B How many electrons to make a stable gravitational object?

AI Thread Summary
Creating a stable gravitational object composed solely of electrons is fundamentally challenged by the significant electromagnetic repulsion between them, which is 23 orders of magnitude stronger than gravitational attraction. This repulsion prevents the formation of such an object under normal conditions, as electrons would naturally neutralize with positively charged particles. The discussion also briefly touches on neutrinos, which lack charge and could theoretically form a gravitational object, but their properties make crowding them together impractical. Ultimately, the consensus is that the charge-to-mass ratio of electrons ensures that gravitational attraction cannot overcome electromagnetic repulsion. Therefore, a stable object made entirely of electrons is not feasible.
Feynstein100
Messages
181
Reaction score
17
I was wondering if we could have an object made up of only electrons. Normally, that wouldn't be possible because electrons repel each other. However, this repulsion can be overcome using gravity. So my question is, how many electrons would you need to have their gravitational attraction overcome the electromagnetic repulsion and form a stable object? Or perhaps is the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron such that the electromagnetic repulsion will always be higher than the gravitational attraction and thus preclude such an object?
Of course, an object like that would not form naturally since the electromagnetic force has the tendency to self-limit via neutralization. So for our purposes, we assume that there aren't any positively charged particles nearby to neutralize our object. There are only electrons.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Feynstein100 said:
So my question is, how many electrons would you need to have their gravitational attraction overcome the electromagnetic repulsion and form a stable object?
What did you find when you did your Google searches to compare the electrostatic force to the gravitational force at typical atomic lattice distances?
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander
berkeman said:
What did you find when you did your Google searches to compare the electrostatic force to the gravitational force at typical atomic lattice distances?
That the electromagnetic force is 23 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.
Feynstein100 said:
Or perhaps is the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron such that the electromagnetic repulsion will always be higher than the gravitational attraction and thus preclude such an object?
So I guess this is the answer?
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
Feynstein100 said:
That the electromagnetic force is 23 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.
Boom! :wink:
 
berkeman said:
Boom! :wink:
I'll take that as a yes 😂 But not so fast. We've still got neutrinos. They don't have charge. So I know you can make a gravitational object out of them 😃 So, indulge me. How many would it take?
 
Neutrinos don't like crowds, so that would not work. They also hate to be anthropomorphized, so I'll have to tie off this thread now before they get their neutrino union involved... :wink:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, phinds, anorlunda and 1 other person
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
View full post »
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (First part)'

Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (First part)'

I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8 and stuck at some statements. It's little bit confused. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. Solution : The surface bound charge on the ##xy## plane is of opposite sign to ##q##, so the force will be...
View full post »

Thread 'Simple thought experiment with Stefan-Boltzmann law: energy'

Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Is this analogy between Magnetic Force and Gravitational Force accurate in helping to understand what contributes more to a stronger magnetic force?
Replies
11
Views
2K
B Problems I Have With Electrostatics and Pith Ball Experiments
Replies
10
Views
4K
I Can a Black Hole be Destroyed by Electron Beam?
Replies
4
Views
2K
I The electron as a smeared charge density
Replies
13
Views
3K
How much stuff will neutralise the sun's pull on the earth
Replies
6
Views
4K
B How Do Physicists Explain Black Hole Formation and Electromagnetic Repulsion?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Electrons and their little role in nuclear physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
B How is surface charge accumulated?
Replies
36
Views
6K
B Why gravitational force is attractive? (and why dark matter is repulsive?)
Replies
10
Views
3K
Intro to Electromagnetism: five conceptual questions
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top