Gravity or Electromagnetism? Which will win?

[robinson]

That still seems too high. That is a lot of mass.

 

[Hellbound]

You're also not consdiering mass that falls into the sun, from the decaying orbits of asteroids and/or comets, as well as any materials from outside the solar system. I'm nto 100% sure, but I believe there is a small amoutn of influx of the insterstellar medium material into the solar system...I know the solar wind prevents a lot, but I think some gets in. I'll have to check that.

 

[Hellbound]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun:

Earth's fate is not clear. As a red giant, the Sun will have a maximum radius beyond the Earth's current orbit, 1 AU (1.5×1011 m), 250 times the present radius of the Sun.[28] However, by the time it is an asymptotic giant branch star, the Sun will have lost roughly 30% of its present mass due to a stellar wind, so the orbits of the planets will move outward. If it were only for this, Earth would probably be spared, but new research suggests that Earth will be swallowed by the Sun due to tidal interactions.[28]

Additionally, the Wiki article on Solar wind claism this:

The mean velocity of these particles is about 145 km/s, which is well below the solar escape velocity of 618 km/s. However, a few of the particles will achieve energies sufficient to reach the terminal velocity of 400 km/s, allowing them to feed the solar wind.[12]
The total particles carried away from the Sun by the solar wind is about 1.3×1031 per second.[13] The total mass loss each year is about (2–3)×10-14 solar masses,[14] or 6.7 billion tons per hour. This is equivalent to losing a mass equal to the Earth every 150 million years.[15] However, only about 0.01% of the Sun's total mass has been lost through the solar wind.[16] Other stars have much stronger stellar winds that result in significantly higher mass loss rates.

The rough calculation was within an order of magnitude. Did you use the total emissions numbers, or only those with greater than escape velocity fromt he sun? Many ejections will fall back into the Sun and never escape the solar system.

 

[robinson]

The Sun's energy output (3.86e33 ergs/second or 386 billion billion megawatts) is produced by nuclear fusion reactions. Each second about 700,000,000 tons of hydrogen are converted to about 695,000,000 tons of helium and 5,000,000 tons (=3.86e33 ergs) of energy in the form of gamma rays. As it travels out toward the surface, the energy is continuously absorbed and re-emitted at lower and lower temperatures so that by the time it reaches the surface, it is primarily visible light.

http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html

Eruptions on the Sun's surface occur often. During normal solar activity the intense heat of the corona of about 1,000,000°C (1,800,000°F) to 2,000,000°C (3,600,000°F) accelerates the plasma to escape velocity. A million tons of matter are hurled into space every second at an average speed of 400 km/s (900,000 miles/hr). Extreme speeds vary from 300 km/s (700,000 miles/hr) to 900 km/s (2 million miles/hr). In the process the plasma drags the magnetic field lines of the Sun out into space. A million tons of matter per second is huge. However, since this solar wind is spread throughout space in all directions, there are only about 6 protons per cubic centimeter when the solar wind reaches Earth. The Ulysses spacecraft and the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) have gathered considerable information about the solar wind. Would you like to know the solar wind conditions for the past seven days?

Solar winds are comparable to daily breezes on Earth -mild and steady. Solar flares, however, are like intense storms. The solar flares are much more powerful than solar winds, but they are localized and tend to blast material in just one direction. Flares release a quick burst of energy equivalent to 10 million volcanic eruptions or more than a billion hydrogen bombs. A coronal mass ejection (CME) is the like a hurricane- an energetic storm spread over a large area. A CME is the eruption of a huge bubble of plasma from the corona. A CME travels between 400 km/s (1 million miles per hour) and 1000 km/s (5 million miles per hour). A typical eruption can carry a billion tons of plasma, a mass equal to that of 10,000 aircraft carriers.

http://son.nasa.gov/tass/content/solarwind.htm

Those are the figures I used.

No matter how you look at it, EM dominates gravity, in terms of how much matter is in our solar system. EM hurls far more matter out of the system, than gravity draws in. If you add in the immense amount of intergalactic wind the EM radiation prevents from falling inward, EM is far more powerful than gravity, in terms of total mass balance.

Without the solar wind, and the huge magnetic field it modifies and strengthens, we would be blasted by vast amounts of energetic plasma from other stars and the Galaxy itself.

Just as the Earth's magnetic field protects us from the solar wind and CMEs, the sun protects us from the Galactic wind.

Looking at it this way, EM beats gravity many times over. Both for protecting us from death, and in regards to the amount of mass in the Solar System.

Without EM, there could be no life on earth. Just as without gravity, we couldn't exist as well. Which is more important on a large scale? EM wins in regards to ensuring we can live on our planet. Gravity would doom us, by attracting every bit of matter right down on us. Without the protection of EM fields, especially in regards to high energy particles and CMEs, we would die.

 

[Ziggurat]

No matter how you look at it, EM dominates gravity, in terms of how much matter is in our solar system. EM hurls far more matter out of the system, than gravity draws in.

Almost all the matter in the solar system is already in the sun (because of gravity). So the fractional flow (that is, what fraction of stellar matter is pushed outwards due to EM interactions versus what fraction of extra-stellar matter is pulled in due to gravity) of matter is going to be radically different from the net flow of matter. Why is net flow a better way to define which interaction dominates?

If you add in the immense amount of intergalactic wind the EM radiation prevents from falling inward, EM is far more powerful than gravity, in terms of total mass balance.

On the other hand, the sun itself has almost all the mass of the solar system, because gravity is keeping it there. Again, why is the way you define domination preferable to this alternative method? Especially since this mass loss you refer to is so small compared to the total mass.

Without the solar wind, and the huge magnetic field it modifies and strengthens, we would be blasted by vast amounts of energetic plasma from other stars and the Galaxy itself.

And without gravity, we wouldn't be in this solar system at all. Hell, we wouldn't even be a planet. Seems a little more significant to me, to be honest. Life could exist in the oceans even without any magnetic fields to block ionizing solar and cosmic radiation, but without gravity, there's no planet at all.

Without EM, there could be no life on earth.

Well, sure: chemistry is all about EM interactions. But life on earth would likely exist with or without radiation shielding from magnetic fields. Not us, but definitely life.

Gravity would doom us, by attracting every bit of matter right down on us.

Nonsense. EM interactions are not keeping the moon from hitting the earth, and they aren't what keep most stuff from hitting us. Most stuff doesn't hit us because space is big, the earth is small, and angular momentum is generally not zero.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html

http://son.nasa.gov/tass/content/solarwind.htm

Those are the figures I used.

No matter how you look at it, EM dominates gravity, in terms of how much matter is in our solar system. EM hurls far more matter out of the system, than gravity draws in. If you add in the immense amount of intergalactic wind the EM radiation prevents from falling inward, EM is far more powerful than gravity, in terms of total mass balance.

Without the solar wind, and the huge magnetic field it modifies and strengthens, we would be blasted by vast amounts of energetic plasma from other stars and the Galaxy itself.

Just as the Earth's magnetic field protects us from the solar wind and CMEs, the sun protects us from the Galactic wind.

Looking at it this way, EM beats gravity many times over. Both for protecting us from death, and in regards to the amount of mass in the Solar System.

Without EM, there could be no life on earth. Just as without gravity, we couldn't exist as well. Which is more important on a large scale? EM wins in regards to ensuring we can live on our planet. Gravity would doom us, by attracting every bit of matter right down on us. Without the protection of EM fields, especially in regards to high energy particles and CMEs, we would die.

You are correct - EM forces on charged particles in the solar system can be stronger than the gravitational forces on those charged particles. This is well known in physics.

However you may want to calculate the different EM and gravitational forces on a mostly neutral body like the Earth. For example you will find that EM forces have no effect on the Earth's orbit. EM forces are important for keeping us alive but gravity makes sure that we have a planet to be alive on.

The conclusion is the relative strengths of EM and gravitational forces in the universe depends on the situation. You cannot say that just because gravity's fundamental constant is much less than that of EM that gravity is always weaker then EM.

Charged particles at a low mass density are dominated by EM forces.
Gravity dominates at high mass density and when there is little overall charge.

 

[robinson]

I think we can all agree on that. As I said, the concept of domination, or winning, is not very scientific.

 

[robinson]

Sometimes I think you confuse me with somebody who really cares about this stuff.

Sol, you couldn't be more wrong. No kidding.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sometimes I think you confuse me with somebody who really cares about this stuff.

Sol, you couldn't be more wrong. No kidding.

Well done.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

However you may want to calculate the different EM and gravitational forces on a mostly neutral body like the Earth.

What exactly is a "mostly neutral body"?

 

[Ziggurat]

What exactly is a "mostly neutral body"?

For simplicity, one can consider a body whose charge-to-mass ratio is many orders of magnitude smaller than the proton to be "mostly neutral". Once could even pick a particular order of magnitude limit, if one cared to.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

For simplicity, one can consider a body whose charge-to-mass ratio is many orders of magnitude smaller than the proton to be "mostly neutral". Once could even pick a particular order of magnitude limit, if one cared to.

The Earth has a charge-to-mass ratio that is less than the proton?

 

[shadron]

Without the solar wind, and the huge magnetic field it modifies and strengthens, we would be blasted by vast amounts of energetic plasma from other stars and the Galaxy itself.

Just as the Earth's magnetic field protects us from the solar wind and CMEs, the sun protects us from the Galactic wind.

Looking at it this way, EM beats gravity many times over. Both for protecting us from death, and in regards to the amount of mass in the Solar System.

Without EM, there could be no life on earth. Just as without gravity, we couldn't exist as well. Which is more important on a large scale? EM wins in regards to ensuring we can live on our planet. Gravity would doom us, by attracting every bit of matter right down on us. Without the protection of EM fields, especially in regards to high energy particles and CMEs, we would die.

Wow, its like there was this huge war going on - graviton were winning when you could get huge armies on the field, but when it comes to guerilla war, the ems have it. That's because they're usually fighting between themselves, and only settle down in pairs and groups. Gravitons always work together, and they're like ants - you can't get away from them, but they're individually weak.

And here come all these brainiacs, who think they can figure out who'll win, and what side they'll be on. Stupid people. Who needs 'em? Let's leave 'em with the weak force since they're so fond of it.

 

[The Man]

No matter how you look at it, EM dominates gravity, in terms of how much matter is in our solar system. EM hurls far more matter out of the system, than gravity draws in. If you add in the immense amount of intergalactic wind the EM radiation prevents from falling inward, EM is far more powerful than gravity, in terms of total mass balance.

Let’s not forget that it is fusion driven by gravity that produces the outward pressure (and EM fields) driving such emissions from the Sun. Otherwise it would just be a big ball of hydrogen, much like Jupiter (but a lot bigger), relatively cold and dark (as compared to the sun). Isn’t “EM” suppose to draw in even greater amounts of matter into the solar system and specifically to the Sun in order to provide for a non gravitationally fusion powered but “EM” powered sun, interesting, “EM” must pull in more matter then it hurls out.

Without EM, there could be no life on earth. Just as without gravity, we couldn't exist as well. Which is more important on a large scale? EM wins in regards to ensuring we can live on our planet. Gravity would doom us, by attracting every bit of matter right down on us. Without the protection of EM fields, especially in regards to high energy particles and CMEs, we would die.

Do not forget that it is specifically the “M” in “EM” that provides this protection. Earth’s global magnetic field and gravitational field are easily detectable; when you detect the Earth’s global electrical field, please let us know.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Question for robinson: what is "Electromagnetism(EM)" (as in the OP of this thread)?

How does the "EM" in the OP relate to contemporary physics?

To what extent do you intend this thread to be a discussion that is science-based?

Bump.

I really would like an answer to these questions robinson; would you be kind enough to oblige?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The Earth has a charge-to-mass ratio that is less than the proton?

I'm sure you have looked up the proton's charge-to-mass ratio in a standard textbook, or from the NIST (or other standards body's) website.

Just as surely you have investigated the various estimates of the Earth's mass (including stated uncertainties).

What would the charge of the Earth be (approximately) if it had the same charge-to-mass ratio as the proton?

I notice that you use this symbol a lot; may I ask what you intend it to mean?

 

[robinson]

Let’s not forget that it is fusion driven by gravity that produces the outward pressure (and EM fields) driving such emissions from the Sun.

Interesting way to look at things. I'm pretty sure EM is involved in the fusion reactions going on inside the sun. I just realized that some may view gravity, as well as the other fundamental forces, as seperate from matter. It doesn't work that way.

Do not forget that it is specifically the “M” in “EM” that provides this protection. Earth’s global magnetic field and gravitational field are easily detectable; when you detect the Earth’s global electrical field, please let us know.

Electrical currents in the core create the Magnetic field. Electromagnetic fields create the currents around our planet. You have to consider the earth as a whole, not just the ground. Our EM effects extend well beyond the moons orbit.

The planet sized plasmas in our EM field are as big as the earth. Or bigger. The currents in our EM field create very energetic displays of EM radiation as well. And of course, our EM field is connected to the suns.

A very dynamic situation.

 

[NoisyAstronomer]

Let’s not forget that it is fusion driven by gravity that produces the outward pressure (and EM fields) driving such emissions from the Sun. Otherwise it would just be a big ball of hydrogen, much like Jupiter (but a lot bigger), relatively cold and dark (as compared to the sun).

Fusion also involves the strong force, no? In think SF wants a part of this wrestling match ;-)

There would be no balls of hydrogen without gravity. And of course, Jupiter is a bit more complex than just that. By EM fields being driven out, do you mean the light as blackbody radiation produced by fusion (light = electromagnetic waves) or the actual magnetic field? The magnetic field is probably produced by the rotating ions in the sun (sun as plasma) but I'm not entirely sure.

Isn’t “EM” suppose to draw in even greater amounts of matter into the solar system and specifically to the Sun in order to provide for a non gravitationally fusion powered but “EM” powered sun, interesting, “EM” must pull in more matter then it hurls out.

Who huh what? I think I missed what was being talked about on the other thread...

 

[Ziggurat]

The Earth has a charge-to-mass ratio that is less than the proton?

Yes. Much less. Isn't that obvious? Or are you perhaps confused about the difference between a charge-to-mass ratio and a mass-to-charge ratio?

 

[tusenfem]

Interesting way to look at things. I'm pretty sure EM is involved in the fusion reactions going on inside the sun. I just realized that some may view gravity, as well as the other fundamental forces, as seperate from matter. It doesn't work that way.

Fusion is just a collision, it has to do with the kinetic energy of the particles, so that, when they collide, they can overcome the electrostatic potential barrier and the nuclear forces take over.

Gravity gives pressure in the core of a star, and this pressure increases the temperature of the gas, increasing the kinetic velocity of the particles. At the same time the increased density of particles increases the collision frequency of the particles and fusion may start.

So, sure there is some E involved, in the repulsive force that needs to be overcome, there is no B involved.

Naturally gravity is created by mass, the electric force is created by charge, the magnetic force is created by currents (or magnetic moments) etc. etc. However, you can have a field and then have a test particle in that field.

Electrical currents in the core create the Magnetic field. Electromagnetic fields create the currents around our planet. You have to consider the earth as a whole, not just the ground. Our EM effects extend well beyond the moons orbit.

Indeed, in the core of the Earth there is convection, which creates in a dynamo way the magnetic field that we have. There are stray magnetic loops, which are sheared and folded through the convective flow in the iron-sulphur core.
Now, the Earth's magnetic field reaches out to the magnetopause and down the tail. The influence of the Earth in the solar wind is limited to the region inside the bow shock. The moon is most of the time outside the influence region of the Earth, i.e. outside the magnetopause and the bow shock. Only, when traversing on the night side does the moon get into contact with the Earth's magnetic field.
So, only downstream of the Earth, along the tail, is there a region where the magnetic field extends beyond the orbit of the moon.

The planet sized plasmas in our EM field are as big as the earth. Or bigger. The currents in our EM field create very energetic displays of EM radiation as well. And of course, our EM field is connected to the suns.
A very dynamic situation.

I have no idea what this means. I would hope that planet sized things would be as big as the Earth, but that as a beside.

You seem, as so many electrodynamical non-initiated to put some magical quality to "our EM field," where you first have to explain what that is!

Currents in our EM field? what does that all mean? Do you mean currents in the Earth's magnetosphere, or what?

And NO there is no direct connection between the Earth and the Sun, apart from the fact that the solar wind comes from the Sun (with magnetic field) and hits the Earth. But I guess you are hinting at the ridiculous THEMIS press release, where they were talking about bezillion ampere currents flowing from the Sun to the Earth. That whole press release was rubbish, it was not the first time that such a thing has been observed (although it was the first time for THEMIS) etc. etc. This has been brought down several times already on BAUT.

So, before anything, you need to explain yourself a whole lot better than you have done before.

Also, the premise of your OP is wrong, because you consider a CME to be one object. Although it is one structure, it is not a gravitationally bound body, like e.g. a moon, so you cannot say that gravity will grab it, and the magnetic field will keep it away. That is way to simplistic.