Does Classical Gravity exist in the "atom."

[CuriosOne]

Does Classical Gravity exist in the "atom."

If not what keeps the atom held in place..

Ok so the strong nuclear force...understood..

Is this strong nuclear force, the same that governs the Macro Universe?

Is the strong nuclear force another name for Gravity??

F = m1*m2/ "the distance of both "from their centers squared"

Edited November 9, 2020 by CuriosOne

[MigL]

So many misconceptions.
So many wrong assertions.
Remember what I said about looking stuff up, before putting your ignorance on display ?

Ask one question at a time, and don't go jumping to conclusions.
The only gravity there is, is classical, whether Newtonian or GR.
Yes, atomic particles interact gravitationally.
For an atomic particle, the Electromagnetic interaction is approx. a billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger than the Gravitational interaction.
The Strong interaction, mediated by gluons and binding quarks below its asymptotic limit, is 137 times stronger than the Electromagnetic interaction, but only 'residual' force binds nucleons inside the nucleus, and quickly drops off after that.

So why would you conflate the two, and go on to make all the other ignorant assertions ???
 

[CuriosOne]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

So many misconceptions.
So many wrong assertions.
Remember what I said about looking stuff up, before putting your ignorance on display ?

Ask one question at a time, and don't go jumping to conclusions.
The only gravity there is, is classical, whether Newtonian or GR.
Yes, atomic particles interact gravitationally.
For an atomic particle, the Electromagnetic interaction is approx. a billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger than the Gravitational interaction.
The Strong interaction, mediated by gluons and binding quarks below its asymptotic limit, is 137 times stronger than the Electromagnetic interaction, but only 'residual' force binds nucleons inside the nucleus, and quickly drops off after that.

So why would you conflate the two, and go on to make all the other ignorant assertions ???
 

Isn't there a huge difference between "electro magnatism" and gravity??

For instance, Gravity "weak force" becomes very strong in black holes.

 

""I also need to mention this"""

Can gravity be described as waves, just as particle wave duality?

If what you are saying is true, then some of my educational resources are "not lagitimate" which is dissapointing to me.

Also, all of my OP have not been conclusive in general, they remain opened ended questions...

Edited November 9, 2020 by CuriosOne

[MigL]

43 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

For instance, Gravity "weak force" becomes very strong in black holes.

Why would you think that ?
Any two masses are attracted with the same force, at the same distance, whether one is a Black Hole or not.

45 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Can gravity be described as waves, just as particle wave duality?

Gravity is a force just like Electromagnetism, which can more accurately be described as space-time curvature.
How or why would it manifest itself as a particle or a wave ??

 

49 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

If what you are saying is true, then some of my educational resources are "not lagitimate" which is dissapointing to me.

No, more likely you are putting no effort into understanding your educational sources, and spectacularly misinterpreting them.

[CuriosOne]

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why would you think that ?
Any two masses are attracted with the same force, at the same distance, whether one is a Black Hole or not.

Gravity is a force just like Electromagnetism, which can more accurately be described as space-time curvature.
How or why would it manifest itself as a particle or a wave ??

 

No, more likely you are putting no effort into understanding your educational sources, and spectacularly misinterpreting them.

I was talking about "quantum gravity" research, so the "you" as "me" is the many of them in this field, and before you go ahead and start to passively insult this too, it's been in the making for years...

I respect your opinion on my educational sources, and im glad I don't believe anything I read or study...

 

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by CuriosOne

[Markus Hanke]

3 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

Does Classical Gravity exist in the "atom."

Yes...but on these scales the effects of gravity are so small as to be negligible. 

3 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

If not what keeps the atom held in place..

Electromagnetism, the strong interaction, and the general laws of quantum mechanics.

3 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

Is this strong nuclear force, the same that governs the Macro Universe?

No. The strong interaction has a very short range, it is only effective within the nucleus.

3 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

Is the strong nuclear force another name for Gravity??

No, they are entirely different phenomena.

3 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

F = m1*m2/ "the distance of both "from their centers squared"

The strong interaction is not a force in the Newtonian sense, rather, it denotes the dynamics of how colour charges are exchanged between quarks, by way of gluons. Its precise details are very complicated.

[MigL]

And why would quantum gravity be described as a particle or a wave ?

Two leading contenders describe space-time as either 11 dimensional, where particles, and supersymmetric particles, are open or closed vibrating strings ( sstring theory ), or, quantized space-time elements are 'looped' together ( LQG ).
The only particle or wave to be considered is the massless, spin 2, virtual particle that mediates gravity ( like the photon does for Electromagnetism ), which has gained the popular name, graviton.

Edited November 9, 2020 by MigL

[CuriosOne]

11 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes...but on these scales the effects of gravity are so small as to be negligible. 

Electromagnetism, the strong interaction, and the general laws of quantum mechanics.

No. The strong interaction has a very short range, it is only effective within the nucleus.

No, they are entirely different phenomena.

The strong interaction is not a force in the Newtonian sense, rather, it denotes the dynamics of how colour charges are exchanged between quarks, by way of gluons. Its precise details are very complicated.

This makes clearer sense now....

But in regards to the inner atom's quarks and etc...How can we truly know they are real??

Yes I know about particle colliders, but how do we really know fundamental particles exist??

[Danijel Gorupec]

24 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes...but on these scales the effects of gravity are so small as to be negligible.

Hmm... I have no doubt gravity exists even at atomic scales, but the question was about 'classical gravity'. In my understanding, 'classical gravity' would be a 'smooth' (non-quantum) thing that behaves perfectly predictable. Sure, it could be that at the atomic scale the gravity is (still) pretty much classical, but do we know this?

[Markus Hanke]

17 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

But in regards to the inner atom's quarks and etc...How can we truly know they are real??

We have powerful enough particle accelerators to be able to look for them. Basically what you do is accelerate some particle (usually electrons) to very high velocities, and then shoot them at protons and neutrons, being the composite particles that make up atomic nuclei. You then observe what happens, which allows you to deduce the internal structure of the protons and neutrons. This is called “deep inelastic scattering”.

21 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Yes I know about particle colliders, but how do we really know fundamental particles exist??

By observing how they interact with their environments. We already know the laws that govern the dynamics of all hitherto known particles, so what you do is observe how these particles interact and behave. For example, you can collide particles at high velocities in particle accelerators; since their dynamics are subject to a number of (known) conservation laws, you can - by observing the outcome of such collisions - deduce whether or not the particles are elementary or composite, because generally speaking the known laws of physics place very stringent constraints on what is possible and what isn’t.

12 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

In my understanding, 'classical gravity' would be a 'smooth' (non-quantum) thing that behaves perfectly predictable.

A small correction - classical gravity is deterministic, but not necessarily predictable. These are two different things. 

13 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Sure, it could be that at the atomic scale the gravity is (still) pretty much classical, but do we know this?

You’re right, I actually overlooked the ‘classical’ bit.
Technically speaking gravity on atomic scales is no longer purely classical, since the constituents of the atom are quantum systems, and subject to the laws of quantum mechanics. This would need to be accounted for. Nonetheless, gravity (quantum or classical) plays no role in the structure of the atom itself, since its effects are so weak as to be negligible.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

This makes clearer sense now....

But in regards to the inner atom's quarks and etc...How can we truly know they are real??

At some level, we don't know if they are real (there are lots of things in physics we know aren't real). But the nuclei behave as if they are.

We make models and compare experimental results with the models. The best model for what we observe is that neutrons and protons are made of three quarks, which interact in a certain way, as Markus has mentioned.

The models do not lay claim to reality of existence, just the reality of behavior. 

 

[SergUpstart]

10 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

Does Classical Gravity exist in the "atom."

It exists, but it is very weak. More than 40 orders of magnitude weaker than the electromagnetic interaction

[CuriosOne]

10 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Hmm... I have no doubt gravity exists even at atomic scales, but the question was about 'classical gravity'. In my understanding, 'classical gravity' would be a 'smooth' (non-quantum) thing that behaves perfectly predictable. Sure, it could be that at the atomic scale the gravity is (still) pretty much classical, but do we know this?

Great point, I would also love to know.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

At some level, we don't know if they are real (there are lots of things in physics we know aren't real). But the nuclei behave as if they are.

We make models and compare experimental results with the models. The best model for what we observe is that neutrons and protons are made of three quarks, which interact in a certain way, as Markus has mentioned.

The models do not lay claim to reality of existence, just the reality of behavior. 

 

Even if they were real, they are believed to be "vertual" in just that fact that atoms & molecules act as waves makes it more complex, I do respect its field of study and dedication.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Hmm... I have no doubt gravity exists even at atomic scales, but the question was about 'classical gravity'. In my understanding, 'classical gravity' would be a 'smooth' (non-quantum) thing that behaves perfectly predictable. Sure, it could be that at the atomic scale the gravity is (still) pretty much classical, but do we know this?

iWhen you solve Schrödinger's equation for the hydrogen atom, the potential term is just the Coulomb potential energy. Completely classical. And as Serg pointed out, the value for the gravitational potential energy is ~40 orders of magnitude smaller.

There's nothing here that suggests you need anything but Newtonian gravity, since deviations from that would only happen for exceedingly massive entities (which we don't have) or exceedingly short distances. We already know the effect can be safely ignored, so GR deviations from it can likewise be ignored.

9 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

 Even if they were real, they are believed to be "vertual" in just that fact that atoms & molecules act as waves makes it more complex, I do respect its field of study and dedication.

I wasn't even referencing virtual particles, which we acknowledge not to be real.

Phonons, for example, are just a convenient way of describing the quantized nature of vibrational states. It makes understanding the behavior easier, but phonons don't have to actually exist in order to do the analysis. Or semiconductor holes; they are literally the absence of an electron, so the hole is not some object that independently exists. It's purely for convenience of understanding and ease of calculation.

So are electrons actually particles, or are they excitations of some field? It depends on what you're trying to do. In science you use the model that is going to give you the answer that is in best agreement with how nature behaves. It doesn't matter if elements of that model don't physically exist; the model works.

[CuriosOne]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

iWhen you solve Schrödinger's equation for the hydrogen atom, the potential term is just the Coulomb potential energy. Completely classical. And as Serg pointed out, the value for the gravitational potential energy is ~40 orders of magnitude smaller.

There's nothing here that suggests you need anything but Newtonian gravity, since deviations from that would only happen for exceedingly massive entities (which we don't have) or exceedingly short distances. We already know the effect can be safely ignored, so GR deviations from it can likewise be ignored.

I wasn't even referencing virtual particles, which we acknowledge not to be real.

Phonons, for example, are just a convenient way of describing the quantized nature of vibrational states. It makes understanding the behavior easier, but phonons don't have to actually exist in order to do the analysis. Or semiconductor holes; they are literally the absence of an electron, so the hole is not some object that independently exists. It's purely for convenience of understanding and ease of calculation.

So are electrons actually particles, or are they excitations of some field? It depends on what you're trying to do. In science you use the model that is going to give you the answer that is in best agreement with how nature behaves. It doesn't matter if elements of that model don't physically exist; the model works.

What is a model in scientific terms??

When i think of a model I think of:

G*m1*m2/r^2

[MigL]

4 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

When i think of a model I think of:

G*m1*m2/r^2

That is the Newtonian model of gravity.

As to where Gravity needs to take into account quantum effects ?
Separation, on sub-atomic scales , can be considered in terms of energy.
( The amount of energy needed to overcome the separation distance )
Gravity, and other forces, tend towards a common strength at energies in excess of 10¹⁹  GEv ( 10³² deg. K ).
That is normally called the Planck scale.
You would need to get pretty close to these scales before gravity starts being 'modified'.
Otherwise, any quantum effects are as trivial as to the world at large.

[CuriosOne]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

That is the Newtonian model of gravity.

As to where Gravity needs to take into account quantum effects ?
Separation, on sub-atomic scales , can be considered in terms of energy.
( The amount of energy needed to overcome the separation distance )
Gravity, and other forces, tend towards a common strength at energies in excess of 10¹⁹  GEv ( 10³² deg. K ).
That is normally called the Planck scale.
You would need to get pretty close to these scales before gravity starts being 'modified'.
Otherwise, any quantum effects are as trivial as to the world at large.

It's very disappointing to think a scale that small is nearly impossible...I'm sure there are other alternatives though...