Why don't atoms self-destruct?

[QuantumClue]

I have heard that quantized gravitational charge is given by \mu_q= \sqrt{GM}. Sean Carrol seems to define gravitational charge of a moving particle as Fg= \nabla \phi Mg.

How is gravitational charge defined? Why is the gravitational charge not a property of the gravitational field like an electron's electromagnetic charge is a property of a system moving in an electromagnetic field?

 

[Deric Boyle]

I suspect that this topic belongs to the "Beyond the SM" forum.
Please post threads in right forums(as it creates confusion if not done so).

 

[QuantumClue]

Only I don't think Sean Carrols general relativity notes quite cuts beyond the standard model.

 

[sherlock ohms]

Hmm.. not sure if this is the correct place to post this, and please accept humble apologies if it is construed as an attempted 'hijack'.. the title of this thread seemed relevant though.

(Knowledgeable ones, please try to resist explanations with hieroglyphics)

To my limited understanding, opposite charges attract and gravitational force is universally attractive, which makes me wonder why atoms don't self destruct. i have heard/read that Neutrons act as a 'bonding agent', allowing Protons to remain in a close group, but what force prevents the positive/negative attraction, combined with gravitational attraction, from allowing what would seem to be a state of equilibrium?

..after rereading my post, i think i may have just requested a concise explanation of GUT.. without mathematics. But please feel free to chip away at my lack of understanding. There may even be an active mind at the center..

 

[sherlock ohms]

so.. was the question too stupid or too hard?..(yeah, .. i went there..)

 

[QuantumClue]

Hmm.. not sure if this is the correct place to post this, and please accept humble apologies if it is construed as an attempted 'hijack'.. the title of this thread seemed relevant though.

(Knowledgeable ones, please try to resist explanations with hieroglyphics)

To my limited understanding, opposite charges attract and gravitational force is universally attractive, which makes me wonder why atoms don't self destruct. i have heard/read that Neutrons act as a 'bonding agent', allowing Protons to remain in a close group, but what force prevents the positive/negative attraction, combined with gravitational attraction, from allowing what would seem to be a state of equilibrium?

..after rereading my post, i think i may have just requested a concise explanation of GUT.. without mathematics. But please feel free to chip away at my lack of understanding. There may even be an active mind at the center..

Your question is odder than mine, which is probably why niether of us have been addressed properly.

To answer your question, based on my knowledge of quantum mechanics, gravitational attraction has an upper bound where things can collapse to the standards you are desiring, and these exotic objects are called black holes. Even an electron could be a black hole!

You must remember, that gravity is so weak. To imagine this, place a pin on the floor, and get a very small magnet. If that magnet attracts the pin over the gravitational pull of the entire Earth (as it should, or something strange is happening) then this gives you an idea how weak the gravitational force is. Sometimes we don't understand the gravity (yes a pun) of the situation. Saying something is 10^{40} times less than the EM force doesn't quite cut it.

So atoms resist collapses because gravity is so weak, rather than looking at it as being so strong, then questioning how atoms are stable. They are only stable because it is so weak!

 

[jtbell]

please accept humble apologies if it is construed as an attempted 'hijack'

It really would have been better if you had started your own thread, but it's not a big enough deal to make me want to split your posts off into a new one, if Quantum Clue doesn't mind.

why atoms don't self destruct

This question comes up often enough that we have an entry for it in the General Physics FAQ, which you might like to examine:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104715

Note this is not intended as an attempt to stifle discussion, but rather to give a starting answer so people don't have to repeat it over and over again. If it's not sufficient for your purposes, please feel free to ask for clarifications or further information.