Gravity in a ONE ATOM universe: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Gravity in a ONE ATOM universe » Gravity in a ONE ATOM universe

Gravity in a ONE ATOM universe

Gravity in a ONE ATOM universe

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 12/06/07 - 05:22 PM: Subject: Gravity in a ONE ATOM universe	#1
Let us suppose there is a Universe consisting of just ONE atom.. My question is, would this One Atom Universe have gravity..? Would gravity be a property of this Atom ? Or does gravity only exist as a force between a minimum of two objects. Aka...two atoms at minimum are needed to create "Gravity" Gramm
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

derekc153
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
Location: Arizona, United States
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 50

Posted 12/06/07 - 10:43 PM:	#2
In a one atom universe, who wants to know? If by a one atom universe you mean a one particle universe, then it would be impossible to observe any force, including gravitational force. However, if you were using the word "atom" in the strict scientific sense, in which it has internal structure, then it should be possible in theory to observe any force, including gravity, assuming the observer is not part of the universe, but somehow able to observe it without being part of it or changing it (impossible, of course). Gravity is a force that arises from the interaction of matter (although light is also affected, even though photons are massless). Gravity, or any force for that matter, seems like a rather useless concept if we have a one-particle universe. As a side-note, gravity is such a weak force that I don't think scientists in our universe can measure the gravitational influence of a subatomic particle or atom. Don't quote me on that, but I'd be very surprised. Edited by derekc153 on 12/06/07 - 10:53 PM
_____________________ "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -Shakespeare's Hamlet

benzie5033
Stand up Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
Location: Penn State University
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 151

Posted 12/06/07 - 10:48 PM:	#3
I agree with derek on this one, if there is only one atom, gravity would become a non-issue. Motion would also be impossible, almost anything would be impossible because this one atom would have no cause and nothing to effect, so I don't even think this universe could do much of anything. -Benz
_____________________ "Cogito, ergo som." -Descartes "Esse est percipi." -Berkeley

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 12/07/07 - 12:27 AM:	#4
By our current definitions (at least the ones known to me) Gravity requires 2 or more objects to have an interacting force. Since an atom is made up of multiple particles, then gravity should in theory exist. I would question the makeup of gravity. In which area does gravity take hold on the atom? Is it a function based from Bohr's hidden variable? Is it a function of the electron? The nucleus? I currently tend towards Bohr's hidden variable at the moment, since that is the only physics-type thinking of mine that is actually on paper. (And yes, it actually 'works' in 2d format, I need to convert to 3d sometime, and add the math so I'm not just a crackpot.) Ps: It makes a possible interesting conundrum for black holes. If the requirement for gravity is more then one object, then black holes of the huge mass variety are not quite 'solid'.

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 12/07/07 - 12:32 AM:	#5
derekc153 wrote: In a one atom universe, who wants to know? Maybe the atom wants to know.. In any case, I posed the question, so given that's case, it's pretty safe to assume...I do. derekc153 wrote: However, if you were using the word "atom" in the strict scientific sense, in which it has internal structure, then it should be possible in theory to observe any force Care to expand on this notion of observing 'any force'. ? derekc153 wrote: Gravity is a force that arises from the interaction of matter (although light is also affected, even though photons are massless). Gravity, or any force for that matter, seems like a rather useless concept if we have a one-particle universe. Uselessness...? Hard science knows no such emotional value adding... derekc153 wrote: As a side-note, gravity is such a weak force that I don't think scientists in our universe can measure the gravitational influence of a subatomic particle or atom. Don't quote me on that, but I'd be very surprised. No, I won't quote you. But all the same, do you mean to say Quantum gravity fields will never be measured ? benzie5033 wrote: Motion would also be impossible, almost anything would be impossible Really ? How so ..? benzie5033 wrote: .. this one atom would have no cause, Seems to me, like your drifting into Metaphysics here. Cheers Gramm
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

benzie5033
Stand up Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
Location: Penn State University
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 151

Posted 12/07/07 - 09:43 AM:	#6
Motion would be impossible because there would be nothing to transfer kinetic energy to it because it is the only thing in the universe. Even if it were somehow in motion from the beginning of existence, the atom would have no way of measuring motion because that would involve other things to be used to perceive the motion from, example "I know that I am moving from point A to point B because there are things A and B, without them I wouldn't be able to measure motion as such. In response to the cause comment, I think I was still moving toward the inertia thing but maybe a dash of Metaphysics. -Benz
_____________________ "Cogito, ergo som." -Descartes "Esse est percipi." -Berkeley

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 12/07/07 - 08:47 PM:	#7
I would expect an atom to have an attribute of "gravity", but conditional. It is kind of like asking "what color are bananas in a universe without light". Is it "yellow", before you add light? What if there are no eyes to observe it? The equations for gravity involve mass and distance. An atom has mass, but does it have distance? Is there space if there is no boundary? If you added a second atom -- or better yet, the atom decays into multiple particles, there would suddenly be a gravitational effect between those parts which could be predicted. We know where the particles came from, but where did the gravity, (and other new forces), come from? In another thread, I postulated that the only thing that exists, (as far as observable attributes), is the relationship between objects. Perhaps an atom in a one-atom universe would not exist since it wouldn't have no relationship to anything.
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 18

Posted 12/07/07 - 09:40 PM:	#8
Cadrache wrote: It makes a possible interesting conundrum for black holes. If now, as a thought experiment, we imagined that our whole universe is a single very complex atom, would the whole universe exhibit gravity? Or would the concept of gravity fade away? Would we have to distinguish whether we are observing inside the universe or outside, as in the case of black holes?
_____________________ {}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . .

299792458
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 23, 2007
Location: Maui, Hawaii
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 71

Posted 12/08/07 - 02:52 AM:	#9
Gramm wrote: Let us suppose there is a Universe consisting of just ONE atom.. My question is, would this One Atom Universe have gravity..? Would gravity be a property of this Atom ? Or does gravity only exist as a force between a minimum of two objects. Aka...two atoms at minimum are needed to create "Gravity" Gramm The answer depends upon which theory of gravity is employed. We know what gravity does but we don't know, for sure, what causes it. In General Relativity the presence of any mass warps space/time (curves it) and is thought to create 'gravitation'. So, two objects are not required to establish gravitation (attractive influence). It seems that electromagnetic forces are what holds an atom together (not gravity). So, to the extent that the presence of the atom warps space/time then 'gravitation' (attractive influence) would be present. 'Gravity' (as distinguished from gravitation) is considered to be an attracting 'force' that requires the presence of two objects with mass. The presence of 'gravity', in a one atom universe, may depend upon the atomic weight of the components composing the atom. Howsoever, science has not been able to determine the essence of atomic structure (mass / cloud) to determine if gravity operates within an atom. Side Note: Recently, it has been proven that gravity travels at the speed of light! (no kidding). So, if our Sun disintegrated it would take 8 1/2 minutes until the gravitational effect was experienced on the Earth. We also do not know if gravity is a 'property' of mass or if gravity is the result of the presence of mass. It depends upon one's choice of theories regarding gravity.... warped space or attracting force. Edited by 299792458 on 12/08/07 - 11:25 AM. Reason: corrected implication

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 516

Posted 12/08/07 - 03:57 AM:	#10
Gramm First of all I expect what you mean is a one particle universe, since atoms would have many particles interacting through various forces one of which would be gravity, albeit weak. However, isn't space bend around a gravitational source? or is this an interpretation that relativity uses to explain the movement of particles? Presumably we would need to have at least one more particle, even a massless one, to show this. Incidentally, I have just wrote in another thread about Wheeler's concept that 'all' electrons and positrons can be interpreted as being only one electron particle travelling forwards and backwards in time respectively. I am not sure if the other types of particle antimatter opposites can be interpreted in a similar way.
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 12/08/07 - 03:32 PM:	#11
perseus wrote: First of all I expect what you mean is a one particle universe, since atoms would have many particles interacting through various forces one of which would be gravity, albeit weak. Hello Perseus. Yes. I am somewhat suprised at the muddle headedness of some posters, who wonder what I mean when I say ONE atom. I mean it in the classic Newtonian sense, along with all the sub atomic particles. As you point out, clearly there are many particles, muons, charmed, etc etc. So the question moves towards gravity as a property external to that one atom, as well as the measuring of the quantum gravitational fields within. So, in effect, mine is (as you rightly point out) a variation on Wheelers' "One electron Universe". Mind you, the physical boundary issue is intriguing. perseus wrote: Incidentally, I have just wrote in another thread about Wheeler's concept that 'all' electrons and positrons can be interpreted as being only one electron particle travelling forwards and backwards in time respectively. I am not sure about Wheeler's concept has much validity these days.. As much as Einstein could not rule out time travel even for an electron, omnipresence in a one such electron is too close to Metaphysics for my tastes. Besides which, Wheeler was never able to account for the inbalance between positive and negative matter in the Universe. If I am not mistaken, that, was the final nail in the coffin for his Quasi~Metaphysical idea. And given, Feynman's love of Metaphysics...(err not) he would have had a chuckle over the concept. Gramm Edited by Gramm on 12/08/07 - 03:44 PM
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5382

Posted 12/09/07 - 03:25 AM:	#12
Clearly, if we use the rubber sheet analogy, a single atom would cause the gravity field around the atom to be non-uniform. The potential for another atom to feel the force would be there, but in the absence of this second atom, it would remain potential.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 12/09/07 - 05:34 PM:	#13
rabeldin wrote: Clearly, if we use the rubber sheet analogy, a single atom would cause the gravity field around the atom to be non-uniform. The potential for another atom to feel the force would be there, but in the absence of this second atom, it would remain potential. Brownian Motion with one atom. Now that would be fun to see.... Gramm
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 12/10/07 - 06:08 PM:	#14
If now, as a thought experiment, we imagined that our whole universe is a single very complex atom, would the whole universe exhibit gravity? Or would the concept of gravity fade away? Would we have to distinguish whether we are observing inside the universe or outside, as in the case of black holes? That would depend on how we observe gravity. If we observe by use of 'motion', then I would state flatly no, we would not be able to observe gravity. There would be 2 outcomes from what I can see. (Yes see, since I'm using my 'non-language' think mode. Yay pictures!) At the moment, I cannot really see too much differences between the outcomes if the nuclear forces (strong/weak) are different then ours. Also note, I am taking the approach that Distance is only a platform for things to interact with each other, and not a decisive factor to the actual making of energy. (4 answers if distance is a part of the formula for energy) 1. Decaying orbit. If as they claim, the weak/strong nuclear forces are from the same ancestor of an earlier energy type then the strong/weak nuclear forces would be relational, and relatively static. This is of course taking that the whole system is 'stable' with just the two forces. (supposedly strong/weak/magnetic/other one gets squashed into 2 forces in the early stages of our universe) This makes the movment inwards of the electron equal 0, since all energies would more or less balance out. When gravity is introduced, the movement would go inwards, towards the nucleus. Simple gravity equation. The total energy inwards will be slightly more then what a stable orbit needs. The closer the two particles, the more 'gravity', the more it must move in. 2. A few shifts in various parts of the orbits resulting in a larger atom. The atom would move around its' orbits faster by the factor determined by the force of gravity. Since the electron cannot shoot outwards, away from the nucleus, the electrons' movement will affect the movement of the nucleus; its' internal rotation. Gravity will still push or pull the electron inwards. Because the nuclear force increases because of the smaller orbit and because the total energy does not change, the electron would have to move faster around the atom. since the electrons' position is somewhat determined by the rotation of the nucleus -positrons, neutrons etc.- (if its' not in the physics books, then i've got some work to do :P) Then the increased movement of the electron would force the positrons to move faster. The nucleus would like grow in size slightly. (centrifugal force issue) Since the positron is now larger, it would push the electron further away; possibly even further then the original stable orbit. Mmmm... might be the extra 'particle' that started the big bang, the graviton... Um.. that's about all I can think of as to what may happen, under the 2 type scenario. That 4 type, for the 4th option came amazingly harder when I actually started writing number 2 lol.

derekc153
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
Location: Arizona, United States
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 50

Posted 12/18/07 - 02:42 PM:	#15
Gramm wrote: Care to expand on this notion of observing 'any force'. ? By "any force" I meant any type of force; that is, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, or gravitational force. Uselessness...? Hard science knows no such emotional value adding... Values can certainly influence science, though emotions should not. Consider how scientific research is conducted. The researcher usually has some question or hypothesis he/she wants to investigate. The question is generated according to the values of the researcher and society regarding what is an important or interesting question. In fact, the entire realism versus instrumentalism debate is a disagreement over whether scientific theories actually represent reality, or if they are simply useful tools to make accurate predictions about the world. In a universe with only one particle (not one atom, but one particle), gravitational force would be completely unobservable (even neglecting the problem that there would be nobody there to observe it). Thus, gravitational force would not even be a scientific question in such a universe. However, as you clarified, you asked about a one atom universe. No, I won't quote you. But all the same, do you mean to say Quantum gravity fields will never be measured ? No, I didn't mean to say that. I'm just saying the gravitational force of a single particle is so tiny that I don't think we can measure it with any current methods. I could be wrong I suppose.
_____________________ "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -Shakespeare's Hamlet

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.