Gravity?

[colormebeautiful]

I'm curious and just wanted to know how athiests explain gravity (and the other laws/phenomena of the universe).

I'm in a high school physics class right now, and my teacher was talking about how every single thing in the whole universe has gravity. It's a very weak force compared to electromagnetism, but it's there, and it's how our entire world is set up. Sceintists are to this day mystified by the question "Where did it come from?"

Similar thing with electromagnetism - I find it absolutely fascinating that you can take a very heavy (but very strong magnet and stick it to something metal 10 ft. in the air. Gravity says the magnet would fall to the ground, but still it stays. Without any interference, it would stay there perpetually until the end of time.

How do athiests explain this/what are your thoughts?

 

[ScMay]

I'm curious and just wanted to know how athiests explain gravity (and the other laws/phenomena of the universe).

I'm curious as to how you would explain it, would something like 'intelligent falling' be acceptable?

I'm in a high school physics class right now, and my teacher was talking about how every single thing in the whole universe has gravity.

Depends on what you define as a thing, a photon does not exert a gravitational force on objects IIRC.

It's a very weak force compared to electromagnetism, but it's there, and it's how our entire world is set up. Sceintists are to this day mystified by the question "Where did it come from?"

There mostly mystified as to how gravity is involved in the quantum scale of things, they are searching for the particle that is responsible for the mass of electrons and protons etc. The 'where' that you refer to sounds more like the 'where do the laws of physics come from', which is a totally different question and is actually rather vague. Besides why does it have to come from anywhere since you obviously hold the belief that God doesn't come from anywhere.

Similar thing with electromagnetism - I find it absolutely fascinating that you can take a very heavy (but very strong magnet and stick it to something metal 10 ft. in the air.

Magnets are cool .

Gravity says the magnet would fall to the ground, but still it stays. Without any interference, it would stay there perpetually until the end of time.

No 'gravity' (to which you refer to the theories about gravity, at this scale it would be Newtonian physics) 'says' that the Earth shall exert a certain force upon the magnet and the same reversed, however there is also a force of attraction between the magnet and the metal that in this case is enough to negate that of the gravity with Net force applied to magnet = 0N.

How do athiests explain this/what are your thoughts?

I explain it through physics, as to the 'why' the laws of physics are the way they are well I don't know, even if physicists figure it out I'm not naive enough to think I'll understand the answer. I always wonder why there must be a 'source', especially when the people asking for it always assume that source (that they assume is God) itself does not need a source - Occam's razor always seems to strike.
P.S. its athEIst not athIEst, a way to remember is that the word is like many other labels in that it ends with 'ist'. e.g. evolutionist, creationist, communist, capitalist, leftist, Zionist, theist, etc.

 

[pgp_protector]

For some quick reading on Gravity try these pages.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm

 

[billwald]

You need to look into the effects of scale on physical forces.

 

[The Ascetic Crusader]

I was thinking about magnetism the other day...came to the conclusion that what is actually being witnessed in magnetism might be the "bending" of space. Like folding a napkin so that the ends meet. BTW, Colorme, did you watch my video on " the electric universe" ? Check it out.

 

[Maxwell511]

There mostly mystified as to how gravity is involved in the quantum scale of things

They mostly put efforts into this cos this is a mystifying question that they think that they might be able to answer soon. There are many more mystifying questions that are not focused on cos they have no idea: why does matter bend spacetime? etc. Manhours doesn't mean the former is the subject that they are most mystified about.

 

[mrpiddly]

Think of gravity as an indention in spacetime.
Now, every object creates these indentions in spacetime. They extend out for a long time and can be felt even very far away. It is because E=mc2 and mass = energy so the mass causes energy which indents spacetime

Sorry for the big picture

now imagine that in 3d, no picture exists to show this. That is gravity

 

[arunma]

I'm curious and just wanted to know how athiests explain gravity (and the other laws/phenomena of the universe).

I'm in a high school physics class right now, and my teacher was talking about how every single thing in the whole universe has gravity. It's a very weak force compared to electromagnetism, but it's there, and it's how our entire world is set up. Sceintists are to this day mystified by the question "Where did it come from?"

Similar thing with electromagnetism - I find it absolutely fascinating that you can take a very heavy (but very strong magnet and stick it to something metal 10 ft. in the air. Gravity says the magnet would fall to the ground, but still it stays. Without any interference, it would stay there perpetually until the end of time.

How do athiests explain this/what are your thoughts?

Well I'm about as far away from atheism as you can get, but I can offer a scientific explanation if you're interested. Quantum field theory tells us that all forces in the universe are mediated by particles. In the case of electromagnetism, all particles transmit "force carrier" particles called virtual photons. When these virtual photons come into contact with other charged particles, they communicate information about the particle that emitted them. That's how charged particles can detect each other, and know how to pull or push on one another via the electric force. The magnetic force is simply electric force in motion, and works similarly. Force carriers have been detected for every force except gravity. The hypothetical force carrier for gravity is called the graviton.

Alternatively, in the framework of general relativity, gravity can be viewed as a distortion in spacetime. The classic example is that of a rubber sheet. If a rubber sheet is stretched out, and a heavy mass (say, a bowling ball) is placed on it, then that mass will distort the sheet in the nearby region. Objects rolling near this large mass will be distorted, and will travel in curved paths. This is how gravity essentially operates.

So which of these views is correct? The answer is both. Physicists are interested in how forces work on both large and small scales. General relativity provides a large-scale model for gravity, and the field theory model is a small-scale model. Both views are useful in explaining gravity.

From a theological perspective, it is interesting to note that the force of gravity is perfectly reliable and self-sustaining. I suppose this is one way in which we should be reminded of God, who is the Sustainer of all things.

Think of gravity as an indention in spacetime.
Now, every object creates these indentions in spacetime. They extend out for a long time and can be felt even very far away. It is because E=mc2 and mass = energy so the mass causes energy which indents spacetime

Actually, I feel I should point out that this is not an accurate explanation. While the gravitational field can be thought of as containing some intrinsic energy, this energy has nothing to do with energy-mass relation of special relativity. In fact, a purely classical formulation of gravity can be made (which to a first approximation is very accurate), without any reference whatsoever ot the energy-mass relation. It would be incorrect to view energy as causing gravitational force, since objects can be given all sorts of energy besides mass (i.e. kinetic, thermal, potential, etc.) without exerting any greater gravitational force.

I'm curious as to how you would explain it, would something like 'intelligent falling' be acceptable?

I would say yes. God is equally responsible for phenomena that admit scientific explanation as he is for things that do not. Therefore he ought not to be denied his proper role in the force of gravity or in any other physical phenomenon.

 

[MrLogic]

I don't think I understand the question. You want to know why Gravity is stronger than electromagnetism? And you want to know where the physical constants came from? Well, I'll try:

1) Why is electromagnetism stronger than Gravity?
Huh? Because the Electromagnetic Constant (k) is
8.99x10^9 while the Gravitational Constant is (G) 6.67x10^-11.
That is about 1.35x10^20 time bigger. Thus, electromagnetism is stronger than gravity.

2) Where did the physical constant came from?
Well, it is like ScMay said, why should there be a "source"? Do they need to be created by "someone"?

Also, just like you can say that god was always there, we can say that the physical constants were always there.

Hope I understood the question.

 

[aniRB]

arunma,

Thank you for continually demonstrating that science and theology are not necessarily opposing view points. I think both sides of the God exists/God doesn't exist debate often misrepresent this relationship.

-Ani

 

[aniRB]

Science offers us physical explanations for the whats and whys about gravity and electromagnitism, which I am highly unqualified to discuss.

However, associating these scientific explanations with a purely atheistic viewpoint is totally invalid.

 

[The Ascetic Crusader]

When it comes to gravity, "conventional" science is flying by the seat of her pants.

 

[aniRB]

When it comes to gravity, "conventional" science is flying by the seat of her pants.

The absence of a well-understood and agreed upon scientific explanation for any physical phenomenon is not an argument for the existence of God.

(Likewise, I might add, the opposite is also true.)

 

[Godfixated]

I'm curious as to how you would explain it, would something like 'intelligent falling' be acceptable?

Depends on what you define as a thing, a photon does not exert a gravitational force on objects IIRC. There mostly mystified as to how gravity is involved in the quantum scale of things, they are searching for the particle that is responsible for the mass of electrons and protons etc. The 'where' that you refer to sounds more like the 'where do the laws of physics come from', which is a totally different question and is actually rather vague. Besides why does it have to come from anywhere since you obviously hold the belief that God doesn't come from anywhere.

Magnets are cool . No 'gravity' (to which you refer to the theories about gravity, at this scale it would be Newtonian physics) 'says' that the Earth shall exert a certain force upon the magnet and the same reversed, however there is also a force of attraction between the magnet and the metal that in this case is enough to negate that of the gravity with Net force applied to magnet = 0N.

I explain it through physics, as to the 'why' the laws of physics are the way they are well I don't know, even if physicists figure it out I'm not naive enough to think I'll understand the answer. I always wonder why there must be a 'source', especially when the people asking for it always assume that source (that they assume is God) itself does not need a source - Occam's razor always seems to strike.
P.S. its athEIst not athIEst, a way to remember is that the word is like many other labels in that it ends with 'ist'. e.g. evolutionist, creationist, communist, capitalist, leftist, Zionist, theist, etc.

Looks like someone just went over gravity in his Physics 101 class.

 

[arunma]

The absence of a well-understood and agreed upon scientific explanation for any physical phenomenon is not an argument for the existence of God.

(Likewise, I might add, the opposite is also true.)

I would concur. Any argument of the form "scientific explanation, therefore God/atheism" is rather faulty. Science doesn't really say all that much about religion.

1) Why is electromagnetism stronger than Gravity?
Huh? Because the Electromagnetic Constant (k) is
8.99x10^9 while the Gravitational Constant is (G) 6.67x10^-11.
That is about 1.35x10^20 time bigger. Thus, electromagnetism is stronger than gravity.

This doesn't have much to do with the current discussion, but I'll digress anyway...

Here's a question that I would ask my physics 101 students: can you really compare the electromagnetic constant to the gravitational constant in this way? I'm not too good with arithmetic, but I assume you divided the electromagnetic constant by the gravitational constant to get the figure of 1.35x10^20. I noticed that you expressed the constants in SI units. But what if I expressed charge in units of, say, a mole of electrons? Then the ratio would be quite different. Indeed I can choose whatever units I like, and get whatever answer I want. I could even set k = G = 1 (which is more or less what they do in general relativity, it's called "natural units"), and then I'd get k/G = 1. So can you really say that the electromagnetic force is "stronger" than the gravitational force.

A lot of problems in physics can be solved simply by looking at units. Heck, I can solve the differential equation for a damped harmonic oscillator in five seconds just by using an argument based on units (and there are many other tricks that we physicists have up our sleeves in this regard). Notice that if you divide k by G in SI units, the ratio you obtain has units of kilograms/coulomb, which suggests that perhaps we should look at the mass to charge ratio of the fundamental charge carriers. We can note that the electric force between two protons is rather large, whereas the gravitational force between them is negligible. And the mass of an electron is 1800 times smaller than the mass of a proton. Perhaps the proper question to ask is not why gravity is weaker than electromagnetism, but rather why charge carriers are so light.

 

[arunma]

arunma,

Thank you for continually demonstrating that science and theology are not necessarily opposing view points. I think both sides of the God exists/God doesn't exist debate often misrepresent this relationship.

-Ani

I see things rather similarly, except for the obvious difference that I assert quite strongly the existence of the Christian God. Intelligent design arguments usually don't hold water scientifically. But on the contrary, arguments for atheism on the basis of science are always just as bad. Science and theology do have a common requirement of logical rigor (though scientists don't spend nearly as much time worrying or arguing about logic in practice). Science and theology can "coexist" in the same sense that science and classical literature can coexist. Neither has much bearing on the other. The endless science vs. religion debate has never made much sense to me, especially since I have no trouble being a religious scientist.

 

[Rafael12]

Gravity is space-time curvature and electromagnetic radiation comes from the excitation and deeexcitation of electrons.

 

[MrLogic]

Here's a question that I would ask my physics 101 students: can you really compare the electromagnetic constant to the gravitational constant in this way? I'm not too good with arithmetic, but I assume you divided the electromagnetic constant by the gravitational constant to get the figure of 1.35x10^20. I noticed that you expressed the constants in SI units. But what if I expressed charge in units of, say, a mole of electrons? Then the ratio would be quite different. Indeed I can choose whatever units I like, and get whatever answer I want. I could even set k = G = 1 (which is more or less what they do in general relativity, it's called "natural units"), and then I'd get k/G = 1. So can you really say that the electromagnetic force is "stronger" than the gravitational force.

A lot of problems in physics can be solved simply by looking at units. Heck, I can solve the differential equation for a damped harmonic oscillator in five seconds just by using an argument based on units (and there are many other tricks that we physicists have up our sleeves in this regard). Notice that if you divide k by G in SI units, the ratio you obtain has units of kilograms/coulomb, which suggests that perhaps we should look at the mass to charge ratio of the fundamental charge carriers. We can note that the electric force between two protons is rather large, whereas the gravitational force between them is negligible. And the mass of an electron is 1800 times smaller than the mass of a proton. Perhaps the proper question to ask is not why gravity is weaker than electromagnetism, but rather why charge carriers are so light.

Oh, then I did understand the question wrong. But anyway, why would you put, lets say, k in SI and G in something else? That wouldn't make much sense. As far as I know, k should be bigger than G in whatever system you choose (of course, they need to be in the same system) And about k=G. The only place where the 4 forces are equal is in infinite temperature (Big Band) or in higher dimensions. I can't really see any other way in which that would happen.

 

[arunma]

Oh, then I did understand the question wrong.

I wouldn't say you misunderstood the question, but rather I'm pointing out that there's a bit of depth to the issue, and it's worth contemplating.

But anyway, why would you put, lets say, k in SI and G in something else?

It doesn't matter what units they're in, because ultimately they don't have the same units. G has units of N m²/kg², whereas k has units of N m²/C². Comparing kilograms to coulombs is like comparing apples to oranges (or in this case, mass to charge). There's no reason for the coulomb to be special, in any way. I could use electronic charge as the charge unit, in which case k would be numerically much smaller. Ultimately, dividing k by G will never give a dimensionless number.

That wouldn't make much sense. As far as I know, k should be bigger than G in whatever system you choose (of course, they need to be in the same system)

Nope, doesn't need to be that way at all. There's nothing special about our system of units. Heck, SI doesn't always even correspond to the types of quantities we encounter in every day life. For example, a coulomb is an enormous amount of charge (I certainly wouldn't want to stand next to something with a 1 C charge). There's no rule which says that k needs to be numerically larger than G. Keep in mind that the numerical value of a physical quantity is absolutely meaningless without units.

And about k=G. The only place where the 4 forces are equal is in infinite temperature (Big Band) or in higher dimensions. I can't really see any other way in which that would happen.

I may have perhaps been unclear. As I said earlier, units are arbitrary. So in general relativity, most people just set all physical constants equal to 1, and put the correct values back in when they finish their calculations. Now, we don't actually do this to k, simply because electric fields aren't very important in general relativity. But it would certainly be possible to do so. In fact, there's a unit of charge called the statcoulomb, which was specifically chosen so that the constant in Coulomb's law would be k = 1.

 

[MrLogic]

Ok, my head is spinning like crazy. All I know is that k>G. About the units, I really don't understand that thing you are saying about the units. I still don't see how can k=G. Even if you change (kg to J or C to A or whatever) k should still be bigger. Now, about the 1, isn't that just a mathematical tool used to make the calculation easier? You can even put X instead of one, no?
I remember my physics teacher told us that physicist do use 1 for the constants. But that is it, it is juts a way of writing it.

Am I right?