Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Gravitational Force Too Large; Distance Too Small

  1. #1 Gravitational Force Too Large; Distance Too Small 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    According to the formula G(m1+m2)/r^2, the gravitational force between two objects increases when the distance between them decreases. But when r =0, we've got an infinitely large force between them.

    I know not much about nuclear physics, but I heard that bounded quarks cannot be separated, the energy used to do so will create a new quark. I'm not sure whether this gravitational force can explain this phenomenon , or gravity has nothing to do with this. It's just my speculation.

    Any idea?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,223
    Because of the extremely small masses of particles at the atomic and subatomic scales, gravity is very weak, even at such small distances as those of bonded quarks. The force holding the Quarks together is the strong interaction, which is some 10e39 (that's a 1 followed by 39 zeros) times stronger than gravity.


    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    But when r =0, we've got an infinitely large force between them.
    No, when r = 0, your answer is undefined. Division by zero does not result in infinity, it is undefined.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    Well no. For example, 1/0.1 = 10; 1/0.01 = 100... and so on. The smaller the denominator, the larger the fraction gets. I know that it is said that the denominator mustn’t equal 0, but at least it can become so small that it approximately equals zero, thus making the fraction infinity big.

    Besides, every mathematical value should correspond to the actual phenomenon. Just as how sqrt(x) has a positive and negative value, correspondingly anti-matter was speculated by Paul.

    I don't really know what I'm talking about... I'm just an amateur. Please tell me if I'm right or wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Well, yes.

    Very basic math. Very basic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    Well no. For example, 1/0.1 = 10; 1/0.01 = 100... and so on. The smaller the denominator, the larger the fraction gets. I know that it is said that the denominator mustn’t equal 0, but at least it can become so small that it approximately equals zero, thus making the fraction infinity big.

    No. No matter how small the denominator gets, you get a finite number for the fraction, and any finite number, no matter how big, is equally far from infinity as any other.

    And, as I said in my previous post, the distances never get small enough for gravity to become a significant factor at that scale.

    For example, a quark in a proton is about 1/3 the mass of the proton or 5.57e-28 kg
    The radius of a proton is ~8e-16 meters

    Using the formula for gravitational potential energy:



    Where d is the distance between the quarks, we get:



    which means that it would take 2.6e-50 joules to pull the quarks completely apart against the force of gravity

    If you use E=mc^2, you can find how much energy is needed to create a quark.

    this comes out to 5e-11 joules, or 2e39 times more than the energy needed to pull the quarks apart. Ergo, the gravitational force is just too weak to be a player here.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,125
    Inverse square law implicitly assumes that the particles are points (or spheres - where you stop at the surface). However at small distances this assumption breaks down - quantum theory, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    I feel kind of stupid now. Thanks guys. I get it now, it's impossible to have two objects ( whether it be fundamental quark or anything else) with a distance of zero between them. Also, mathman's words reminded me that in the quantum world everything is uncertain, things behave like waves more than particles.

    I hope to study Quantum Mechanics in the future for my father did so and he's always talking to me about the wonders in it, from Young's double slit to uncertainty principle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    272
    when Size of the area is zero , because of the pressure on the area, the time reversed direction and dimension multiplies, because R has three degrees of infinity and therefore the space multiplies only to three dimensions
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Nosfim View Post
    when Size of the area is zero , because of the pressure on the area, the time reversed direction and dimension multiplies, because R has three degrees of infinity and therefore the space multiplies only to three dimensions
    That's to complex for me, I can't rap my head around dimensions and time and all that yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    272
    In size of zero time is reversed and the particles replicate and receive volume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    272
    Its dynamic
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Nosfim View Post
    when Size of the area is zero , because of the pressure on the area, the time reversed direction and dimension multiplies, because R has three degrees of infinity and therefore the space multiplies only to three dimensions
    That's to complex for me, I can't rap my head around dimensions and time and all that yet.
    It's not complex, it's gibberish. He never makes much sense. Don't worry about it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Water Nosfim View Post
    when Size of the area is zero , because of the pressure on the area, the time reversed direction and dimension multiplies, because R has three degrees of infinity and therefore the space multiplies only to three dimensions
    That's to complex for me, I can't rap my head around dimensions and time and all that yet.
    There's nothing there from Water to try to rap your head around, so don't worry about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Does light exert a gravitational force?
    By kojax in forum Physics
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: July 24th, 2013, 01:47 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 9th, 2009, 03:36 PM
  3. Force times distance... Work problem
    By EV33 in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2009, 06:43 PM
  4. intermediary of gravitational force
    By sum41rocksandrolls in forum Physics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 15th, 2006, 12:29 PM
  5. Gravitational Force
    By kevi555 in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 17th, 2006, 02:34 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •