How does mass know that another mass exists?

[her209]

Assuming all other forces (electric, magnetic, nucular) negligent, how does one mass know about the existence of another mass and therefore the existence of "gravity".

 

[Ryan]

Masses do not contain intelligence - therefore do not have self awareness. They know nothing.

 

[spidey07]

gravity - you know...that force? That gravity force?

 

[MichaelD]

They read the Blogs of the other masses. Duh!

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: spidey07
gravity - you know...that force? That gravity force?

But would gravity still exist if there was only one mass?

 

[SWScorch]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: spidey07
gravity - you know...that force? That gravity force?

But would gravity still exist if there was only one mass?

yes, it would just have nothing on which to act

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: spidey07
gravity - you know...that force? That gravity force?

But would gravity still exist if there was only one mass?

Ok im a little stoned, these kind of questions are blowing my mind.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: SWScorch

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: spidey07
gravity - you know...that force? That gravity force?

But would gravity still exist if there was only one mass?

yes, it would just have nothing on which to act

But according to the formula, wouldn't Fg equal 0 if m1=x and m2=0?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: spidey07
gravity - you know...that force? That gravity force?

But would gravity still exist if there was only one mass?

Gravity always exists, just like the other forces.

Although there is much speculation on an actual physcial reason for it and hence why your question cannot be truly answered.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: spidey07
gravity - you know...that force? That gravity force?

But would gravity still exist if there was only one mass?

If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?



well... not exactly the same thing, but close.
(if it's not a point mass, there will be gravitational force within the mass for sure)

 

[jEct2]

Supposedly the Higgs particle determines mass or weight....i forgot which, but the Higgs particle is yet to be found.
It was said that the Higgs particle is created by smashing subatomic particles at high speeds, the particle does exist but only for less then a millionth of a nanosecond, and the only particle accelerators strong enough to do this kind of work is being dismantled currently or soon.

 

[Goosemaster]

Whatsa matter which you?

Masses are in many casses, rigid bodies composed of small particles. These aprticle exist because of internal and external forces. Other large rigid bodies are just additional external forces, acting on the coagulation of small particles.

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: spidey07
gravity - you know...that force? That gravity force?

But would gravity still exist if there was only one mass?

A force is always an INTERaction between two objects. There is no way for an object to exert a force if there is nothing around it.

In theory, an object exerts a gravity "field" around it, and if something else enters that field, it will interact with it. Just like there are electric and magnetic fields.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
(if it's not a point mass, there will be gravitational force within the mass for sure)

The amount of gravitation force is dependent on the masses of both objects.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: SWScorch

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: spidey07
gravity - you know...that force? That gravity force?

But would gravity still exist if there was only one mass?

yes, it would just have nothing on which to act

gravity exists between objects, F = G m1m2/R^2

therefore, if there is only one object, gravity does not exist
just like electrical force... F = k Q1Q2/r^2. the force exists between the two charges. with only one, no force would exist because force must be exerted on another object/charge/whatever

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The real answer is that no one knows. The postulated Higgs boson has a range of energies at which it is expected to pop into view. So far, it's not happened, and it's beginning to bug some physicists. A lot.

The greatest challenge to modern theoretical physics is the unification (or reconciliation if you will) of General Relativity and Quantum theory. Briefly, GR explains gravity as the curvature of space by mass. No particles are required. Mass doesn't sense another, but it does "feel" the distortion of space. Quantum theory requires a particle and an associated field. In this case the hypothetical Higgs field and boson. No space curvature required. How can two things be so different, yet two aspects of the same thing? What is that thing? Physicists still hope to see a Higgs, and determine it's characteristics. If they can then it goes a long way towards Grand Unification.

As I said, no one has a clue.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
(if it's not a point mass, there will be gravitational force within the mass for sure)

The amount of gravitation force is dependent on the masses of both objects.

I was thinking like the earth for example... like a mountain on the earth are held together by gravity... but I guess you'd have to consider the mountain to be a separate mass then, eh?

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The real answer is that no one knows. The postulated Higgs boson has a range of energies at which it is expected to pop into view. So far, it's not happened, and it's beginning to bug some physicists. A lot.

The greatest challenge to modern theoretical physics is the unification (or reconciliation if you will) of General Relativity and Quantum theory. Briefly, GR explains gravity as the curvature of space by mass. No particles are required. Mass doesn't sense another, but it does "feel" the distortion of space. Quantum theory requires a particle and an associated field. In this case the hypothetical Higgs field and boson. No space curvature required. How can two things be so different, yet two aspects of the same thing? What is that thing? Physicists still hope to see a Higgs, and determine it's characteristics. If they can then it goes a long way towards Grand Unification.

As I said, no one has a clue.

You have hurt my small brain. Yet I know this: About 50 years from now, aliens in a super-fast, dope-pimped out 45x lightspeed starship will land on earth. They will be friendly and pet us like stupid animals. When we ask them how their ship works (and relay the above equation/verbage to them) they'll just say "Duh. Space is big. You need a big motor. There's no replacement for displacement, earthling!!!"

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The real answer is that no one knows. The postulated Higgs boson has a range of energies at which it is expected to pop into view. So far, it's not happened, and it's beginning to bug some physicists. A lot.

The greatest challenge to modern theoretical physics is the unification (or reconciliation if you will) of General Relativity and Quantum theory. Briefly, GR explains gravity as the curvature of space by mass. No particles are required. Mass doesn't sense another, but it does "feel" the distortion of space. Quantum theory requires a particle and an associated field. In this case the hypothetical Higgs field and boson. No space curvature required. How can two things be so different, yet two aspects of the same thing? What is that thing? Physicists still hope to see a Higgs, and determine it's characteristics. If they can then it goes a long way towards Grand Unification.

As I said, no one has a clue.

I saw a show on PBS awhile back about Superstring theory that was supposed to merge the two theories together. But some physicists are calling Superstring theory crap. It was a good show. :thumbsup:

 

[Legendary]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The real answer is that no one knows. The postulated Higgs boson has a range of energies at which it is expected to pop into view. So far, it's not happened, and it's beginning to bug some physicists. A lot.

The greatest challenge to modern theoretical physics is the unification (or reconciliation if you will) of General Relativity and Quantum theory. Briefly, GR explains gravity as the curvature of space by mass. No particles are required. Mass doesn't sense another, but it does "feel" the distortion of space. Quantum theory requires a particle and an associated field. In this case the hypothetical Higgs field and boson. No space curvature required. How can two things be so different, yet two aspects of the same thing? What is that thing? Physicists still hope to see a Higgs, and determine it's characteristics. If they can then it goes a long way towards Grand Unification.

As I said, no one has a clue.

I saw a show on PBS awhile back about Superstring theory that was supposed to merge the two theories together. But some physicists are calling Superstring theory crap. It was a good show. :thumbsup:

Personally I think string theory is the definitive future for the Unification Theory. I recommend Brian Greene's book "The Elegant Universe." It has a great background and lots of information regarding this specific topic, and it's a good read and fairly intuitive.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Legendary

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The real answer is that no one knows. The postulated Higgs boson has a range of energies at which it is expected to pop into view. So far, it's not happened, and it's beginning to bug some physicists. A lot.

The greatest challenge to modern theoretical physics is the unification (or reconciliation if you will) of General Relativity and Quantum theory. Briefly, GR explains gravity as the curvature of space by mass. No particles are required. Mass doesn't sense another, but it does "feel" the distortion of space. Quantum theory requires a particle and an associated field. In this case the hypothetical Higgs field and boson. No space curvature required. How can two things be so different, yet two aspects of the same thing? What is that thing? Physicists still hope to see a Higgs, and determine it's characteristics. If they can then it goes a long way towards Grand Unification.

As I said, no one has a clue.

I saw a show on PBS awhile back about Superstring theory that was supposed to merge the two theories together. But some physicists are calling Superstring theory crap. It was a good show. :thumbsup:

Personally I think string theory is the definitive future for the Unification Theory. I recommend Brian Greene's book "The Elegant Universe." It has a great background and lots of information regarding this specific topic, and it's a good read and fairly intuitive.

I think he was the host of the PBS show I saw.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The real answer is that no one knows. The postulated Higgs boson has a range of energies at which it is expected to pop into view. So far, it's not happened, and it's beginning to bug some physicists. A lot.

The greatest challenge to modern theoretical physics is the unification (or reconciliation if you will) of General Relativity and Quantum theory. Briefly, GR explains gravity as the curvature of space by mass. No particles are required. Mass doesn't sense another, but it does "feel" the distortion of space. Quantum theory requires a particle and an associated field. In this case the hypothetical Higgs field and boson. No space curvature required. How can two things be so different, yet two aspects of the same thing? What is that thing? Physicists still hope to see a Higgs, and determine it's characteristics. If they can then it goes a long way towards Grand Unification.

As I said, no one has a clue.

I saw a show on PBS awhile back about Superstring theory that was supposed to merge the two theories together. But some physicists are calling Superstring theory crap. It was a good show. :thumbsup:

It was "Nova" - a good show. You can watch it on the PBS site ya know.
Superstring is still a theory.