gravity as surplus electrostatic attraction

[lemur]

Yes, I know that electrostatic attraction drops off at a greater rate with distance from the nucleus than gravity. However, I'm still wondering if residual electrostatic attraction could explain gravity. My speculative reasoning is this: as a body of matter grows, the number of protons in the body increases faster than the number of electrons. This is because molecular bonding causes many electrons to be shared. Thus, I think it could be said that any body of matter will have some surplus of proton charge relative to electron charge. Since the charges balance out via atomic and molecular configurations that neutralize relative ionization through bonding/motion, there even would seem to be a direct relationship between the compacting of protons in increasingly dense configurations and rendering of electron-surplusses that presumably dissipate away from the planet/star.

 

Now, to be true to the call for rigor in the speculations section, I should formulate some deductive tests that could falsify this idea. The only thing I can think of would be to find some way to differentiate between various levels of proton-surplus in a planet or star and see if this would not correspond with mass. If it wouldn't, then gravitation would either conform to the mass of the body (measured how except by orbital behavior relative to other masses?) or it could deviate from the mass-predicted behavior and conform to the proton-imbalance. Of course, what if mass itself would be the result of proton-imbalance? I'm sorry if this sounds crazy. I'm not even sure how to formulate this in terms of concrete examples since my chemistry is so bad I can't even remember the name for bonds where atoms share electrons (covalent?).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

My speculative reasoning is this: as a body of matter grows, the number of protons in the body increases faster than the number of electrons. This is because molecular bonding causes many electrons to be shared.

This is not true. Shared-electron compounds are usually electrically neutral.

[lemur]

This is not true. Shared-electron compounds are usually electrically neutral.

Ok, but that's why I'm saying the balance between the protons and the electrons requires more energy/motion from the electrons. So it's almost like the electrons have to be in more places at once to neutralize the positive charge. I'm almost tempted to call this "spacetime contraction" caused by the electrostatic imbalance. I feel like a mad scientist grasping for straws right now, so please tell me you can at least understand my reasoning on this.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, I can't, really. Why should the electrons have to move at all to neutralize the positive charge?

[lemur]

No, I can't, really. Why should the electrons have to move at all to neutralize the positive charge?

Because they're being shared? The level of charge attraction and repulsion changes with distance between the particles in question, doesn't it?

Edited March 28, 2011 by lemur

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Because they're being shared? The level of charge attraction and repulsion changes with distance between the particles in question, doesn't it?

Yes, but that doesn't change the overall neutrality of the substance.

[md65536]

Thus, I think it could be said that any body of matter will have some surplus of proton charge relative to electron charge.

Wouldn't this imply that a neutron is massless?

 

Neutron stars would be a problem then ("a spoonful weighs as much as a mountain"). If neutron stars are actually observed and not just predicted (I figure it's the former), how would they be explained?

 

 

 

Electrons have a (relatively small) mass. Does your conjecture imply that adding electrons would decrease mass, in opposition to what is observed?

[lemur]

Yes, but that doesn't change the overall neutrality of the substance.

I know, but I'm saying that the movement of the charge could speed up and slow down in the process of neutralizing. E.g. faster charge neutralization = greater gravity/mass.

 

 

Wouldn't this imply that a neutron is massless?

Not if the neutron is special case of proton-electron interaction. E.g. when you compare H2 with He, they have basically the same components, two protons and two electrons, in different configurations, right? Maybe the neutron is to H what He is to H2 (i.e. a denser configuration of a single proton and electron that relies on strong force instead of electrostatic.

 

Neutron stars would be a problem then ("a spoonful weighs as much as a mountain"). If neutron stars are actually observed and not just predicted (I figure it's the former), how would they be explained?

By the compactness of the particles allowing the force interactions to take place at shorter radii from the nuclei?

 

Electrons have a (relatively small) mass. Does your conjecture imply that adding electrons would decrease mass, in opposition to what is observed?

How is electron mass measured? Yes, I think my conjecture implies that atoms/molecules whose electrons are not "stretched as thin" emit less gravitation. Idk, though, since I'm trying to figure out what that would imply about a heavy atom like gold, which has a lot of electrons but also a lot of protons and thus a lot of mass/density. I guess I just don't see why/how gravity would be completely unrelated to the other forces emitted by atoms, and why it really only seems to emerge as a lot of atoms lump together. Since atoms tend to combine and mix into the most electrostatically neutral configurations, it seemed logical that gravity could emerge as a by-product of progressive charge-neutralization. E.g. water surface tension seems to work like this, where water molecules are attracted to each other due to the hydrogen bonds - so I thought maybe gravity could work like surface tension except several degrees of neutralization further than water.

[CaptainPanic]

If the earth as a whole carried a net charge, would we be able to measure it?

 

What if our entire solar system was charged as a whole, and has been since its origins? Would that make it any more difficult?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I know, but I'm saying that the movement of the charge could speed up and slow down in the process of neutralizing. E.g. faster charge neutralization = greater gravity/mass.

What do you mean by "faster charge neutralization"?

 

In an insulating material, the charges will move among individual molecules and nothing else. From any significant distance away, it does not matter how the charge moves -- the motion is insignificant compared to the distance. The motion of the charges only matters when you're sitting right next to the molecule.

[lemur]

What do you mean by "faster charge neutralization"?

 

In an insulating material, the charges will move among individual molecules and nothing else. From any significant distance away, it does not matter how the charge moves -- the motion is insignificant compared to the distance. The motion of the charges only matters when you're sitting right next to the molecule.

What I mean is that the electrons neutralize the positive charge of the nuclei by moving in the direction of highest positive charge (electron hole?). When they jump to such a "hole," there is positive charge already setting the stage for the next jump. So the electron is constantly in motion trying to neutralize the positive charge. When atoms stabilize into molecules, there is something about the net charge (+ @= -) and configuration (full shell) that balances the two charges, but to do this, the electrons would have to keep up with the positive charge attraction. I guess another way to say this is that charge neutralization is a product of motion/speed/(tunneling rate?) as much as it is due to particle numbers.

 

So, for example, when a hydrogen electron moves to a higher level, I would think it has to move faster to successfully neutralize the positive charge from the proton in all directions. This is also, I presume, why atoms whose electrons are at higher energy levels are more likely to combine into molecular configurations.

 

But when atoms settle into such a molecular configuration, the electrons suddenly must flow a further distance to encircle the molecule. So they may be doing more neutralizing with less fundamental negative charge. So it would be like the nucleons and the electrons have a motion-differential and that differential could be responsible for mass/gravitation. This seems like it could be a logical relationship between energy and mass. Then, the fact that the "rest charge differential" between the protons and the electrons is actually higher than the "dynamic charge neutralization" would account for gravitation insofar as atoms/molecules would be attracted to each other by impelling each other into motion (the same way the nuclei impel the electrons to move around them).

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What I mean is that the electrons neutralize the positive charge of the nuclei by moving in the direction of highest positive charge (electron hole?). When they jump to such a "hole," there is positive charge already setting the stage for the next jump. So the electron is constantly in motion trying to neutralize the positive charge.

Er, no, not really.

 

I guess another way to say this is that charge neutralization is a product of motion/speed/(tunneling rate?) as much as it is due to particle numbers.

No, it isn't.

 

Suppose I have two oppositely charged particles a small distance r apart. If I am very close to them -- say, within r -- I will feel electric forces from both charges, and I will be moved around by their electrostatic forces. However, if I move a distance away that is large compared to r -- say, 100r away -- I feel essentially zero net force, because the force from the charges are nearly equal and opposite. One charge may be slightly farther away from me than the other, but that difference is tiny compared to the overall distance, and so they essentially neutralize each other.

 

Note that absolutely no particle motion was required.

[lemur]

Er, no, not really.

How so? The electrons can't be everywhere in the positive electrostatic field at once, can they?

 

 

Suppose I have two oppositely charged particles a small distance r apart. If I am very close to them -- say, within r -- I will feel electric forces from both charges, and I will be moved around by their electrostatic forces. However, if I move a distance away that is large compared to r -- say, 100r away -- I feel essentially zero net force, because the force from the charges are nearly equal and opposite. One charge may be slightly farther away from me than the other, but that difference is tiny compared to the overall distance, and so they essentially neutralize each other.

 

Note that absolutely no particle motion was required.

I can't follow your example because I don't know what sort of empirical situation (i.e. what kind of charges) you're referring to. I see what you mean that the attractive force diminished with distance, but my point is that the positive charge-fields are persistent and this causes the electron to continuously accelerate in toward it instead of launching away in a tangent line. The speed of the charge would depend on the strength of the attraction and distance of the electron's trajectory, no? This is why I'm saying the motion of the electrons forms part of the neutralizing effect of the positive nuclear charge (dynamic neutralization). Then, I don't see why this animating-effect of the charge couldn't be extended to molecules being attracted toward each other and causing each other to tend to circle each other, almost as if their electrons are getting dragged in the direction of the moving wave of charge. In this sense, all molecules would tend to attract each other and impel each other toward angular momentum in the same way the electrons circulate around the nuclei.

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How so? The electrons can't be everywhere in the positive electrostatic field at once, can they?

They don't have to be. All that matters is that the electrostatic force from the positive charge is equal and opposite to the force from the negative charge; this can be achieved just by having a stationary electron sitting nearby.

 

I can't follow your example because I don't know what sort of empirical situation (i.e. what kind of charges) you're referring to. I see what you mean that the attractive force diminished with distance, but my point is that the positive charge-fields are persistent and this causes the electron to continuously accelerate in toward it instead of launching away in a tangent line. The speed of the charge would depend on the strength of the attraction and distance of the electron's trajectory, no? This is why I'm saying the motion of the electrons forms part of the neutralizing effect of the positive nuclear charge (dynamic neutralization). Then, I don't see why this animating-effect of the charge couldn't be extended to molecules being attracted toward each other and causing each other to tend to circle each other, almost as if their electrons are getting dragged in the direction of the moving wave of charge. In this sense, all molecules would tend to attract each other and impel each other toward angular momentum in the same way the electrons circulate around the nuclei.

Imagine the two charges in my example as completely stationary, fixed in whatever material they're part of. For example, they might be charges fixed in an insulator that does not allow charge to move around.

 

Now imagine bringing another charged particle to within 100r or so. It will essentially experience zero net force, because the positive fixed charge would have neutralized the negative fixed charge.

[lemur]

They don't have to be. All that matters is that the electrostatic force from the positive charge is equal and opposite to the force from the negative charge; this can be achieved just by having a stationary electron sitting nearby.

How can it just "sit nearby" without something to anchor it at that distance? Also, how could a stationary electron on one side of a proton neutralize the charge on the side of the proton opposite the electron? Does the positive charge extend out in all directions from the protons, just as it does for the electrons? If the electrostatic charge would be neutralized between the protons and the electrons, how would the electrons repel each other in interactions?

 

 

Imagine the two charges in my example as completely stationary, fixed in whatever material they're part of. For example, they might be charges fixed in an insulator that does not allow charge to move around.

 

Now imagine bringing another charged particle to within 100r or so. It will essentially experience zero net force, because the positive fixed charge would have neutralized the negative fixed charge.

So the first two charges are isolated within an insulator and so is the 100r charged particle? Well, then none of them would interact due to charge-insulation, right? My point with the electrons is that they insulate the positive charge from the nucleus by forming a barrier against the electrons of other atoms/molecules. However, I am speculating that this electron barrier is moving around the nucleus (in a wave, right?) and so there must be some area (trough) where the wave's negative charge doesn't insulate the positive charge of the nucleus (as much). This is what I was referring to as an "electron hole" since it would be a potential point of entry for available electrons. My point with the speed of the charge was that the electrons would "smear out" more when they were traveling a further distance or at a faster speed due to stronger attractive force. This, in effect, would allow the positive charge to exert a slight surplus of charge attraction that would actually alternate with the cycling negative charge of the electrons. Anyway, I was trying to get the motion of the electron-flow to account for a net positive charge surplus that would cause gravitational attraction among molecules, but I suppose that would also have an effect on ionization, etc.

 

At least this is making me aware of what happens to crazy people that maddens them. You come up with an idea that seems somewhat clear and then start dealing with critique, which causes your mind to multiply its thoughts in various directions. I guess I need to step back and rethink this whole issue instead of grasping like a fool for straws in all directions. Thanks for the input.

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How can it just "sit nearby" without something to anchor it at that distance? Also, how could a stationary electron on one side of a proton neutralize the charge on the side of the proton opposite the electron? Does the positive charge extend out in all directions from the protons, just as it does for the electrons? If the electrostatic charge would be neutralized between the protons and the electrons, how would the electrons repel each other in interactions?

Perhaps it does have something to anchor it; that's irrelevant to the scenario.

 

Right, so suppose I'm a positively charged particle sitting a distance r from a proton. I experience this force:

 

[math]F_1 = k \frac{q e}{r^2}[/math]

 

where q is my charge and e is the charge of an electron (which is the same magnitude as a proton's charge, of course).

 

Now, suppose there's an electron lurking directly behind that proton at a distance [imath]\epsilon[/imath] behind it. I experience the following force from it:

 

[math]F_2 = - k \frac{q e}{(r + \epsilon)^2}[/math]

 

(Note the minus sign, because the charge of the electron is opposite.)

 

Now, what's the total force I experience?

 

[math]F = F_1 + F_2 = k \frac{q e}{r^2} - k \frac{q e}{(r + \epsilon)^2} = k q e \left(\frac{1}{r^2} - \frac{1}{(r+\epsilon)^2}\right)[/math]

 

Now, as [imath]\epsilon[/imath] becomes negligibly small compared to the distance r...

 

[math]F = \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \left[ k q e \left(\frac{1}{r^2} - \frac{1}{(r+\epsilon)^2}\right) \right]= k q e \left(\frac{1}{r^2} - \frac{1}{r^2}\right) = 0[/math]

 

And so we say that the proton and electron neutralize each other.

 

Note, of course, this doesn't work when [imath]\epsilon \geq r[/imath]. Hence why a particle very very close to the two charged particles will still feel a net force.

 

So the first two charges are isolated within an insulator and so is the 100r charged particle? Well, then none of them would interact due to charge-insulation, right?

Nope. Electrostatic forces apply to static electric charges, as the name suggests.

[lemur]

Perhaps it does have something to anchor it; that's irrelevant to the scenario.

 

Right, so suppose I'm a positively charged particle sitting a distance r from a proton. I experience this force:

 

[math]F_1 = k \frac{q e}{r^2}[/math]

 

where q is my charge and e is the charge of an electron (which is the same magnitude as a proton's charge, of course).

 

Now, suppose there's an electron lurking directly behind that proton at a distance [imath]\epsilon[/imath] behind it. I experience the following force from it:

 

[math]F_2 = - k \frac{q e}{(r + \epsilon)^2}[/math]

 

(Note the minus sign, because the charge of the electron is opposite.)

 

Now, what's the total force I experience?

 

[math]F = F_1 + F_2 = k \frac{q e}{r^2} - k \frac{q e}{(r + \epsilon)^2} = k q e \left(\frac{1}{r^2} - \frac{1}{(r+\epsilon)^2}\right)[/math]

 

Now, as [imath]\epsilon[/imath] becomes negligibly small compared to the distance r...

 

[math]F = \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \left[ k q e \left(\frac{1}{r^2} - \frac{1}{(r+\epsilon)^2}\right) \right]= k q e \left(\frac{1}{r^2} - \frac{1}{r^2}\right) = 0[/math]

 

And so we say that the proton and electron neutralize each other.

But don't these equations only describe net-charge summation for a line between the interacting points? Don't both the particles also radiate charge in 359 other degrees around them whose vectors would interact with the same neutralizing logic but with varying intensity? This is why I avoid the equations, because I find it much easier to visualize the fields and their potential interactions visually.

 

 

Nope. Electrostatic forces apply to static electric charges, as the name suggests.

I didn't say they didn't. I said that if they were all insulated from each other, they wouldn't interact. Is that wrong?

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But don't these equations only describe net-charge summation for a line between the interacting points? Don't both the particles also radiate charge in 359 other degrees around them whose vectors would interact with the same neutralizing logic but with varying intensity? This is why I avoid the equations, because I find it much easier to visualize the fields and their potential interactions visually.

Indeed they do, and the equations work almost exactly the same way no matter which angle you come from. So long as the additional distance [imath]\epsilon[/imath] is small, the charges neutralize each other effectively.

 

I didn't say they didn't. I said that if they were all insulated from each other, they wouldn't interact. Is that wrong?

That's wrong. "Insulated" means the charges can't move, not that their electrostatic effect is negated. If I take an insulated sphere and embed a billion extra electrons in it, it will repel other negatively charged objects, despite being insulated. You can see this very easily by rubbing an inflated balloon on your hair. Balloons aren't conductive, but nevertheless it can carry a charge and have electrostatic effects, like exerting a force on your hair or attracting bits of paper and foam.

 

Same thing goes with styrofoam packing pellets that get stuck to your hands with static electricity. They're insulators, but they carry a charge, and that charge exerts a force.

[lemur]

Indeed they do, and the equations work almost exactly the same way no matter which angle you come from. So long as the additional distance [imath]\epsilon[/imath] is small, the charges neutralize each other effectively.

So then what happens when multiple atoms combine to form a molecule and electrons are shared? Don't the electrons get subject to more positive charge from the nuclei and have a farther distance to travel around the whole constellation of nuclei?

 

That's wrong. "Insulated" means the charges can't move, not that their electrostatic effect is negated. If I take an insulated sphere and embed a billion extra electrons in it, it will repel other negatively charged objects, despite being insulated. You can see this very easily by rubbing an inflated balloon on your hair. Balloons aren't conductive, but nevertheless it can carry a charge and have electrostatic effects, like exerting a force on your hair or attracting bits of paper and foam.

Ok, so back to your original example; if two opposite charges at a distance are sufficiently equal in strength, they neutralize each other and can no longer have any charge effect on anything else in any direction? How, then, do electrons continue to repel each other while their charge is balanced against that of their nuclei?

 

 

 

 

[D H]

Yes, I know that electrostatic attraction drops off at a greater rate with distance from the nucleus than gravity.

This is wrong. The electrostatic force, like gravitation, is a 1/r² force. However, the electrostatic force cannot explain gravity.

 

However, I'm still wondering if residual electrostatic attraction could explain gravity. My speculative reasoning is this: as a body of matter grows, the number of protons in the body increases faster than the number of electrons.

This is wrong as an explanation for gravitation, for at least two reasons.

1. If it was correct objects would repel one another rather than be attracted to one another.

2. This is just wrong, period. Matter on the macroscopic scale is electrically neutral, or nearly so. Were it not we would see electrostatic discharges on a massive scale all over the Earth. Consider, for example, the act of lifting a boulder from the surface of the Earth. The kind of charge needed to explain the observed gravitational attraction between the boulder and the Earth would result in an electrical discharge between the boulder and the Earth.

 

Now, to be true to the call for rigor in the speculations section, I should formulate some deductive tests that could falsify this idea.

I'll do that for you.

 

1. Explain how planets can have moons. For the electrostatic force between two objects be attractive the charges on those two objects must be of opposite signs (otherwise the electrostatic force is repulsive, not attractive). Suppose your conjecture is correct. Since planets orbit the Sun, all the planets must have an electrostatic charge that is of the opposite sign of that of the Sun. The same goes for the moons that orbit some planet. That means the moons have the same sign charge as that of the Sun. The Sun would shoot the Earth's moon out of the solar system. The same would happen for many other moons.

 

2. Explain how people are still pulled Earthward when they are flying in an airplane. (The same object regarding the moons applies here.)

 

3. Explain why we don't see electrical discharges every time some object is lifted from the surface of the Earth.

[swansont]

Same thing goes with styrofoam packing pellets that get stuck to your hands with static electricity. They're insulators, but they carry a charge, and that charge exerts a force.

 

You got that right. http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/8156

[lemur]

No, I can't, really. Why should the electrons have to move at all to neutralize the positive charge?

For the sake of simplicity, consider a hypothetical situation in which a He atom would have both its electrons concentrate in a narrow band with the hemispheres above and below the band completely unshielded. In that case, wouldn't the positive charge of the protons still be present and other electrons or ions could be attracted into the interior of the atom? Yes, I know this is a bizarre hypothetical since it is completely unfounded, but my point is that the electrons have to distribute their way around the entire sphere of their probability areas to shield the nucleus, right?

 

So if you compare the volume/shape of the He atom to a H2 molecule, wouldn't the H2 be more voluminous than the He, since the protons are not bound by strong force? As such, don't the two electrons have more area to cover despite the fact that they have the same charge as the two electrons in the H2 molecule and their protons do as well?

 

So, I'm guessing the difference between the two configuration lies in the configuration of the protons relative to each other as well as the path the electrons take in circulating among them. I would guess (I know, I'm doing a lot of guessing) that the protons in the H2 are separated by same-charge repulsion of the protons as well as that of electrons as they circulate both between and around the perimeter of the molecule. So doesn't it make any sense to consider the total area of electron motion relative to the charge-balancing/neutralization process? Don't the electrons have to "spread themselves thinner" within the H2 molecule than in the He atom?

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So then what happens when multiple atoms combine to form a molecule and electrons are shared? Don't the electrons get subject to more positive charge from the nuclei and have a farther distance to travel around the whole constellation of nuclei?

Yes.

 

Ok, so back to your original example; if two opposite charges at a distance are sufficiently equal in strength, they neutralize each other and can no longer have any charge effect on anything else in any direction? How, then, do electrons continue to repel each other while their charge is balanced against that of their nuclei?

You'll note I said the charge effects are only cancelled out at a sufficiently long distance that the distance between the opposite charges is negligible.

 

For the sake of simplicity, consider a hypothetical situation in which a He atom would have both its electrons concentrate in a narrow band with the hemispheres above and below the band completely unshielded. In that case, wouldn't the positive charge of the protons still be present and other electrons or ions could be attracted into the interior of the atom? Yes, I know this is a bizarre hypothetical since it is completely unfounded, but my point is that the electrons have to distribute their way around the entire sphere of their probability areas to shield the nucleus, right?

If they come close enough. At a distance, the positive and negative charges will exert an equal and opposite force, and the ions won't be attracted.

[lemur]

I'll do that for you.

 

1. Explain how planets can have moons. For the electrostatic force between two objects be attractive the charges on those two objects must be of opposite signs (otherwise the electrostatic force is repulsive, not attractive). Suppose your conjecture is correct. Since planets orbit the Sun, all the planets must have an electrostatic charge that is of the opposite sign of that of the Sun. The same goes for the moons that orbit some planet. That means the moons have the same sign charge as that of the Sun. The Sun would shoot the Earth's moon out of the solar system. The same would happen for many other moons.

 

2. Explain how people are still pulled Earthward when they are flying in an airplane. (The same object regarding the moons applies here.)

 

3. Explain why we don't see electrical discharges every time some object is lifted from the surface of the Earth.

Thanks, and I agree that this is a good post. I'm not trying to move goalposts, but I actually thought of this issue of polarity and I was trying to formulate that gravity somehow emerges from the fact that the electrons have to circulate around the nuclei and thus gravity emerges from the slight imbalance between the charges. I know that any "slight imbalance" would have to be either positive or negative, so what I'm thinking is that this imbalance could oscillate and by doing so cause molecules to come into phase and attract each other accordingly. This sounds similar to the way spin causes magnetic attraction/repulsion but in this case the oscillating charge would get more or less evenly distributed around the perimeter of molecules because the electrons have to circulate around the whole molecule.

 

I'm sure this is still falsifiable. I hope it is, anyway, because I hate feeling like I am a crackpot trying to reach a point where I can insist on validity of my idea just because I've refined it to the point of being beyond logical deductions.

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Thanks, and I agree that this is a good post. I'm not trying to move goalposts, but I actually thought of this issue of polarity and I was trying to formulate that gravity somehow emerges from the fact that the electrons have to circulate around the nuclei and thus gravity emerges from the slight imbalance between the charges. I know that any "slight imbalance" would have to be either positive or negative, so what I'm thinking is that this imbalance could oscillate and by doing so cause molecules to come into phase and attract each other accordingly. This sounds similar to the way spin causes magnetic attraction/repulsion but in this case the oscillating charge would get more or less evenly distributed around the perimeter of molecules because the electrons have to circulate around the whole molecule.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force

 

Sounds familiar.