The ratio of strength between electro magnetic and gravitational force

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the ratio of electromagnetic (EM) force to gravitational force, challenging the commonly cited value of 1039. Stenger's assertion highlights that this ratio, denoted as N1, varies based on the specific particles involved, such as electrons and protons, with values ranging from 1039 for an electron-proton pair to 1047 for two electrons. The Planck mass, calculated as 2.18 x 10-8 kg, is noted to yield a gravitational force 137 times stronger than the electric force when considering unit-charged particles. The discussion emphasizes that while the electric force is generally stronger than gravity for fundamental particles, the exact ratio is context-dependent.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of fundamental forces in physics, specifically electromagnetic and gravitational forces.
  • Familiarity with particle physics, including concepts like the electron, proton, and Planck mass.
  • Knowledge of the standard model of particle physics and the significance of coupling constants.
  • Basic grasp of scientific notation and ratios in physical equations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Planck mass in theoretical physics and its relevance to current experiments.
  • Explore the differences between gravitational and electromagnetic forces in various particle interactions.
  • Investigate the role of coupling constants in particle physics and their impact on force ratios.
  • Examine the limitations of current experimental physics in probing energies between the LHC and Planck scales.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of particle physics, and anyone interested in the fundamental forces of nature and their interactions.

bobsmith76
Messages
336
Reaction score
0
In stenger's book he claims that the ratio between gravity and the electro magnetic is not 1039

Let me know if you think he's right

Note that N1 (ratio of EM force to gravity) is not a universal number; it depends on the charges and masses of the bodies you use in the calculation. For an electron and proton the ratio is the famous 1039 that I will continue to call N1. But why assume these two particles in defining N1? The proton is not even fundamental. It is made of quarks. For two electrons, the ratio is 1047. If we have two unit-charged particles of equal mass 1.85 x 10-9 kilograms, N1 = 1 and the two forces would be equal!
If we were to ask what mass is the most fundamental, it would be the Planck mass, which is formed from the fundamental constants and equals 2.18 x 10-8 kg. The gravitational force between two particles, each with the Planck mass and unit electric charge, is 137 times stronger than the electric force!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Defining the ratio for the electron is only one possible choice, as you have understood. I do think that when this ratio is discussed, it is in the context of forces acting on fundamental particles, and the electron is simply taken as an example. Of course, the statement that the electric force is 10^39 stronger than the gravity can easily be misunderstood. That said, for any electrically charged particle in the standard model particle table, the electric force is significantly stronger than gravity. I think this is the main point, not that it is exactly 10^39. I think that the electron is just the most popular example to illustrate the large difference between electric and gravitational forces on fundamental particles.

Btw, I would not say that the Planck mass is the "most fundamental" mass, since it is not (yet) related to current real-world physics, even though it is a value that can be formed from fundamental physical constants. The Planck mass it so far above the highest experimentally probed energies. Nobody knows what will be discovered between LHC and Planck energies. I.e. nobody knows of the Planck is related to any real physics because of this.

Since the mass is the "gravitational coupling constant" and electrical charge is the "electric coupling constant", it is possible to imagine a particle for which this ratio is any arbitrary value. But this doesn't mean that such a fundamental particle exists.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K