3
$\begingroup$

Im a bit puzzled about the video from “One Minute Physics” claiming that Newtons law of gravity is not universal, but breaks down on very heavy objects and are not really confirmed on very light ones. https://youtu.be/OTMELHUAzSM I found the topic interesting, also because I teach basic physics in primary school (children age 13-16), and dont want to use wrong information. We do use some pretty odd examples just to make it a little more fun. But trying to read more on the subject just added confusion, because most places (books, web etc.) treats the gravitational law as a fundamental universal law.

Any takes on this? Is it fair to apply Newtons law using the weight of a student and the weight of a grain of dust (and explaining that in reality other forces will totally cancel out any measurable effect) etc? And does the law really break down on the extreme heavy objects as claimed in the video?

$\endgroup$
6

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

At present we are at the following level of mathematically modeling interactions of matter:

1) the underlying framework for all matter is quantum mechanical, all other theories will be emergent ( gravity has a question mark as it is only effectively quantized). This framework is evident in the microworld of particle physics and is important as long as boundary conditions are with small distances and $h$ ( Planck's constant) in the uncertainty relationa $[x,p] >h/2π $ is fulfilled non trivially, i.e. the measurement accuracies are small enough . If $h/2π$ can be considered zero within measurement accuracies, one is in the classical frame.

2) The classical framework theories are emergent from the underlying quantum mechanical, and in the region of overlap it can be shown mathematically that the known classical equations hold non trivially. This means there is mathematically a smooth transition to Newton's mechanics

Newtonian gravity laws hold until masses and energies reach very high values.

c) For high velocities special relativity describes the data, and for high energies and masses the framework of General Relativity fits all cosmological observations to date.Again in the overlap region General Relativity reduces to Newton's law. Please note that both General and special relativity are used in the GPS system that is so wide spread over the world .

Is it fair to apply Newtons law using the weight of a student and the weight of a grain of dust (and explaining that in reality other forces will totally cancel out any measurable effect) etc?

Yes, because if you put in the numbers, neither quantum mechanics nor special and general relativity are needed, the classical formulae are well within the errors.

And does the law really break down on the extreme heavy objects as claimed in the video?

Break down if used in the sense that the Newtonian formulae do not predict the correct numbers , yes. The situation has to extend to another framework

For particle physics special relativity is necessary, but models still use the gravitational potential even if it has little meaning for such small masses. It will depend on the particular problem and the boundary conditions . Since quantum mechanics is necessary for particle interaction models, it is fair to say that Newtonian gravity is not easily modeled.

Theortical physicists are working towards a theory of everything where gravity will also be definitevely quantized, the the transition between frameworks will be mathematically predictable. At the moment string theories can have quantization of gravity and embed the standard model of particle physics, but the definite theory is not yet attained. In any case for everyday classical experiments there will be no difference when it is attained (imo of course).

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ So in essence there are some valid points in the video, but they are maybe a bit too harsh on the Newtonian equation. Is that a fair conclusion on your excellent answer?! $\endgroup$
    – Keis
    Commented Sep 22, 2019 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ Yes it is a bit strong, nothing breaks down, it mathematically morphs. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Commented Sep 22, 2019 at 10:27
  • $\begingroup$ Not necessarily, black holes for example require beyond the standard model physics and maybe it is more than just quantum mechanics. Maybe both quantum mechanics and general relativity describe the universe. $\endgroup$ Commented May 6, 2020 at 20:08
  • $\begingroup$ @RoghanArun Mainstream physics theoriists are looking for the holy grail of one theory of everything. They already have a candidate in string theories, if they manage to find a unique one. Of course the future will show $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Commented May 7, 2020 at 3:46
0
$\begingroup$

Newtonian gravity is said to be universal. However when they mean universal they mean it is mostly universal. There are times when it does not work. For example in the Big Bang or near or even inside a black hole(even general relativity does not work in the inside of a black hole). When things get really small or really big there is a possibility that gravity leaks out into another dimension. Einstein's theory of relativity does this a little better. It tries to explain gravity as not a force but a property of space. Curvature of space results in gravity. Even this however does not fully explain the nature of quantum gravity and gravity in extremely large scales.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.