What is the relationship between gravity and a static force?

[fattysc]

I've never went to college and well I've never studied physics at all. But, upon watching Stephen Hawking: Master of The Universe it made me think a whole heck of a lot. In this they talked about gravity being weak and losing its strength the further it got away from where it originates. A lady had a magnet and a paper clip and showed how easy it was to pull it apart even though the gravity holding her down to the Earth was stronger. Which I think points out that gravity is static and is controlled by another force (for lack of a better word).

None the less I wanted to develop a theory that finds out what I think is the static force that controls this and how this static force can effect gravity and the particles that gravity interacts with.

I hope I don't make a fool of myself.

Thanks for any information you might be able me with.

 

[humanino]

Gravity is the force and we're searching for the forces Higgs particle at CERN.

I don't understand this statement. Can you elaborate ?

Only gravities mediating particles are unaccounted for, it is hoped if the Higgs Boson is found - the equivalent of the electron in electromagnetism - that we can put the missing piece in the standard model, and build a theory of gravity, eventually perhaps unifying it and the other forces. There are tentative theories that suggest a Higgs field much like the electromagnetic field but as yet they are not concrete.

Are you suggesting that the Higgs has direct relevance to gravity ? How so ? This is quite speculative. In fact, there are numerous scenarios without Higgs, some of them relevant to gravity, other not. So really, I am confused by what you are trying to point to.

 

[Evo]

Dagda, you're quoting wikipedia to someone that has a PhD in particle physics?

 

[humanino]

No I'm quoting wiki to people in general. And I had no idea he had a PhD but if so I apologise if he thought I was talking directly to him, that is though why I said those of you. I assumed he knew what he was talking about by his disregard of the standard model. If its inapt to quote wiki in GD, then I apologise also. I am a noob though.

So eventually, the only argument you have is "both Higgs and gravity are related to the concept of mass, therefore, one is relevant to the other". Nice. Thanks for the precision, it's quite memorable.

 

[humanino]

None the less I wanted to develop a theory that finds out what I think is the static force that controls this and how this static force can effect gravity and the particles that gravity interacts with.

If you want to develop theoretical ideas about fundamental physics, you will have to use a minimal amount of mathematics. Words and sentences in physics are only useful to help us understand what is behind the equations. Only once you have the mathematics formulated, you should be able to produce quantitative predictions that are in agreement with everything that has already been measured, and ideally, that are in disagreement with currently accepted theories upon something which could, even in principle, be measured. Even better, your theory might be able to explain something that we have already measured, but that current theories have difficulties to come to terms with. If you achieve all this, fame is yours. If you achieve only part of it, depending how much, you might or might not be able to publish it.

 

[fattysc]

I'm not sure what you are getting at, and the precision is unnecessary when talking to a layman; like I said I'm not trying to advance my personal theory only explaining what is currently being done, if you want to advance any other theory then by all means have at it.

I'm not sure why you are picking on me but hell whatever floats your boat?

I'm merely talking to people on a level I hope they'll understand, if not then they are welcome to question me. I'm not even referring to you, as I say if you want an in depth answer then by all means I'll try, but I didn't think it was necessary, you have shown me that it is, I guess thanks?

Do we really want to get into string theory, LQG, or other models, when the OP is obviously not going to even vaguely understand them?

Yeah mass is related to something, glad we sorted that out.

I might not understand them but I can always go to the wikki and post the answers like you did. And portray myself as if I do understand them. I fancy the way you tried to make me look like a complete idiot after you got shot down trying to show off to some one who has a phd.

If you want to develop theoretical ideas about fundamental physics, you will have to use a minimal amount of mathematics. Words and sentences in physics are only useful to help us understand what is behind the equations. Only once you have the mathematics formulated, you should be able to produce quantitative predictions that are in agreement with everything that has already been measured, and ideally, that are in disagreement with currently accepted theories upon something which could, even in principle, be measured. Even better, your theory might be able to explain something that we have already measured, but that current theories have difficulties to come to terms with. If you achieve all this, fame is yours. If you achieve only part of it, depending how much, you might or might not be able to publish it.

I appreciate your input greatly. I have some of the equation already written out using variables that I do not understand yet. I just know that for some reason physics consumed me within a small amount of time after never really thinking about it. After all it is theoretical right?

This site seems like a great place to start though.

Thanks for the information guys!

 

[G01]

can anyone tell me what was wrong with my first post? t

It seems to me your problem was trying to explain something that you seemingly don't understand yourself.

I first became a member of this site right out of high school. I basically was a gigantic "newbie" and still am in most respects, even though I am going to grad school for physics next year.

PF has no problem with newbies. I know because I was one and they accepted me. What PF does have a problem with is people who pass along incorrect information. Whether this information is passed along purposefully or through ignorance, it does not matter. The proliferation of incorrect scientific information will not be allowed to happen here.

The reason humanino criticized your post is because it portrays incorrect and speculative information. You admit that you are a newbie in the subject, so why are you trying to explain a theory you do not fully understand? How can you be sure you are explaining things correctly?

Personally, I know that I could not adequately explain gravity to a layman, since I do not understand the intricacies of the theory myself, and I am going to graduate with a degree in physics in May and go on to grad school next fall.

The best way to earn respect on this forum is to know where your breadth of knowledge begins and ends. Teach when you are able, but sit back and learn in areas where you are not as knowledgeable. If your experience is like mine, you will be spending most of your time on PF learning.

 

[WhoWee]

It seems to me your problem was trying to explain something that you seemingly don't understand yourself.

I first became a member of this site right out of high school. I basically was a gigantic "newbie" and still am in most respects, even though I am going to grad school for physics next year.

PF has no problem with newbies. I know because I was one and they accepted me. What PF does have a problem with is people who pass along incorrect information. Whether this information is passed along purposefully or through ignorance, it does not matter. The proliferation of incorrect scientific information will not be allowed to happen here.

The reason humanino criticized your post is because it portrays incorrect and speculative information. You admit that you are a newbie in the subject, so why are you trying to explain a theory you do not fully understand? How can you be sure you are explaining things correctly?

Personally, I know that I could not adequately explain gravity to a layman, since I do not understand the intricacies of the theory myself, and I am going to graduate with a degree in physics in May and go on to grad school next fall.

The best way to earn respect on this forum is to know where your breadth of knowledge begins and ends. Teach when you are able, but sit back and learn in areas where you are not as knowledgeable. If your experience is like mine, you will be spending most of your time on PF learning.

Let's not forget entertaining...best drama on the net.

 

[Hootenanny]

Hello again Dagda,

I will admit that I haven't read all your posts here, but as you have asked someone to point our an incorrect statement in your OP, I will of course oblige:

it is hoped if the Higgs Boson is found - the equivalent of the electron in electromagnetism

Could you perhaps explain how the Higgs is equivalent to the electron?

 

[Vanadium 50]

The electron doesn't mediate electromagnetism. The photon does.

 

[G01]

Let's try and find out why this mysterious judgement about what I know or don't know comes from shall we?

As Vanadium shows in the following example, my mysterious judgment is based off your posts in this thread.

Equivalent as in it is the boson that mediates the force, ie the electron and photon mediate electromagnetism the Higgs and graviton are the searched for mediators of gravity.

The electron doesn't mediate electromagnetism. The photon does.

 

[Evo]

Misinformation deleted, hopefully we can get the thread back on topic.

 

[samalkhaiat]

I've never went to college and well I've never studied physics at all. ...

None the less I wanted to develop a theory ...

To develop a theory by deductive manner, you must

1) form a general set of concepts whose introduction is suggested by physical
phenomena/thought experiements.
2) limit the range of application of these concepts by some sort of "fundamental principles".
3) show that the limited concepts, together with the mathematical relations between them,
form a self-consistent scheme.

4) go to college and study physics for many years.


sam

 

[Redbelly98]

None the less I wanted to develop a theory that finds out what I think is the static force that controls this and how this static force can effect gravity and the particles that gravity interacts with.

Your enthusiasm and interest in physics are commendable. I'll just say that one requirement for developing a new theory would be to learn and understand the theories that are in place and accepted now, as well as just what the problems or limitations of those theories might be.

 

[Astronuc]

Theories start with observations. One develops a theory in physics to explain and quantify relationships. As Redbelly98 recommended, one should start with the advantage that certain theories already exist.

A lady had a magnet and a paper clip and showed how easy it was to pull it apart even though the gravity holding her down to the Earth was stronger. Which I think points out that gravity is static and is controlled by another force (for lack of a better word).

None the less I wanted to develop a theory that finds out what I think is the static force that controls this and how this static force can effect gravity and the particles that gravity interacts with.

Well the example of the lady, the paper clip and magnet indicate relative strengths or magnitudes of force, but not necessarily that gravity is static. One should first look at the mathematics of the rules or laws with which we describe magnetism and gravity.

 

[jhicks]

The electron doesn't mediate electromagnetism. The photon does.

That's very funny that this has been brought up here. I was JUST reading an article in Time Magazine about WiTricity and they talked about transmitting electrons wirelessly. I just shook my head.

I've never went to college and well I've never studied physics at all. But, upon watching Stephen Hawking: Master of The Universe it made me think a whole heck of a lot.

OP you sound exactly like me in HS. I absolutely devoured the books by Kaku, Davies and Hawking. In some respects, I wish I had never learned even engineering physics because I feel like the world is a lot less magical.

 

[Blenton]

Theories start with observations. One develops a theory in physics to explain and quantify relationships. As Redbelly98 recommended, one should start with the advantage that certain theories already exist.

Nothing Einstein wrote about was observable until later on. He developed a theory without observations.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Nothing Einstein wrote about was observable until later on. He developed a theory without observations.

Nonsense. Just off the top of my head, here are four:

Photoelectric effect: The Lenard observations were made in 1902. The Einstein paper explaining them was published in 1905. (For which he got the Nobel Prize)

Brownian Motion: Discovered in 1827. The Einstein paper explaining it was published in 1905.

Specific Heat of Solids: Discovered in the 1760's. The Einstein paper explaining it was published in 1907.

Perihelion Precession of Mercury: Known in the 1860's. The Einstein paper explaining it was published in 1915.

 

[Moridin]

1. Make something up.
2. Make testable predictions.
3. Test predictions.
4. If tests refute theory, go back to 1. If tests does not refute theory, go back to 2 or 1.

 

[Chi Meson]

Nothing Einstein wrote about was observable until later on. He developed a theory without observations.

I'm sure your are referring to the Theories of Special and General Relativity. Vanadium has already pointed out that the general nature of your statement is incorrect, but even in context of Relativity, it is also not true. I only hesitatingly offer the Wiki entry on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity" , but it is actually pretty good.From this glossing alone, you can see that Einstein was not simply "thinking in a dark room" as he formulated SR.

SR and later GR came as a result of the observed and inferred paradoxes that were clearly apparent to Einstein and a host of other scientists at the time. Data was available, and a huge amount of observed phenomena needed to be reconciled with Maxwell's equations and the (ongoing) null results of the Michaelson-Morely Experiment.

It is only speculation, but if Einstein were not "there," the revelations of SR (at least) would have been uncovered within a few years by another (or "others") since observable evidence was leading many others to this inevitable outcome.

The development of a theory may use data that is already generally available, and one may use already established theories, and within the framework of those theories one may arrive at new logical conclusions. This sort of "theory" would not be accepted as such among the scientific community unless it is a simplification or unification of former theories AND does not produce paradoxes with itself or other theories and observed phenomena (this is what kills most laymen's "theories").

 

[Blenton]

Nonsense. Just off the top of my head, here are four:

Photoelectric effect: The Lenard observations were made in 1902. The Einstein paper explaining them was published in 1905. (For which he got the Nobel Prize)

Brownian Motion: Discovered in 1827. The Einstein paper explaining it was published in 1905.

Specific Heat of Solids: Discovered in the 1760's. The Einstein paper explaining it was published in 1907.

Perihelion Precession of Mercury: Known in the 1860's. The Einstein paper explaining it was published in 1915.

Ok ok maybe not 'nothing', but in nothing I was referring mostly to Relativity. I don't believe there was any observations of time dilation, mass increase, length contraction, warping of space etc.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok ok maybe not 'nothing', but in nothing I was referring mostly to Relativity. I don't believe there was any observations of time dilation, mass increase, length contraction, warping of space etc.

Those are implications/predictions of the theory. Part of what a good theory does is explain things other than the observations used to formulate it. SR was most certainly based on observations. The two postulates themselves were not simply pulled out of thin air, they were used because they were what was already observed to be true.

 

[Chi Meson]

Another thing,

A proper theory, when introduced, should not only be aware of observations and data that validate the theory, but even more so must be aware of those observations that would negate the theory.

Einstein was aware, by starting with the two postulates, that if the MMX achieved its intended results (detecting motion of the aether) then the entire theory would fall part.

And here's a query to everyone: Einstein's original paper (in German, of course) referred to his work as a "princip". Does this mean the same thing as "theory" (in the scientific sense)? That is, did Einstein consider SR a "theory" when he published his paper in 1906?

 

[ZapperZ]

Ok ok maybe not 'nothing', but in nothing I was referring mostly to Relativity. I don't believe there was any observations of time dilation, mass increase, length contraction, warping of space etc.

This is also not entirely true. What you cited are simply consequences of the theory, not the theory itself. After you develop a theory, it makes all these predictions and consequences that must be measurable to verify it. However, there are also a direct test of the theory/postulates themselves!

To say that there is nothing observable in Relativity till later after the theory developed isn't quite valid because it then calls for a puzzling question on WHY Einstein would want to come up with it in the first place? If there's no impetus for developing SR, then what's the reason to come up with such an outlandish idea? That simply makes very little sense.

The fact that there WERE problems with the 19th century classical electrodynamics at that time that caused Einstein to rethink on how EM wave behaves. Classical E&M theory clearly shows how it is non-covariant under straightforward Galilean transformation, contrary to many simple E&M experiments, and contrary to Newtonian laws, which are covariant under such transformation.

So it is not really accurate to say that there isn't already some experimental impetus for forming SR.

Zz.

 

[Redbelly98]

Ok ok maybe not 'nothing', but in nothing I was referring mostly to Relativity. I don't believe there was any observations of time dilation, mass increase, length contraction, warping of space etc.

There was the previous observation that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer.