Does force of gravity acts on electron ,proton ,neutron?

 

what else does it act on considering everything is made up of electron, proton and neutron is it not?
sure it does.
however since their masses are so negligible, gravitational force is negligible on them .So if only a separate electron is considered for study of its motion in electric field or similar thing effects of gravity aren't considered.

 

Does force of gravity acts on electron ,proton ,neutron?

They all have mass, and therefore will be subject to the effects of gravity. recca02 has explained how in micro-scale situations the effects are negligible.

Dave

 

Funny thing is, gravity is pretty much impossible to measure at the atomic scale.

 

so ,here is a tricky one,
does gravity act on light wave (photons)?
remember black hole (not the one in ozone layer)!

 

I thought the black hole event horizon was due to space itself becoming curved, rather than because of photons responding to gravity.

 

In classical physics, the mass of the photon is zero and therefore has no gravitational atraction to other masses.

It does travel at the speed of light and according to special relativity the SQRT(1 - (v/c)^2) in the demominator goes to zero making the relatavistic mass infinite.

It takes general relativity to resolve the conundrum:
From the Wikipedia article on the "Photon"

Since photons contribute to the stress-energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves are affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound-Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves

 

thanks for the reply mr thingmaker & mr p.b.,
i m a little subtle(dense) when it comes to relativity ,
havent gone beyond time dilation proof, twin paradox and some other basic concepts.
actually i knew that gravity acts on photons at their high speed and that it wud req relativity to understand it


will do some study of the tensor quantity stress-energy.

btw : i said photons to refer to em waves

 

so ,here is a tricky one,
does gravity act on light wave (photons)?
remember black hole (not the one in ozone layer)!

I think this comes back to the need for a theroy of gravity, which from the point of view of agreement between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is quite a way off.

Since photons contribute to the stress-energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity.

Interesting. I knew that EM waves (of which visible light is one form) responded to the effects of gravity as described in later part of the above referenced article. Relatvity predicts so many things about the physical world, it is a truely fantastic piece of science.

Dave

 

The force of gravitation is 10^(-38) times weaker than the strong nuclear force. So usually, gravity is neglected when considering elementary particles.

 

The force of gravitation is 10^(-38) times weaker than the strong nuclear force. So usually, gravity is neglected when considering elementary particles.

Whilst true in a practical sense...

Does force of gravity acts on electron ,proton ,neutron?

Significantly - No.

Actually - Yes.

Dave

 

What we need is not another Einstien.. We need another Darwin.. A Darwin who will find a unifying theory for Physics..
It stuns me that Biology (Evolution) has managed (thanks to one man) to progress continuously (no massive re-writes and no major contradictions) and has stood the test of every new discovery (What powers the sun, DNA, to name but 2)..
But Physics limps along, disabled by a dispersion of incohesive 'laws' hypotheses and theories, and incomprehensible maths! (LOL)
So - In the light of how 'right' Biology has been, and how naff Physics is, I think I will base my next project on biological components..

Anyone got a spare brain I can borrow?

 

The grass on the other side seems to be greener ,
i do not think darwin's theory are free from exceptions.

 

What we need is not another Einstien.. We need another Darwin.. A Darwin who will find a unifying theory for Physics..
It stuns me that Biology (Evolution) has managed (thanks to one man) to progress continuously (no massive re-writes and no major contradictions) and has stood the test of every new discovery (What powers the sun, DNA, to name but 2)..
But Physics limps along, disabled by a dispersion of incohesive 'laws' hypotheses and theories, and incomprehensible maths! (LOL)
So - In the light of how 'right' Biology has been, and how naff Physics is, I think I will base my next project on biological components..

Anyone got a spare brain I can borrow?

The difference is that physical laws such as those of Einstein are explicitly implied and embedded in very precise and modellable theory, this makes such theories, mathematics etc, open to analysis and subsequently challenges/rejection in ways that evolution cannot be. That's not saying I don't agree with evolution, but whilst apples and pears are fruit they are not directly comparable.

Dave

 

The difference is that physical laws such as those of Einstein are explicitly implied and embedded in very precise and modellable theory, this makes such theories, mathematics etc, open to analysis and subsequently challenges/rejection in ways that evolution cannot be. That's not saying I don't agree with evolution, but whilst apples and pears are fruit they are not directly comparable.

Dave

I accept the above.. Also, Biology is, in effect, a sub-set of physics.. A truly universal theory would explain everything, and would be able to model everything mathematically - including biological systems.

And we are a long, long way from anything even approaching the above.. But it still seems likely to me that there is some 'simple' piece of the puzzle missing, and it may only take one astute 'insight' (Like Darwins) for most of the pieces to 'clik' into place..

 

I accept the above.. Also, Biology is, in effect, a sub-set of physics.. A truly universal theory would explain everything, and would be able to model everything mathematically - including biological systems.

And we are a long, long way from anything even approaching the above.. But it still seems likely to me that there is some 'simple' piece of the puzzle missing, and it may only take one astute 'insight' (Like Darwins) for most of the pieces to 'clik' into place..

One thing that life follows that the non-living universe doesn't is Phi. Look up 5-sided crystal and the only things you will find are DNA and man-made objects. A crystal is a solid in which the constituent atoms, molecules, or ions are packed in a regularly ordered, repeating pattern extending in all three spatial dimensions............DNA fits that definition. Biology is a whole different ballpark that requires certain ascertations that don't apply to a universe without life. Fusion of life with the non-living universe is going to be quite a task.

 

I accept the above.. Also, Biology is, in effect, a sub-set of physics.. A truly universal theory would explain everything, and would be able to model everything mathematically - including biological systems.

And we are a long, long way from anything even approaching the above.. But it still seems likely to me that there is some 'simple' piece of the puzzle missing, and it may only take one astute 'insight' (Like Darwins) for most of the pieces to 'clik' into place..

I fully concur, in fact I doubt we would really get there but that is a whole other debate.

Dave