Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No. It was a facetious question to kick-start my thread again.
They don't produce their own gravity, as they're massless. They feel gravity of other particles, though.
The distance from the centre to the edge.
Gravitation in General Relativity is the warping of spacetime due to mass, or their energetic equivalent, so I suppose there would be a tiny gravitational effect. Given the tiny scales, though, I'm sceptical that it's not an oversight of the errors of Relativity (namely, the precedence we give to Quantum Mechanics over Relativity).
... which can be seen on a massive scale in, for instance, the gravitational attraction due to the sun's magnetic field. That's right -- as I understand it, the sun's magnetic field has enough energy that it itself has a significant gravitational effect on the orbit of Mercury.
That's to do with warping caused by the Sun itself, not the photons it gives off.
Perhaps, but Google isn't turning up anything to support that. That's why I asked for a source to the claim that massless particles induce gravity.
Effectively, yes. You can change the charge gradient of a box full of electrons and positrons by annihilating the whole thing. The principle is the same for when you convert a massive particle into a massless one: the gravitational potential energy is switched to kinetic energy, the mass is switched to energy. While more things than mass warp spacetime, non-mass energy does not necessarily come into that.
Considering the box as a unit, the charge remains the same in a closed system regardless of what reactions occur. You cannot get a different charge state from annihilating anti-particles than I can get from just placing them randomly in the box (you can, of course, polarize the box, but then we're not really considering the box as a discrete unit but giving the box significant extent). The charge of the box doesn't change; neither does the gravitational attraction it produces. You can't get rid of gravity just by converting mass to another energy form, and I would be very interested to see a reference that says you can.
The charge of the box does indeed change. Van der Waals forces are electromagnetic forces that occur because of a local charge gradient on dipoles; water, for instance, is ever so slightly more positively charged at its hydrogen atoms, and ever so slightly negative at its oxygen atom. This force is quite important, so we can't simply assume that a net charge of zero will always act the same as a gross charge of zero; a box with no charged particles in it will not necessarily behave the same as a box with equal numbers of protons and neutrons (it will, ironically, have mass).
Well sure, that's the nuance of the questionAtomic radius 156 pm
Covalent radius 196±7 pm
Van der Waals radius 186 pm
Well you should know that there is more than one radius
I wanted to incite heated and vitriol debate on just what constitutes the boundary of an atom. That said, what did you use for the atomic radii?
Do you have any that they don't? I've looked on Google, in my textbooks, on physics forums and papers, and there's nothing to suggest that photons do or do not produce gravity. Even if they did produce gravity, it would be far beyond out ability to detect it, so the lack of consensus is not surprising.
A website, I'd imagine. Or, if you have the time, get a computer to model the three-body problem with classical mechanics using the Earth in as a non-inertial frame of reference: the Sun and the Moon will follow a two-dimensional non-Euclidean path that's lovely and regular, so I'd imagine a sinusoidal equation in something similar to polar coordinates...
.
