Jump to content

Strong gravity


Jacques
 Share

Recommended Posts

We learned that gravity is the weakest force in nature.

My thinking is that is might be not so weak. Maybe the apparent weakness of gravity is a consequence of the reference frame we use to mesure that force.

I know that this idea look strange, but try to follow my reasonning.

Usually we fix a reference frame to something material: the table in the laboratory, the earth, the sun, a space ship the center of the Milkyway...

and we say this is the zero point from which we do our mesurement.

But matter is only a small fraction of our universe, most of it is energy and dark energy, so is it a good idea to fix our reference frame on the material exception ?

The universe is expanding in general and contracting on smaller region where there is enought matter, so can't it be that the basic, natural reference frame be an expanding reference frame ??

Relativity enable us to switch from one reference frame to the other and the only constant is c. Wouldn't it be more natural to use c has the 0 speed ?

A photon would be stationary in that reference frame. All material objects would have a speed of -1 c.

Also we would not need the BigBang to explain the expansion of the universe: the universe is expanding because it is its natural state. Gravity is a force who goes against that natural expansion. What we mesure has gravity is only second order fluctuation of what I called here the "strong gravity"

 

I would like to know if that make some sense to you ? :confused:

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're reasoning this way because you gravity is one of the only real natural forces you can experiance. Let's imagine that you were so small, that you able to visit an atom and experiance the strong forces that hold atoms together. This force would be unlike anything you had ever experiance, and you would see why gravity is considered a weak force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you mean...sort of.

 

But I still disagree.

 

To say that the universe is made up primarily of enegry isn't exactly true but in any case, it doesn't matter. Enegry doesn't "exist" in the terms of distance; I don't walk 5,000 J to school every morning. To say that gravity isn't a weak force because we aren't measuring it correctly is a nice idea, but doesn't exactly stand to reason. Gravity is "weak" because how it interacts with atoms, something that really doesn'y have to do with the difference between matter/enegry/dark enegry. It's "weak" because it governs beta decay and neutrino interactions with nuclei while "strong" forces of nuclear enegry control the binding of quarks to create baryons and the like. The nuclear force is stronger than the weak, so it is named as such. So, your idea is creative, but isn't exactly asking/answering the right thing when it comes to weak vs. strong forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how would you like to see gravity measured?

I don't know yet I didn't ask myself that question. Let me try to continue my reasonning.

First we have the basic (natural) state of the universe is expansion. A massless particle like photon does not need any energy to move at the speed of light. It is just carried away with the progession (expansion) of space. The progession of space is 3 dimensional and something to exist must diverge from that progression. The photon diverge from that progression by having 1 negative motion that cancel the progression in one dimension and leaving the other dimension of the progression unaffected. Material things like electron quark etc... Cancel the 3D of the progression. It might have something todo with [math]E=mc^2[/math]

s space

t time

progression=[math]s^3/t^3[/math]

mass=[math]t^3/s^3[/math]

E=[math]t/s[/math]

[math]E=mc^2 => t/s=t^3/s^3 s^2/t^2 [/math]

Maybe I should used inverse motion instead of negative motion...

So energy is a 1D inverse motion and mass is a 3D inverse motion.

OK for now I think I told enought. I don't want to bother you to much with these crazy idea but I am open to continue if there is some interest in what I say.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gravity is the weakest force between two particles but it is unique in that it affects all particles with mass, simultaneously. The other forces, like the strong nuclear force reaches its limit at 200-250 protons and neutrons. The EM force is also stronger but is often satified with just two particles. The overall summation of this weak gravity force, makes it stronger than the overall summation of all the rest. This allows us to have blackholes where the rest of the forces become overwelmed by gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it affects all particles with mass, simultaneously.

Do you suppose that gravity act instantly ?

The overall summation of this weak gravity force, makes it stronger than the overall summation of all the rest. This allows us to have blackholes where the rest of the forces become overwelmed by gravity.

Good point ! The weakes is finaly the strongest !

 

No.

 

Bettina

That make no sense to you ? Where do you lose me ?

 

experiance the strong forces that hold atoms together. This force would be unlike anything you had ever experiance, and you would see why gravity is considered a weak force.

I am temped to answer you that the strong force is nothing else than 'strong' gravity. I will define strong gravity as the negative of the universal expansion.

The univerasl expansion bring every thing apart. Gravity goes again that universal expansion. Gravity brings every thing togeter. Mathematically speaking: universal expansion is a positive scalar and gravity a negative scalar.

 

Enegry doesn't "exist" in the terms of distance; I don't walk 5,000 J to school every morning.
I don't understand what you are refering to ???
It's "weak" because it governs beta decay and neutrino interactions
In didn't knew that gravity had something to do with that ! I thaught that it was the weak nuclear force governing that scale ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could gravity be weak because it's force is split between 4 dimensions (or however many there really are in the Universe) where as all the other forces aren't?

 

Therefore we can only recognise 1/4 (or an 1/11th or a 1/14th) of the true strength of gravity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could gravity be weak because it's force is split between 4 dimensions (or however many there really are in the Universe) where as all the other forces aren't?

 

Therefore we can only recognise 1/4 (or an 1/11th or a 1/14th) of the true strength of gravity?

 

That is actually a very good comment. This is currently one of the suggestions, that gravity is diluted by leaking into the extra dimensions. It works out that it is not a factor of 1/d (where d is the number of dimensions) but is highly dependent on how tightly the extra dimensions are curled up. Potentially one can put limits on this at the LHC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand what you are saying, matter in the universe "repels" itself by one force, similar to like-charged elements, and we measure gravity as the slim net degree by which it is stronger?

 

If that is the case, then this lesser expansive force must also have the same x/d^2 factor that gravity has to maintain a constant net difference, or one of the forces would become more dominate at some distance.

 

That may be totally off, especially if you differeniate that some areas are expanding while others are contracting due to enough matter within a region which implies these two forces are not perfectly syched and balanced.

 

All the reference frame stuff is over my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand what you are saying, matter in the universe "repels" itself by one force, similar to like-charged elements, and we measure gravity as the slim net degree by which it is stronger?

No you don't understand what I am saying. No, matter doesn't repel itself.

What I am saying is that space naturally expand. Space doesn't need any original force or energy to expand. Space expand and doesn't stop to expand unless a force going in the opposite direction is applied. I can call it the compressing force by opposition with the universal expansion. I prefer to call it strong gravity.

The space expansion happen in 3 dimensions. Any direction you look, space expand (outside our local group of galaxies ). Gravity is also 3 dimensionnal but in the opposite direction. If there is enought of that force going against the expasion in the 3D, you have mass. Space expansion is stopped, but the time expansion doesn't stop. The units of space instead of expanding, are reused again and again in multiples 3D rotations combinations.

If that is the case, then this lesser expansive force must also have the same x/d^2 factor that gravity has to maintain a constant net difference, or one of the forces would become more dominate at some distance.

Yes the inverse square law apply. Yes at some distance the expansion dominate. That distance is called the gravitationnal limit.

For the inverse square follow that analogy:

Figure the space expansion as a foam of soap bubble with air continuously injected. Figure mass as a vacuum cleaner . The effect of the vacuum cleaner is to destroy the bubble around the hole and the the further away from the hole the smaller the effect.

 

Anyway thanks for your interest but I don't feel that these thaught interest many of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you don't understand what I am saying. No' date=' matter doesn't repel itself.

What I am saying is that space naturally expand. Space doesn't need any original force or energy to expand. Space expand and doesn't stop to expand unless a force going in the opposite direction is applied. I can call it the compressing force by opposition with the universal expansion. I prefer to call it strong gravity.

The space expansion happen in 3 dimensions. Any direction you look, space expand (outside our local group of galaxies ). Gravity is also 3 dimensionnal but in the opposite direction. If there is enought of that force going against the expasion in the 3D, you have mass. Space expansion is stopped, but the time expansion doesn't stop. The units of space instead of expanding, are reused again and again in multiples 3D rotations combinations.

[/quote']

I think I understand what you are saying better. Matter moves apart as if repulsed, but as a side effect of the space it exists in expanding naturally, and the attractive capacity of gravity causes mass to overcome the expansion effect with the net effect of appearing weak.

Yes the inverse square law apply. Yes at some distance the expansion dominate. That distance is called the gravitationnal limit.

For the inverse square follow that analogy:

Figure the space expansion as a foam of soap bubble with air continuously injected. Figure mass as a vacuum cleaner . The effect of the vacuum cleaner is to destroy the bubble around the hole and the the further away from the hole the smaller the effect.

 

Anyway thanks for your interest but I don't feel that these thaught interest many of you.

 

I am not sure if this can work mathatically.

 

Gravity appears to have a consistant strength at any distance according to the inverse square. If the expansion factor would have to be exactly inverse square as well, and neither force would dominate, or it would have to have something other than an inverse square strength of effect so that at a great distance it could be more powerful than gravity.

 

If the latter is the case, I don't think gravity could follow the inverse square law as it is observed to. Unless there is a mathmatical formula that matches inverse squared perfectly for a large portion of the function and then suddenly veers off at a specific value (to account for expansion effect deluting then dominating gravity) or gravity cannot be 1/d^2 based. And if the latter is true in that case, you would still need a formula in which the sum of gravity attraction and spatial expansion is a net 1/d^2 perfectly then veers off to allow expansion to dominate.

 

I don't know complex math, or even what many would consider fairly simple math, but I am suspect if a single formula can appear to be 1/d^2 exactly for a large portion of the function and then veer into the negative (ie where expansion is greater than attraction) to successfully describe the effect you are contemplating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gravity is not weak,its strong enough to let the atoms combine together,if u think gravity is weak why cant u break iron bar just by your hand

 

Gravity is considered weak when compared to the other forces, and understanding why it is so much weaker than the others is considered a dilema of sorts in physics.

 

The gravitational attraction between protons is approximately a factor of 10^36 weaker than the electromagnetic repulsion.

- Wikipedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gravity is not weak,its strong enough to let the atoms combine together,if u think gravity is weak why cant u break iron bar just by your hand

 

The iron bar is held together by electromagnetism - not gravity. The very fact that gravity can't pull the iron bar apart (try holding just one end of the bar) shows that it is much weaker than electromagnetism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We learned that gravity is the weakest force in nature.

My thinking is that is might be not so weak. Maybe the apparent weakness of gravity is a consequence of the reference frame we use to mesure that force.

I know that this idea look strange' date=' but try to follow my reasonning.

Usually we fix a reference frame to something material: the table in the laboratory, the earth, the sun, a space ship the center of the Milkyway...

and we say this is the zero point from which we do our mesurement.

But matter is only a small fraction of our universe, most of it is energy and dark energy, so is it a good idea to fix our reference frame on the material exception ?

The universe is expanding in general and contracting on smaller region where there is enought matter, so can't it be that the basic, natural reference frame be an expanding reference frame ??

Relativity enable us to switch from one reference frame to the other and the only constant is c. Wouldn't it be more natural to use c has the 0 speed ?

A photon would be stationary in that reference frame. All material objects would have a speed of -1 c.

Also we would not need the BigBang to explain the expansion of the universe: the universe is expanding because it is its natural state. Gravity is a force who goes against that natural expansion. What we mesure has gravity is only second order fluctuation of what I called here the "strong gravity"

 

I would like to know if that make some sense to you ? :confused:

Thanks[/quote']

What if we try a simple explanation? (see attachement)

Kris

Gravity.doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.