Mass and Electromagnetics, someone please shed light

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between mass, gravity, and electromagnetism, particularly focusing on how these forces operate in different contexts such as planetary orbits and atomic structures. Participants explore the conceptual differences between gravitational and electromagnetic forces, as well as the implications of these differences in understanding orbits.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that gravity is a field influenced by mass, proposing that the Earth's orbit around the Sun is due to the Sun's gravitational influence on the fabric of space-time.
  • Another participant challenges the notion of the Sun "pushing down," emphasizing that gravity changes the spacetime around it rather than applying a directional force.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the analogy of mass warping space-time, indicating that while it may have pedagogical value, it can be misleading in understanding gravity in General Relativity.
  • Concerns are raised about the differences between gravitational and electromagnetic forces, noting that electromagnetic forces involve positive and negative charges, which do not exist in gravity.
  • One participant points out that atomic orbits are governed by quantum mechanics, stating that electrons do not behave like classical objects and their positions cannot be precisely determined due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • Another participant mentions that attractive forces, such as gravity and electromagnetic forces, can lead to stable orbits, particularly under a 1/r² law.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of analogies used to describe gravity and electromagnetism. There is no consensus on the best way to conceptualize these forces, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these differences in understanding orbits.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the analogies used to describe gravitational and electromagnetic forces, noting that these models may not accurately represent the complexities of the underlying physics, particularly in quantum mechanics.

Sarmad
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Okay so I've recently found an insane interest in physics and am becoming familiar with simple things.
However the vast amount of knowledge I have not yet acquired is pretty troubling me with understanding other things.

I understand that gravity is a field influenced by a mass of an object, correct me if I am wrong, but let's say that the Earth rotates around the sun because it is within the field of the suns gravitation, meaning that the amount of mass that the sun will push down on the fabric of space-time creates the opportunity for the Earth to orbit around it? (once again correct me if I'm wrong)

How does an electron rotating around an atom nucleus differ from this effect? I mean I have heard that electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not similar or the same.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The sun does not push "down" - down relative to what?
It does change the spacetime around it, right.

How does an electron rotating around an atom nucleus differ from this effect? I mean I have heard that electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not similar or the same.
You cannot use the same model to describe the electromagnetic force - as an example, you have negative and positive charges, something gravity and its description do not have. You also have a general separation between charge (here: electric charge) generating the force, and (inertial) mass resisting changes in velocity. For gravity, both are the same.
 
okay sorry I worded that horribly, as the sun would sit on the fabric of space-time, it would create a warp which would have entities orbiting it (to say if they entered that vicinity)

It's still a little bit hazy for me but I think I'm getting it. It just seemed that it seemed a bit too coincidental that two forces which differed created a somewhat relative outcome... In a sense, and from what I understand about physics is that coincidences don't 'just' happen (Just my view based on the amount of knowledge I currently have)
 
Sarmad, you're thinking of space-time "fabric" being deformed by mass like in the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg
This is not really how gravity works in General Relativity. The analogy arguably has got some pedagogical value, but you'll find plenty of people(myself included) who think it's really more misleading than helpful.

The main problem with it is that it doesn't show what it purports to show. There is no time dimension to curve in the analogy, so at best it represents curvature of space, or gravitational potential well around masses.

This one is more accurate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdC0QN6f3G4
The problem with it is that it doesn't lend itself to classroom presentation so well.


As for the differences with atoms, you've got the already mentioned problem of charges - in the first type of presentation the gravity well is either a dimple or a bump depending on what the charge of a particle that "sees" it; in the second visualisation the geodesic(straight line) curves in or out. Since there can be two kinds of charges present, both would need to happen at the same time.
Then there's the quantum effects in the micro world - all orbits are constrained to specific radii, and due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle you can't really say where e.g. an electron actually is. After seeing Bohr's planetary model of an atom one might get the impression that it's just a small solar system, but it's by no means accurate representation of the quantum world. Such simplified model quickly breaks down once you look at it closely.


There are some parallels that can be drawn between Newtonian gravity and Lorentz force, like the geometric reasons for them having essentially the same mathematical representation, but that's a different kettle of fish.
 
Oh well, if you are just asking about orbits: every attractive force will give them, and typically (in particular, with a 1/r^2-law) they are stable.

Note that the atom needs quantum mechanics for a proper description. There is no electron zipping around like a billard ball.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Two ways of constructing electromagnetism, which is correct?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Permanent Magnetic Dipole in an electromagnetic field
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Asking about something that I read on electromagnetic force
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Graduate Electromagnetic wave, electromagnetic field and quantas
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Can Electromagnetic Fields Exist Independently of Charges?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Undergrad A problem when trying to compare electromagnetism with gravity
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad Is this analogy between Magnetic Force and Gravitational Force accurate in helping to understand what contributes more to a stronger magnetic force?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Undergrad Energy Flow From Battery to the Light Bulb
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
Undergrad How to find electromagnetic force between nucleus and electron?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Seeking the Equation of Motion for a charged mass attached to a spring
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K