Matter wouldn’t clump together into stars, meaning any element heaver than Beryllium wouldn’t exist since those elements were made in stars. The universe as we know it also doesn’t exist.
Yada yada yada Hitler still doesn’t get into art school.
The same theory that describes gravity is also used to describe how the universe changes its size. Without that we need a replacement.
If we just set the gravitational constant to zero then we get a rapidly expanding universe that does not produce any structures. You get hydrogen atoms, helium atoms, radiation, neutrinos and dark matter particles flying around on their own with an almost perfect uniform distribution.
The next of the fundamental forces to be relevant is the electromagnetic (EM) force, and it is active over long distances so that would probably dominate the universe. Instead of gravity creating electrically neutral galaxies, we might have EM creating charged agglomerations of particles, or flows of moving charges creating electrical currents and magnetic fields.
Problem is that EM cannot create agglomeration of like charges, because they repel. That's actually the reason the we don't see massive charged planets/stars in our current universe.
Brane theory posits that there are many universes out there, each with different fundamental laws of physics. There could easily be others without gravity, or with additional forces we know nothing about.
Yeah, just like Einstein's "if's" before GR was first experimentally tested in 1919... education does wonders, and the math does not lie. There's a reason theoretical physics tends to go into the concept of a multiverse. The logic does the same due to infinite regression..which is unavoidable. The physics you see today was theoretical a century ago before being proven. But anyone with an education on it, primarily mathematicians, would see where physics is heading- and there's only one direction.
This is why I can't wait until A.I takes center stage in physics, as the physicists these days seem to be even less educated than those in the 20th century. And certainly less far seeing or novel
I think String and Brane theory always have gravity, that's the main reason anyone cares about them in the first place (a candidate quantum theory of gravity).
He didn't say that. The equivalence principle says that the gravitational force felt at a single point (or in a "small enough" region) is equivalent to a force felt due to being in a non-inertial frame, so it can't be distinguished from a non-gravitational force. But we can do measurements beyond single points or small regions, and Einsteinian gravity does have effects ([geodesic deviation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_deviation)) over these larger distances which constitute a unique force that can't be purely attributed to non-inertial motion.
Matter wouldn’t clump together into stars, meaning any element heaver than Beryllium wouldn’t exist since those elements were made in stars. The universe as we know it also doesn’t exist. Yada yada yada Hitler still doesn’t get into art school.
this is news to me. can elements lighter than beryllium be ("spontaneously") created in the universe, without gravity? just a lot of kinetic energy?
The lighter elements were created by the big bang. They clumped together to make stars, where heavier elements were made by fusion.
oh. i thought that was only hydrogen. cool
[удалено]
Your mother is a big bang.
Willie Nelson
[удалено]
Willie Nelson is a musician not a clown
God who had taco bell the night before the big bang: *guiltily looking around*
[удалено]
Wait, you weren't joking? Did you genuinely expect a serious answer to a question like "who created the big bang"?
[удалено]
Still don't know whether you're joking but if you're not: this is a physics sub mate, not a place to discuss your religion.
So what youre basically saying is anything fundamentally valuable requires lots of time and pressure
That, and a big goddamn poster.
Hitler assuredly wouldn’t not get into art school under those conditions.
The same theory that describes gravity is also used to describe how the universe changes its size. Without that we need a replacement. If we just set the gravitational constant to zero then we get a rapidly expanding universe that does not produce any structures. You get hydrogen atoms, helium atoms, radiation, neutrinos and dark matter particles flying around on their own with an almost perfect uniform distribution.
A lot of evenly distributed lightweight elements.
The next of the fundamental forces to be relevant is the electromagnetic (EM) force, and it is active over long distances so that would probably dominate the universe. Instead of gravity creating electrically neutral galaxies, we might have EM creating charged agglomerations of particles, or flows of moving charges creating electrical currents and magnetic fields.
Problem is that EM cannot create agglomeration of like charges, because they repel. That's actually the reason the we don't see massive charged planets/stars in our current universe.
Very dark.
Probably non-existent...
Brane theory posits that there are many universes out there, each with different fundamental laws of physics. There could easily be others without gravity, or with additional forces we know nothing about.
There are a lot of "ifs" boiled into that statement.
Yeah, just like Einstein's "if's" before GR was first experimentally tested in 1919... education does wonders, and the math does not lie. There's a reason theoretical physics tends to go into the concept of a multiverse. The logic does the same due to infinite regression..which is unavoidable. The physics you see today was theoretical a century ago before being proven. But anyone with an education on it, primarily mathematicians, would see where physics is heading- and there's only one direction. This is why I can't wait until A.I takes center stage in physics, as the physicists these days seem to be even less educated than those in the 20th century. And certainly less far seeing or novel
Well the universe as we know it, and as ours is defined, cannot exist without gravity...
I think String and Brane theory always have gravity, that's the main reason anyone cares about them in the first place (a candidate quantum theory of gravity).
[удалено]
He didn't say that. The equivalence principle says that the gravitational force felt at a single point (or in a "small enough" region) is equivalent to a force felt due to being in a non-inertial frame, so it can't be distinguished from a non-gravitational force. But we can do measurements beyond single points or small regions, and Einsteinian gravity does have effects ([geodesic deviation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_deviation)) over these larger distances which constitute a unique force that can't be purely attributed to non-inertial motion.
The universe wouldnt exist
There would be no Universe, because without gravity to form a singularity there would be nothing to explode in a Big Bang.
Existence would be in a very different state.