Why Isn't Gravity a Repulsive Force Based on Energy Arguments?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the idea that gravity should be a repulsive force based on energy arguments, similar to how electrostatic forces operate between like charges. The argument suggests that since energy decreases when masses are further apart, they should repel each other, unlike the observed attractive nature of gravity. Participants question the energy density of the gravitational field and its implications, noting that using field arguments to contradict observed forces seems flawed. There is acknowledgment of negative energy density in gravitational fields, which complicates the argument. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of gravitational forces and their relationship to energy concepts.
Antiphon
Messages
1,685
Reaction score
4
Frankly, I think gravity should be repulsive force on the basis of a simple energy argument which I will now make. I request anyone with insight to find the flaw in my argument. (there has to be one since I think we'd all agree that gravity is an attractive force.)

One way to compute forces is to take a differential of a field energy along some spatial displacement. The force will point in the direction that decreases the energy of the field. Simple example: two electrons near one another. If you integrate the energy of the electrostatic fields through space 1/2*epsilon*E^2 in MKS units, you'll find that there is less energy in the field if the electrons are further apart. Therefore the force they experience is repulsive.

Why is this not the case for gravity? By this reasoning, masses should repel one another.

What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is the energy density of the gravitational field?
 
DaleSpam said:
What is the energy density of the gravitational field?

Good question. But there has to be one otherwise lifting weights at the gym wouldn't build muscles, right?
 
Using a field argument to claim that a force should be opposite to what is observed seems backwards. Isn't a field essentially a mathematical construct for describing the force that a body would feel at every point in a space?
 
johng23 said:
Using a field argument to claim that a force should be opposite to what is observed seems backwards. Isn't a field essentially a mathematical construct for describing the force that a body would feel at every point in a space?

Yes.

I found a thread with a good review of the question at https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=316784&page=3

I'm comfortable with a negative energy density in the gravitational field as the origin of it.
 
Antiphon said:
Good question. But there has to be one otherwise lifting weights at the gym wouldn't build muscles, right?
Building muscles requires a force, not necessarily a conservative force that would be associated with an energy density and a conserved energy.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top