton repulsive forces.

That was brilliant. One thing to point out here, though. Proton-proton repulsive forces arise from electromagnetism, not the Colour force.

 

[PeterLouis]

Thank you sankalpmittal for that very clear, detailed explanation. Question answered!

 

[thunderhadron]

Great answer

 

[Shurita]

Can gravity and strong nuclear force be a symetry breaking like the electroweak is?