gravity on electron

Discussion in 'Physics' started by ManasviMIttal, Oct 10, 2015.

  1. ManasviMIttal

    Thread Starter New Member

    Oct 10, 2015
    1
    0
    Van der waals theory says that there is negligible effect of gravity on an electron.
    On the other hand, theory of relativity tell us that gravity can effect even light particles. As it happens in a singularity, even light is not able to escape from it. So according to me, i think that gravity effects electrons on a large scale. Now, if electron uses its energy to overcome the effect of gravity, then over a certain period of time and electron should loose all its energy and should fall on the ground due to gravity.
    tell me if i'm wrong.
     
  2. MrAl

    Well-Known Member

    Jun 17, 2014
    2,418
    488
    Hi,

    I think the only point missing up to now in this thread is the scale of things and the limits of the human observational ability. The only real problem is that we can not see small changes, so we can not see the effect of gravity on small things. In measurements, the response would be "lost in the noise floor". It takes a special experiment to show how it really is affected, and this means a 'lot' of gravity, like that from a star, to show the effect. With a large object we can see it pull on the small object, but it has to be so large that it is difficult to show on a small scale.
    Gravity doesnt necessarily have to work against a small particle either, and if we shot a photon straight up into the sky it would escape the gravity of the earth before anything happened that we could see. If we shot it straight up out of a black hole, it would have to turn around and fall back in unless it could reach the escape velocity for that local super gravity.
     
    ManasviMIttal likes this.
  3. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,535
    Welcome to AAC!

    A thread belongs to the OP (original poster). Trying to take over someone elses thread is called hijacking, which is not allowed at All About Circuits. I have therefore given you a thread of your very own.

    In addition, you have practiced the arcane art of necromancy, the revival of a long dead thread. Likely the OP (Original Poster) has solved his problem in the years that has passed, or thrown it away, or something.

    This was split from
    http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/gravity-on-electron.5862/#post-909955
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  4. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,163
  5. joeyd999

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jun 6, 2011
    2,674
    2,717
    And what if one were observing from a reference frame accelerating at the same rate as the electron?
     
  6. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,163
    I'm not exactly sure as it depends.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9805097.pdf

    edit: After more reading on the subject a co-moving observer in the same single frame would not see the radiation but the reason is not simply the lack of relative acceleration between the two.

    A real measurement device or co-moving observer would not be in the same single frame so it would measure radiation.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  7. joeyd999

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jun 6, 2011
    2,674
    2,717
    Then I am skeptical (admittedly, I have not read the proffered document). This implies that all electrons -- since their inception shortly after the supposed big bang -- have been losing potential energy, via radiation, ever since. Therefore, the "rules of the Universe" should be noticeably different today than long ago. Aside from the concept of inflation (which I think lies on shaky ground and would not be applicable in this case), I know of no evidence of this..
     
  8. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,163
    The source of radiation energy is not directly related to pure electron charge so it's not a 'local' effect on the electron.

    Well, yes the rules now are noticeably different (we think) today than moments after the 'big bang'. Normally you don't see vast quantities of isolated charge being accelerated to produce energy above the background noise in mainly neutral bodies like planets just from gravity. You see in it things that have limited lifetimes like massive stars.
     
  9. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,535
    Compared to the other forces gravity is very weak locally, and electrons are rarely found isolated, wouldn't gravity only affect the atom as a whole? Electrons are joined with atoms as a general rule, and if not, will soon be if a mass is available.

    Gravity on that scale and in the presence of other forces really is negligible. If you are talking an isolated electron with no electric field then the arguments apply, but what is it going to fall into? A large mass, in which case my first paragraph applies.
     
  10. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,163
    The source of radiation is the isolated electron falling in it's own electric field. An analogy is the experiment where a magnet is dropped down the copper pipe. The potential energy of gravity is converted to near field EM energy that's dissipated in the copper pipe.

    The magnet was not changed (in a measurable way) by this event but how it moved in space was.

     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  11. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,715
    4,788
    "Negligible" does not mean that there is no effect at all.

    Absent any other forces, an electron will move in a gravitational field the same as any other particle (or even photons, for that matter).

    But because the mass of an electron is so small, the amount of gravitational force is similarly so small. Thus, it takes very little influence for other forces, such as the electromagnetic force, to completely swamp it out. One way to put some scale to this is to ask how far an electron and a proton have to be in order for the electric attraction between them to be equal to the Earth's gravitational force on the electron near the Earth's surface.

    The answer works out to right about 5 m.
     
  12. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,981
    388
    I think you are wrong because there is not a bunch of low energy electrons on the ground.

    I think the reference articles in this thread are wrong too.

    The reason being that modern science believes that mass is fundamental. It is not, because it does not exist.

    Energy can not be converted into anything, it can only be confined. This confinement process uses two rotations and causes energy to be expressed as inertia, you know it as weight.

    There are two types of inertia. Charge inertia and Neutral Dipole inertia.

    Charge inertia is caused by charge rotation and is constant for energy level and does not decay.

    It’s the same today as in the beginning.

    When two particles combine, the rotational inertia is combined into an twisting oscillation.

    The fields are neutralized, but because of size differential and RPM differences, this inertia oscillation has loss. So the neutral dipole inertia decays over time. You can see and measure this decay. You know it as the cosmic background radiation. This is also related to neutron decay.

    Inertia mass and gravitational mass is caused by this dipole oscillation. The difference between the two..................is the reference.

    Inertia mass is referenced to itself, and gravitational mass is referenced to an external mass.

    This decay is slow now, but was very large in the past. This decay is the cause of entropy and is the reason that our universe is slowly expanding now. In the past, the expansion was much greater.
    This is also why our current decay rate dating system is off. And it explains the large redshifts.

    Dipole Inertia and dipole inertia attractiveness(gravity) comes from charge oscillation, not mass.

    The inertia is equal to the RPM of the two poles(charges), in the dipole. The faster these poles(charge) spin, the heavier it gets.

    Both types of inertia can be added and when they do the reference of the inertia location changes and becomes common for all rotations.

    The resultant inertia is perpendicular to the original inertia components.

    This is why a single particles or a single nucleus, atom, molecule or bowling ball has one inertia.

    This is called rest mass. We can increase this rest mass to max level at any time simply by spinning the object.

    The max RPM for a particle is limited by physical size and field distortion.

    The max RPM for a dipole or object is when centrifugal force overcomes the electrical bond. Seen any H1 atoms lately?

    Think of gravity as a neutral field attraction. It’s not the absence of field, it’s the equal amounts of two opposite fields. This grey field can attract other gray fields, and positive fields, and negative fields just like opposite charges attract...........BUT the force is 39 magnitudes less.

    A single particle, even though it has modern mass, can not generate a grey field(gravity).

    Only dipole action can generate gravity.

    Again, all forces, all energies, all objects come from the the angular momentum of charge.
     
  13. KL7AJ

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 4, 2008
    2,039
    287
    An electron is certainly affected by gravity, but in most human experience, the effect would be negligible.
    If you look at the ionosphere, for instance, the free electrons at high altitude would have enough mutually repulsive electric force that they would wander off into space. The only thing that keeps free electrons in "layers" is the nearby positive ions, which ARE massive enough to be held in place by gravity.
    Eric
     
  14. crutschow

    Expert

    Mar 14, 2008
    12,984
    3,223
    Any particle that has mass will be affected by gravity.
     
  15. socratus

    Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    "Is the electromagnetic force really strong?"
    "It is very strong and this is surprising too because it can work over
    an infinite range. To give you an idea, the electromagnetic force is
    approximately 10^36 times stronger than the earth's gravitational field!
    That is (to put it in perspective)
    1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger
    than gravity on Earth!"
    http://emandpplabs.nscee.edu/cool/temporary/doors/forces/electromagforce/electromagnetic.htm
    ======..
     
  16. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,535
    But the inverse square law is drastically smaller.
     
  17. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,715
    4,788

    As usual, your claims have no intrinsic meaning.

    Both gravity and the electromagnetic force work over infinite range but fall off in proportion to the square of the distance.

    What does it mean for one force, due to one phenomenon, to be x times stronger than some other force due to some other phenomenon? How do you compare the two?

    If you were to compare the strength of the electromagnetic repulsion between two electrons and the strength of the gravitational attraction between them you would get one ratio. If you were to do the same with two protons, you would get another ratio that was a few orders of magnitude different.

    And then you make the grandiose claim that some unspecified electromagnetic force is 10^36 times stronger than the Earth's gravitation field. What's it even mean for a force to be stronger than a field? Are you claiming that the electromagnetic force between a proton and an electron, if separated by the same distance that separates the Earth and the moon, is 10^36 times stronger than the gravitational attraction between the Earth and the moon?
     
    cmartinez likes this.
  18. socratus

    Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
  19. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,535
    From one wrong assumption anything can be proved.

    Again, the inverse square law is different for both, therefore your arguments break down, badly.

    This is true of all the forces.
     
Loading...