Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: kreskin123 on 11/04/2013 04:33:26
-
I'm not a scientist or a student, but I had what seems like a good idea and I would like your opinion.
What if gravity is not really a function of mass, but a 'opposite reaction' to the centrifugal force experienced by electrons? Could this explain the difference between the strength of gravity and what mathematicians might expect it to be? Is there any evidence that would clearly debunk this concept?
I have a number of predictions base on this hypothesis, but I don't know enough math to propose them without sounding like a dummy.
Has this ever been proposed and debunked?
Interesting or Just Stupid?
-
A couple of things to consider.
The electron shells increase in size with the increasing atomic size, which one might expect to mess up a centrifugal force of the electrons argument.
A particle accelerator should be able to measure the mass of a hydrogen ion vs a free electron. Your theory would indicate an expectation of a hydrogen ion (proton) having zero mass, which isn't the case.
-
It would be appropriate to put "centrifugal force" in quotes, since it is a bit of a fiction.
In a "Classical*" representation of an atom, the negative electrons spin around the positive nucleus like a weight on a string. In this model, the 'opposite reaction' to the centrifugal force is the electrostatic attraction between the electron and the nucleus. Since the familiar atoms are quite stable, the two forces are already in balance, and the electric charges are in balance. But Gravity still operates.
In a "quantum" model of the atom, the electron is not a weight at a single point in space, but an extended wave function which is the size of an atom. This represents the probability that you will find an electron at that point in space. There is no point mass which is whizzing around, and no centrifugal force needed to counterbalance it. But Gravity still operates.
*Physicists don't have a very old culture. "Classical" means more than 100 years old...
-
I don't know.. In physics it's best to precede any comment with that :)
But electrons do not have a orbit, as a planet does, they instead present us with so called orbitals.
A orbital is a statistical representation of where it is most likely for those pimpernels to 'exist' at any given moment. But we won't know if they really are there, until we detect them. It's a probability function for their existence. And electrons can be anywhere in fact inside that atom, and are.
-
And no, it's not stupid. It's curiosity and a hope for a sane approach to a 'classical reality' (Newtonian:)
But small scales don't seem to go very well with classical explanations. If you had electrons really 'buzzing around' inside that atom they would have to move faster than light, as calculated in the thirties.
=
eh, mixed spin with spinning around a nucleus there. The electron does not surpass 'c', 'orbiting' a nucleus, if it did there would be no 'photos' of it as I think. Although it has a intrinsic property called 'spin', transferable to angular momentum macroscopically, that indeed are said to 'spin around' about a hundred times lights speed in a vacuum. I will blame it on me and my new habit of writing too fast, although, not if I can find someone else to blame, of course :)
-
Neutron Stars and Pulsars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star) have an intense gravitational field, but they are made of neutrons. Since there are no atoms, there are no electrons to experience centrifugal force and produce the gravitational field, according to this theory.