• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

?Nuclear Force = Gravity?

Migrated topic.
C

Cheeto

Rising Star
I may seem like an idiot for suggesting this yet again, but i got no replys to this in another topic and i can't stop thinking about it, its really driving me crazy. Let me spill my thoughts.

What i've been thinking deeply about is, Is gravity really just the nuclear force?

Explanation for a black hole:

When a supuer-nova blows up to create a black hole, say you have a million atoms, in this explosion it compresses all atoms until they bond into one super atom, all nucleuses of the atoms form one single nucleus, creating a super atom.

Gravity would be from the nuclear force, light would not escape because of all the electrons orbiting the super atom, strong Magnetic force pulling light towards it.

There is much more, but before i take the time to write it all out, is there any known proof that this is not the case, and Nuclear force and force of gravity are seperate?
 
Interesting idea, but from my limited knowledge they are very different. I had a quick look & found a bit of info on this on a different forum. I'll PM a link to you just in case it was you that started that one as well!

If it isn't you then maybe post the link here. To be honest you're best off asking that kind of question on a forum more specific to physics IMO.

I have read another interesting theory that gravity travels between our universe and other parallel universes or dimensions. This is why it is so weak v's the other forces, which only exist in our universe / dimension.

A very simple analogy is to imagine our univese as a pool table surface. When two balls strike they make a noise that travels away from the table, yet the balls themselves are "trapped" on the table. If your ear were trapped on the table with the balls, the sound energy you would hear would be much less than the total. Gravity may radiate away from our universe in a similar manner, hence when it gets really strong (black holes), it rips between these universes. Nice idea!
 
benzyme said:
at the very fundamental level of particle physics, gravity is the force keeping matter together.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what your saying. Gravity keeps matter together, isn't matter made of Atoms? If matter is held together by gravity, and matter is made of Atoms, would that clearly say something in the atom is responsible for gravity, what forces hold the atom together, nuclear forces. Thats what i've been thinking about.

benzyme said:
fusion (not the fusion most people think of) is the force trying to tear it apart.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to nuclear fusion? I thought it was the exact oppisite, The particals with the same charge magneticly push each other apart, but once they get so close to each other the nuclear force/fusion over powers their push and holds them together.

wow, nice link 1664, and no that wasn't me. But i like this kids questions, a little different than mine, but the same idea. I'll see how this played out, see what i can learn.
I'll also look into the weak force and strong force, never looked at anything on it. I heard a physicist explaining how atoms come together with the nuclear force(On a show), though he didn't say anything about weak and strong force that i recall.



Space.com: NASA, Space Exploration and Astronomy News
 
DrRocket said:
Actually many people in the business are extremely aware of the characteristics of all four known forces -- electromagnetic, strong, weak, gravitational. They are aware of the similarities and differences. The strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces are carried by known bosons, while the gravitational force is only conjectured to be carried by an undiscovered boson, the graviton. The bosons that carry the strong and weak forces have non-zero rest mass, while the boson that carries the electromagnetic force, the photon has zero rest mass. The graviton, if it exists is thought to also have zero rest mass. It is the lack of rest mass of the boson for the electromagnetic force and the hypothesized boson for gravity that explains why those forces obey an inverse square law and have unlimited range, while the strong and weak forces are limited.

It is also a subject of intense research to develop a unified theory that explains all of the known forces, presumably in a framework that unifies them and shows them to be different aspects of a single theory that manifests the forces as we know them at modest energies but shows a unification at extremely high energies.


The problem of unifying the known forces at high energies has proved to be a daunting task, and at this time there is no known unifying theory or indeed any viable quantum theory of gravity. Gravity has defied all attempts to devise a renormalizable theory, apparently because of self-interaction of the graviton with itself. This problem has occupied and defied some of the most brilliant and creative minds on the planet. and involves some extremely complex mathematics and in fact has and continues to require the development of entirely new mathematical theories. It is quite probably the deepest and most difficult research program in theoretical physics.

Your suggestion that an amateur,lacking all knowledge of the underlying physics of quantum field theory has even a .001% chance of cracking this difficult problem is simply absurd. It demonstrates a complete lack of appreciation for the issues involved and will likely lead to a great deal of frustration on the part of anyone sufficiently naive to attack it without any of the necessary tools. The only reasonable way to attack this problem is to first understand what is known and then and only then attempt to devise better theories. To advise anyone to do otherwise is pointless and demonstrates lack of recognition of the frustration that that can be inflicted through a recommendation made in total ignorance.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, have no idea of the underlying physics, are making a foolish and potentially destructive suggestion, and apparently have paid no attention to the posts in this thread that precede yours..
Click to expand...

Rocket Man helps explain alot, i clearly see the flaw in my thinking. But i must ask, i wonder why people always have to act like assholes, i mean i know hes trying to help out, but you still have the choice of being friendly rather than insulting like a dick.
 
Cheeto said:
DrRocket said:
As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, have no idea of the underlying physics, are making a foolish and potentially destructive suggestion, and apparently have paid no attention to the posts in this thread that precede yours..
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yeah I thought that was harsh as well Cheeto. I think people need to make an effort to understand where the other is coming from. It must be frustrating as a well read scientist to read unfounded theories on forums that are claiming to be truth. Having said that there is rarely any need to attack like this DrRocket does. I think it is a really healthy thing to ponder problems and the nature of reality and come up with your own ideas about them, however different! I do this all the time, then I read to find out why I am wrong. I have learnt so much more this way.

The difficulty, especially with physics, is that actually understanding any of it thoroughly requires a phd in maths. I think if these guys who have a phd want to spend their time on a public forum then they should have the respect and decency to be polite to people who contribute to that forum. If they get fed up with them, then they shouldn't post, or get them removed from the member list.

I wonder if DrRocket would talk like that to his face? Of course not, I doubt he would even talk to him, so why act differently here? If all you do is read what the boffins like DrRocket say you miss out on a massive part of all of it - wonderment. I say fair play to you Cheeto and keep asking the questions.
 
benzyme said:
at the very fundamental level of particle physics, gravity is the force keeping matter together....
Click to expand...

I think the differences between gravity and covalent bonds (or Van der Waals) are being misinterpreted here. Gravity or gravitation is a phenomenon.
 
yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of stars.

at the subatomic level, there are forces which can only be described mathmatically, there is no means of testing it.
for that, there's a whole branch of speculation...called theoretical physics.

I wouldn't confuse Van Der Wahls interactions with gravity, they're two completely different forces.
so are van der wahls and covalent bonds, they're not quite the same.
(covalent bonds contain greater free energy)
 
Even if i'm completly off in gravity being the strong nuclear force, which i am, i still like the discription of a black hole i came up with, If a super partical like this could be made, would it act as a black hole, such mass in one atom would have one hell of a gravity feild, and the strong magnetic forces from the electrons in this atom would pull light in allowing it to not escape. But, would it be possible, would there be enough energy to form a large super atom like this in a supernova?

I really wish we could try to come up with methods of perhaps, in some way, have a computer fill your brain up with knowledge, like downloading a PHD in physics into your brain, so one person could have a PHD in all feilds of science, one brain with all that information could come up with some revolutionary shit i do believe.
 
HAHAHA!!!

Funny i didn't think of that, hence, a neutron star, nucleus of an atom.



But, to clearify what your saying, are the many nucleuses just pushed tightly together, or are they actually merged into one nucleus of one atom, perhaps that could be the next step if thats not what a neutron star is. Where all the necleuses merge into one, causeing the electrons to orbit only the outside, rather than through all the tightly packed nucleuses(Within the star)

Once the electrons where forced to orbit only the outside of the star, the magnetic feild would increase greatly, allowing it to be strong enough for light to not escape.

I say this, because it has been proved that magnetic forces strong enough can stop light from moving, to hold in place photons. I think they also used absolute zero temps aswell, but in space you have this.

Something else interesting just came to me, perhaps thats how a neutron star is created, a supernova that wasn't quite strong enough to merge the atoms into one, but make the nucleuses bond together, creating a neutron star.
 
I'm basically looking to find an explanation that dosen't involve the possibility of a hole being put into space, i don't comprehend how you can put a hole in space, space to me is a hole.
 
If you want to learn about black holes I recommend reading a book by Leonard Susskind called "the black hole war". It will answer most of your questions about physics in general.

Anyway concerning your super atom. When an atom reaches a certain atomic number it becomes highly radioactive and unstable. This is why the periodic table doesn't go on forever. So no there is no way a super atom like that could form unless somehow these atoms could be stabilized. But if that's not easy to do with some elements on the periodic table and other isotopes its not going to happen that all the atoms in a star will become one giant atom. So don't bother speculating about such a thing. Learn the basics and you won't have to waste your time with questions like these.
 
burnt said:
If you want to learn about black holes I recommend reading a book by Leonard Susskind called "the black hole war". It will answer most of your questions about physics in general.

Anyway concerning your super atom. When an atom reaches a certain atomic number it becomes highly radioactive and unstable. This is why the periodic table doesn't go on forever. So no there is no way a super atom like that could form unless somehow these atoms could be stabilized. But if that's not easy to do with some elements on the periodic table and other isotopes its not going to happen that all the atoms in a star will become one giant atom. So don't bother speculating about such a thing. Learn the basics and you won't have to waste your time with questions like these.
Click to expand...

I might look that book up, but i have ADHD, and much trouble making myself intake information i'm not deeply interested in. Example: Though i have my books i reported, i have not read much of them at all. As i get started, i find it would really take forever for me to gain all the knowledge required to think about the things i like to think about, i would actually be using all my time bored as hell trying to intake the vast amount of knowledge presented, like a big boreing headache. Though, that book might be for me. But as far as wasting my time, i don't see it like that at all, i'm not a scientist trying to crack a code for others, i'm just a person who as a hobby, loves to think about these things, ask questions and find my flaws, if i'm learning out of fun, how is it a waste? Is having fun a waste? No, but i do see where your comming from, let me give you a nother view though.

I'm sure your fimilair with thinking outside the box, thats what i do in my day job, i build swimming pools, though it may not sound complex, and sure, many people can learn to do it, you do have to be somewhat skilled at thinking outside of the box, every pool dosen't go as it should and i have to come up with diffirent soulutions all the time to "Make it work". May sound silly, but all i can say is try building a hundred pools, many people are sure they can do it and end up calling me for help or to complete or fix it.

I say compaired to a physicist, i don't even have a box, so thinking outside of it comes very easy. And if the laws of physics break down at any point, to me that obviously states that something is not understood, but many accept it as fact. But once again, its all fun to me, some people travel for fun, i travel in my mind for fun.
 
burnt said:
Anyway concerning your super atom. When an atom reaches a certain atomic number it becomes highly radioactive and unstable. This is why the periodic table doesn't go on forever. So no there is no way a super atom like that could form unless somehow these atoms could be stabilized. But if that's not easy to do with some elements on the periodic table and other isotopes its not going to happen that all the atoms in a star will become one giant atom.
Click to expand...

What if, when such a mass is squeezed to the point of forming the super atom, gravity is at its strongest point and able to stabilized it/hold it together? In my current stance, it seems more reasonable than suggesting gravity riped a hole in space, a hole of nothing that still has gravity, mass is proved to cause gravity, so a black hole must have mass to have gravity, to have mass it must have atoms, or as i suggest, a super atom. A hole in the sence i think of dosen't have any mass, its a hole not an object in existence. But i don't think a black hole is a hole, i think its just mass which is so dence that its forces are strong enough to do what a black hole does, hold everything it has in a very tight grip. Singularity? If a black hole does not have height, lenght and width, then how exacly does it grow, hence the giant black holes at the center of galaxies. The more mass it gains, the bigger it is, which means it does have width, length and heigth. In my theoretical thinking anyway.
 
Black holes can have different sizes. This has been observed. It depends on the mass of the object that collapses. This stuff is well known.

But no a super atom is unstable. Atoms probably don't even exist in black holes they probably are torn apart into more fundamental units that can be squeezed together more. But I dunno the details.

A black hole isn't necessarily a hole in the sense you are thinking about it. You have to remember that space time is curved and warped. A black hole has a certain kind of curvature that nothing can escape although its theoretically they radiate slowly away (hawking radiation).

And if the laws of physics break down at any point, to me that obviously states that something is not understood, but many accept it as fact.
Click to expand...

The problem is describing a relativistic phenomenon like black holes with quantum mechanics when everything gets really small and close and 'fuzzy'. This is where the equations become useless no one has figured it out yet. But it doesn't mean people take it as fact its just a problem to solve.

For example no one thinks the big bang came from a singularity anymore. Hawking and Penrose made a theorum once that said that. But they changed it once quantum mechanics was taken into consideration. Physics grows when more advances are made.
 
I have an interesting question. Is a supernova powerful enough to create these massive black holes at the center of galaxies?

I had always thought of it as black holes grow in size as they eat more mass, is this how science views it?

Another, why do galaxies tend to form this flat disk like shape, and our planets also, rather than orbiting all over?

I'll take a guess at this one, is it kinda a follow the leader type deal, the bodies gradually pull on each other until it forms a flat like disk?
 
Fiashly said:
Cheeto said:
Another, why do galaxies tend to form this flat disk like shape, and our planets also, rather than orbiting all over?
Click to expand...

Not all galaxies are like that.

Click to expand...


i know not all do, but alot of them do. Galaxies that don't have black holes at the center don't, but the ones that do seem to either be in a flat disk, or eventually will be in a flat disk, i think i got that one figured out though.

But burnt stated (This is how i understood anyway) that a black hole's size depends on the object that blew up, but the massive black holes in the center of galaxies seem far to massive for even a supernova, hell, thats what makes small black holes. As a guess, i would think, or it seems, that black holes increase in size as they intake mass. it seems very logical, things can't get smaller for ever.
 
I have an interesting question. Is a supernova powerful enough to create these massive black holes at the center of galaxies?
Click to expand...

I don't know if they know the exact origin of supermassive blackholes in the center of galaxies. Only very recently was proof found that they even exist.

But burnt stated (This is how i understood anyway) that a black hole's size depends on the object that blew up, but the massive black holes in the center of galaxies seem far to massive for even a supernova, hell, thats what makes small black holes. As a guess, i would think, or it seems, that black holes increase in size as they intake mass. it seems very logical, things can't get smaller for ever.
Click to expand...

Not all the mass of what star blows up goes into the black hole. Some does escape. But anyway yes black holes can come into contact with other matter and suck it up. Stephen Hawking has also proposed that black holes slowly irradiate away. This radiation is too small to observe but the theory is sound.
 
Back
Top Bottom