WHAT is the reason gravity SHOULD be stronger than maganetism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stellamojo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Reason
AI Thread Summary
Gravity is perceived to be weaker than magnetism, yet its always-attractive nature leads to far-reaching effects without cancellation, unlike electromagnetic forces. Scientists are intrigued by gravity's apparent weakness and have explored the possibility of additional dimensions to explain it. The discussion highlights the ongoing curiosity about gravity's role in the universe and why some researchers seek to understand its limitations. The inquiry stems from a desire to reconcile gravity's behavior on Earth with broader cosmic phenomena. Understanding these dynamics remains a key focus in physics research.
stellamojo
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
What is the reason gravity should be stronger than magnetism. I heard a speaker talk about what prompted scientists to look for other dimensions, and it was because they were looking for the drain on gravity, but what is it about gravity that makes it appear that it SHOULD be stronger than magnetism?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not sure what you mean by SHOULD. Gravity is a lot weaker than electromagnetism and scientists wonder why, but not necessarily stronger than e-m.
 
Because Gravity is always attractive, there are no circumstances, as with the electromagnetic forces, where you can get cancellation - so it just goes on and on and on. Its effect is far reaching whereas electromagnetic forces soon get lost.
 
Thank YOU, sophiecentaur, that is EXACTLY what I was looking for.
 
middling, I'm not sure how what you're saying relates to my request. I thought it was a simple request, but obviously it was worded in a way that caused some ruffled feathers. I simply wanted to know WHY some scientists were compelled to find gravity elsewhere in the universe, because of how gravity is on this planet. I wanted to know why some scientists have a problem with what they perceive to be a "weakness" in gravity. That's all.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top