Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,292,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**Ask a monkey a physics question thread**

Results 1 to 75 of 2535

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Yes but the difference between EM and gravity is that diamagnetism repels, so the closer two objects get, the more force it requires to bring them closer, ultimately approaching infinite energy. Gravity is attractive so it takes less energy the closer two objects get, it would approach infinite energy to stop further gravitational motion. So gravity can easily dominate EM at Planck scales.

    idk about the strong and weak forces because frankly I have absolutely no idea how they work. EM is largely magical to me still, though it's easier to somewhat understand. Gravity is the easy one, at least at macro scales.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #2
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,456
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yes but the difference between EM and gravity is that diamagnetism repels, so the closer two objects get, the more force it requires to bring them closer, ultimately approaching infinite energy. Gravity is attractive so it takes less energy the closer two objects get, it would approach infinite energy to stop further gravitational motion. So gravity can easily dominate EM at Planck scales.

    idk about the strong and weak forces because frankly I have absolutely no idea how they work. EM is largely magical to me still, though it's easier to somewhat understand. Gravity is the easy one, at least at macro scales.
    Both forces approach infinity as the distance between the 2 particles interacting goes to 0 m.
    but one approaches infinity about 100 times faster than the other. The weaker one is gravity.

    It cannot dominate unless we're talking black hole (or other exotic matter like neutron stars) conditions... individual particles are not black holes. The spreading out of the wave function is part of that - the pointlike nature of particles may intuitively indicate they have no measurable size, but the wavelike nature confounds that. While we cannot measure any size of the electron, e.g., we also don't measure infinities in the gravitational or electric fields or any fields when we look at them as closely as nature allows (and we know how).

    The uncertainty principles do a lot of heavy lifting when we start talking about attractive electric and magnetic forces. The more confined an electron's orbital shape becomes, the less certain its momentum becomes. The universe precludes highly accurate descriptions of position and momentum. This isn't a human thing, or a measurement thing. There are additional human and measurement things which make the uncertainties grow even more than the universal minimum. But there is a universal minimum. That minimum makes the infinities of precisely located, pointlike particles a non-issue.


    IDK what you're trying to say about diamagnetism. Like charges repel, too. The repelling force of like charges (outside of the strong force interaction) is about 100 times stronger than the attracting force of gravity between charged particles. It varies depending on which particle of how much mass and electric charge, and that factor of 100 is only a ballpark.

    Of course, for uncharged particles, the electric force and magnetic forces between them are 0. Strong forces still apply, say to hold protons and neutrons together, with the neutrons lacking (net) electric charge. We do see situations in nature where gravitational forces are on par with nuclear forces in Neutron stars.
    Normalize Inter-Community Sense-Making

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •