Comment on “”Can we ever replace the gravitational force model with something more practical, so we control the forces?”
Recommend you change the title to “Can we ever replace the gravitational force model with something more practical, so we control the forces?”
Did you ever get an answer to your question? Masses with relatively small number of free charges per kilogram can have electrical forces equivalent to the gravitational force.
G*M1*M2/r^2 = Q1*Q2/(4 pi e0 r^2)
If M1=M2=M, Q1=Q2=Q
G*M^2 = Q^2/(4 pi eo)
(Q/M)^2 = G*(4 pi e0)
Q/M = sqrt(G*4*pi*e0) about sqrt(6.674eE-11*4*pi*8.8541878128E-12)
Q/M = 8.6173235e-11 Coulombs/kg
A Coulomb of electrons is (1/e) = (1/1.602176634E-19) = 6.2415091e+18 electrons
So (Q/M)/e = 8.6173235e-11/1.602176634E-19 = 537,851,028.228 electrons per kilogram
Because you don’t want “gravity” to depend on the local temperature (which would we would say “Oh, that is just electrostatic forces”) and you would rather not have to determine the molecular and atomic composition of every mass (I have done that too). You can use atomic mass units (roughly a proton neutron pair equivalent) with a mass of (1/ (1000* NA)) = 1/6.02214076E26 = 1.6605391e-27 kilograms/amu
Then there are 1000*AvogadrosNumber of amus per kilogram and so those hypothetical electrons are spread among that many amus.
[(Q/M)/e]/(1000*NA) = 537,851,028.228/6.02214076E26 = 8.9312264e-19 electrons charges per atomic mass unit.
Small numbers, but you just keep the precise values and use them. It comes to the right values for the calculations. It is all just models anyway. Doesn’t matter which model you choose, as long as it gives the right answers most of the time. Depending on your level of “correctness”.
You asked about repulsion, and if you use electromagnetic forces as your model, that is fine. All of these models have fundamental assumptions. So you have to learn the model, the constants, the equations or formulas, and then be careful where you use them.
I keep track of most all the “magnetic levitation”, “acoustic levitation”, “laser levitation”, “electromagnetic levitation”, “electrostatic levitation”, and “microgravity” groups. There are people working on all of them and many other ways to move and hold and control masses with fields. “No wires” means you create fields to hold liquids, solids, gases and plasmas precisely where you want them. In the ideal case, you tell the computer to pick something up and fly it around the room, rotating at specific speeds and accelerations – and it does it. The closest to that ideal are the acoustic levitation groups, mostly because the ultrasonic generators, controls circuits, computers and software are mostly off-the-shelf now. The groups who use “laser tweezer” methods are in a group by themselves, mostly because some of them use really expensive and too limited components. But there are also others trying off-the-shelf diode lasers and Arduinos or ESP32 or Jetson nano type tools.
You will get a LOT further along if you decide what you want to do if you control forces, rather than worry if they are “gravitational” or “electrostatic” or “ionic jets” or “magnetic polarization” or any one of tens of thousands of methods groups use to produce and control forces. There is nothing magical about “acceleration”. It is precisely defined and measurable down to “gravitational” levels (mostly tiny forces). But the units and methods all use acceleration, and only distinguish “gravitational potential” once the sources of the force field is found and characterized. I spend a lot of time sorting out such things, since all the sensor networks (seismometers, gravimeters, magnetometers, and many many others) all pick up force signals (accelerations) from many different sources, some of which are only characterized by their mass or density changes. If you want to assign a charge to mass ratio, that works. Just keep careful track of things and what units you use is up to you, as long as you speak “SI units and constants” when talking on the Internet and with others.
The constants I used are all from the CODATA listings at NIST. I hate the way they “share” them, since you have to manually read and use them (no easy copy and paste or just “use those”).
Gravitational Constant is https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bg and the CODATA one it is the correct one to use for solar system calculations which is listed at https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/astro_par.html It used to be easier to find. “Astrodynamic Parameters” is a big eclectic, as is “Newtonian constant of gravitation” with value 6.67430E-11 kg-1 m3 s-2.
I tend to say the units for G as (Newton*Meter^2/kg) or (Joule/kg)*meter depending on if you are doing forces or energies. If you only have so many Joules to work with, that limits how much mass and how far you can move it.
JPL has upgraded their website and now have a “Gravity Fields” section for the gravity fields of the planets and some moons.
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
I think there are many places where antimatter could collect in our universe. One of the main economic drivers for space exploration might be to find those places and mine them for high energy density fuel.
So, yes there could be large chunks of antimatter. There are many active researchers working on antimatter technologies and applications.
“antiproton” OR “antiprotons” OR “anti-proton” OR “anti-protons” has 605,000 entry points
A proton and antiproton can bind into a neutral particle that has no magnetic field, no electric field, but does have mass. It will have a magnetic quadrupole moment, but likely if people make it, they will tag it with a vibrational or rotational state so it is easier to move around.
Don’t worry too much about whether you can memorize the formulas, and they might be easier to memorize if you think of gravity and electromagnetism as having similar or identical mathematical calculations. Just find the groups who are working on things, and don’t be surprised when more antimatter companies are formed and start selling products.
One of the projects I have is called “atomic fuels”. These are materials where the bonds are thousands or millions of electron volts. The usual chemical and material bonds are mostly below 25 electron volts per bond. The way I think of it is to visualize one of those 100 meter tall rocket fuel tanks, and then mentally replace that with something smaller than a meter tall. We need that kind of fuel for solar system colonization.
And for gravity, the human species has made many tools for flight and moving things around with fields. I think it will be possible to model and control the actual gravitational potential field soon. But if an airplane or drone works – use it.
2 thoughts on “Comment on “”Can we ever replace the gravitational force model with something more practical, so we control the forces?””
It is my thought that antimatter attract gravity wise and matter attracts gravity wise but matter – antimatter repel away.
I have a singularity viewpoint on how gravity, EM, nuclear forces all interact.
Sorry for the long delay in answering. I did not see the comment notification. In our current view of things, mass is always positive. But you are right, there is a place for attraction and repulsion. The formulas and equations and visualizations we use now are pretty simplistic. When matter is formed in particle accelerators, natural collisions, and high energy density environments, it is more “gluon plasma” methods and the visualizations change from neat “particles” to complex turbulent fluids and gas mixtures. I joked with the neutron star modelers that they could use their neutron star hydrodynamic models for nuclear collisions because the properties of the real vacuum are the same. Perhaps if you have written out your “singular viewpoint” you can post a link. I go through thousands of papers a year, just on the relation between gravity and electromagnetism, and much on the properties of the physical vacuum. Each person gathers their own view of how what they have learned all fits together. Fitting those many different visualizations and methods into a global collaboration is difficult and time consuming. There is not really a good method for merging and comparing millions of view points, yet.