Newton's gravitational formula wrong?

In summary, the conversation discusses the validity of the universal gravitation law proposed by Newton in relation to the bending of light around massive bodies. It is pointed out that Einstein's theory of relativity provides a more accurate explanation for this phenomenon, and it is argued that Newton's equation may not be universal as it does not apply to massless objects. The concept of limits and continuity in calculus is mentioned as a justification for applying Newton's law to massless particles, and it is acknowledged that Einstein's theory predicts a different amount of light bending. However, it is also noted that despite its limitations, Newton's law is still a valuable and widely accepted approximation in physics.
  • #1
akshaya
17
0
Hi,
According to Newton, F= (GM¹M₂)/r²

Einstein proved that light bends around massive bodies, due to gravity. (because space bends around these bodies)

Mass of light = zero, but its being affected by gravity. So, is Newton's equation not universal?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
No, Newtons gravity is most often a good approximation, but it is superseeded by general relativity.
 
  • Like
Likes akshaya
  • #3
akshaya said:
So, is Newton's equation not universal?

It is not. As Orodruin says, it is a good approximation... but it would be a mistake to take the next step and say that it is "wrong".
I point people at this essay from time to time: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and akshaya
  • #4
In addition to what's said above, it should be pointed out that Newtonian gravitation does predict bending of light around massive bodies after making a some very reasonable assumptions. Basically, rather than being combined into the standard force law, you should think of Newtonian gravity as a field equation: ##\vec{E} = GM/r^2## along with a force law analogous to the electrostatic force, ##\vec{F} = m\vec{E}##. Now, despite not knowing how, exactly, such a gravitational field affects massless objects, it's fairly clear that if massless objects exist it must affect them. Just start with a massive object and apply these equations plus ##\vec{F}=ma## and deduce that it accelerates at a rate independent of its mass, ##\vec{a} = \vec{E}##. Now take the limit of the mass to zero and the acceleration stays the same. You can make the mass infinitesimally small and it will still accelerate at the same rate. It would be exceedingly strange if gravitational acceleration were discontinuous—zero for something massless and finitely small for anything arbitrarily close—so it's reasonable to deduce that the identification of acceleration with the gravitational field is completely general. Then by treating light as massless particles, you can figure out how much it deflects when passing by massive bodies. This was done around 1800 and generally accepted by the scientific community, well before Einstein and relativity.

It's commonly stated that, as Eddington tested, GR predicts light bends and Newtonian gravity predicts it does not. This is not true, or at least doesn't reflect the understanding of Newtonian gravity at the time. In fact, the prediction by GR is that light bends exactly twice as much as Newtonian gravity predicts. It's also now generally accepted that the accuracy of Eddington's experiment was insufficient to support his conclusion in favour of GR; however, since then we've done much more precise tests that have confirmed relativity's prediction over Newton's.
 
  • Like
Likes andro and Chris B
  • #5
LastOneStanding said:
You can make the mass infinitesimally small and it will still accelerate at the same rate. It would be exceedingly strange if gravitational acceleration were discontinuous—zero for something massless and finitely small for anything arbitrarily close—so it's reasonable to deduce that the identification of acceleration with the gravitational field is completely general.
Well, E = GM/r^2 is applicable only IF the particle has mass, even if its infinitesimally small. Since light's mass is zero, it would not be possible to equate this:
>F= (GM¹M₂)/r²
>ma/m= GM/r²
m=0, so the LHS is not defined.

I guess the universal law of gravitation is not applicable to mass-less objects. (Then why is it called a law? haha) It's just a good approximation. And plus, if Newtonian equation already proved light bends due to gravity, I don't think Einstein would have needed to struggle to prove it.
If you think I'm not understanding something here, can you stress on that? Sorry, I'm just a 10 grader :)
 
Last edited:
  • #6
You understand, do you not, that Einstein's theory is, at best, an approximation that will, more than likely, be replace by some other theory that is a better approximation.
 
  • #7
akshaya said:
Hi,
According to Newton, F= (GM¹M₂)/r²

Einstein proved that light bends around massive bodies, due to gravity. (because space bends around these bodies)

Mass of light = zero, but its being affected by gravity. So, is Newton's equation not universal?
You know, that Newton was also a smart guy. I've read somewhere he also expected that trajectories of light rays should be bent due to gravity of massive object. He considered light to be particles (lat. corpuscula) in such case. But treatment and calculation of the effect with Einstein equation is much more correct and accurate .
 
  • #8
akshaya said:
Well, E = GM/r^2 is applicable only IF the particle has mass, even if its infinitesimally small. Since light's mass is zero, it would not be possible to equate this:
>F= (GM¹M₂)/r²
>ma/m= GM/r²
m=0, so the LHS is not defined.

We had a thread on this:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/dividing-by-m-to-make-conclusions-for-m-0.770703/

akshaya said:
It's just a good approximation.
Like all of physics.

akshaya said:
And plus, if Newtonian equation already proved light bends due to gravity, I don't think Einstein would have needed to struggle to prove it.
Einstein's theory predicts a different amount of light bending, than Newtonian acceleration.
http://mathpages.com/rr/s8-09/8-09.htm
 
  • #9
akshaya said:
If you think I'm not understanding something here, can you stress on that? Sorry, I'm just a 10 grader :)

Do you know anything about calculus? I was using the concepts of "limit" and "continuity" which come from calculus. It's with those concepts that the notion of applying Newton's law of gravity to massless particles is justified.
 
  • Like
Likes Drakkith
  • #10
LastOneStanding said:
Do you know anything about calculus? I was using the concepts of "limit" and "continuity" which come from calculus. It's with those concepts that the notion of applying Newton's law of gravity to massless particles is justified.

Really? I had no idea. Interesting...
 
  • #11
LastOneStanding said:
I was using the concepts of "limit" and "continuity" which come from calculus. It's with those concepts that the notion of applying Newton's law of gravity to massless particles is justified.
The observation that led Newton to his laws was that a = g, independent of mass. From that one can infer ma = mg. To then say that this fails when m = 0 doesn't follow. No calculus required.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
akshaya said:
Well, E = GM/r^2 is applicable only IF the particle has mass, even if its infinitesimally small.
This is incorrect. There is nothing about that equation that requires m to be non zero, particularly if it is taken as the starting point.
 
  • #13
This is how physics is done since the beginning of human history, that is, if you have a theory that explains or fits for a wide set (but not everything) of phenomena you can call this theory or law universal though it really isnt. It just gives us right answers for most of what is happening but not for absoletuly everything that is happening out there.

Even general relativity isn't perfect (it is very good-but still not perfect-only for gravity) or quantum physics (very good-but still not perfect-for anything else except gravity). Unification of quantum physics and general relativity hm that's another story (but still not perfect hehe). And ofc don't forget dark matter or dark energy quantum physics or GR don't say much for those either.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
DaleSpam said:
This is incorrect. There is nothing about that equation that requires m to be non zero, particularly if it is taken as the starting point.
How is it incorrect? To derive that equation, m needs to have a value. 1/0 is not defined.
 
  • #15
akshaya said:
To derive that equation, m needs to have a value. 1/0 is not defined.
You don't need to derive the acceleration law, you can take it as the starting point.

In fact, scientifically the force law (dynamics) was derived from the observed acceleration law (kinematics), not the other way around. In other words, you observe the fact that the acceleration is independent of the mass, and then you multiply that by mass to derive the force law.

However, even if you do derive it from the force law the derivation can still be valid under certain conditions. Specifically, if ##F=GMm/r^2=gm## holds for all m and if ##F=ma## holds for all m then ##a=g## as shown here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...onclusions-for-m-0.770703/page-3#post-4852663

The key condition mathematically is the "for all m".
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Apparently the mods thought my original post was too strong. Unfortunately, the point seems to have been missed.

There is no division by zero. Newton's starting point is a = g.

Physics is not about memorizing a bunch of equations. You need to understand the line of argument leading to these equations.
 
  • Like
Likes OnlyMe and akshaya
  • #17
LastOneStanding said:
In addition to what's said above, it should be pointed out that Newtonian gravitation does predict bending of light around massive bodies after making a some very reasonable assumptions. Basically, rather than being combined into the standard force law, you should think of Newtonian gravity as a field equation: ##\vec{E} = GM/r^2## along with a force law analogous to the electrostatic force, ##\vec{F} = m\vec{E}##. Now, despite not knowing how, exactly, such a gravitational field affects massless objects, it's fairly clear that if massless objects exist it must affect them. Just start with a massive object and apply these equations plus ##\vec{F}=ma## and deduce that it accelerates at a rate independent of its mass, ##\vec{a} = \vec{E}##. Now take the limit of the mass to zero and the acceleration stays the same. You can make the mass infinitesimally small and it will still accelerate at the same rate. It would be exceedingly strange if gravitational acceleration were discontinuous—zero for something massless and finitely small for anything arbitrarily close—so it's reasonable to deduce that the identification of acceleration with the gravitational field is completely general. Then by treating light as massless particles, you can figure out how much it deflects when passing by massive bodies. This was done around 1800 and generally accepted by the scientific community, well before Einstein and relativity.

It's commonly stated that, as Eddington tested, GR predicts light bends and Newtonian gravity predicts it does not. This is not true, or at least doesn't reflect the understanding of Newtonian gravity at the time. In fact, the prediction by GR is that light bends exactly twice as much as Newtonian gravity predicts. It's also now generally accepted that the accuracy of Eddington's experiment was insufficient to support his conclusion in favour of GR; however, since then we've done much more precise tests that have confirmed relativity's prediction over Newton's.

I have always wondered about this.
 

1. What is Newton's gravitational formula?

Newton's gravitational formula, also known as the law of universal gravitation, is a mathematical equation that describes the force of gravity between two objects. It states that the force of gravity is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the two objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

2. How is Newton's gravitational formula wrong?

Newton's gravitational formula is not completely accurate because it does not take into account the effects of relativity and quantum mechanics at very small scales. It also does not account for the curvature of space-time caused by massive objects.

3. What are the implications of Newton's gravitational formula being wrong?

The implications of Newton's gravitational formula being wrong are significant in the field of physics. It means that our understanding of gravity and how it operates in the universe may not be complete. It also means that we need to use more advanced theories, such as Einstein's theory of general relativity, to accurately describe and predict the behavior of gravity.

4. Are there any situations where Newton's gravitational formula is still useful?

Yes, Newton's gravitational formula is still useful in many situations, particularly in everyday life and in the study of celestial bodies such as planets and stars. It is also a good approximation for objects with relatively small masses and at distances that are not extremely large or small.

5. How does Einstein's theory of general relativity improve upon Newton's gravitational formula?

Einstein's theory of general relativity improves upon Newton's gravitational formula by providing a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of gravity. It takes into account the curvature of space-time and explains how gravity is not just a force between objects, but rather a result of the curvature of space caused by the presence of mass and energy. This theory has been proven to be more accurate in predicting the behavior of gravity in extreme situations, such as near black holes or during the expansion of the universe.

Similar threads

  • Classical Physics
2
Replies
67
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
16
Views
783
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
7
Views
721
Replies
1
Views
972
  • Mechanics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top