23

If gravity is this "unexplainable force" that pulls everything to the center of a planet or stellar remnant you stand upon, why doesn't gravity pull itself?

If gravity affects anything with energy, why doesn't gravity affect itself?

Gravity is energy, right?

How Come
  • 267
  • 5
    Great question! You zeroed in exactly why the equations of gravity are so much more difficult than say Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. – David H Oct 18 '13 at 21:41
  • 1
    It does affect itself. – Andrew Steane Mar 10 '19 at 17:03
  • 3
    And it is not an unexplainable force. Whatever gave you that idea? Haven't you heard of General Relativity? The thorough, precise, physically coherent and logically beautiful treatment of gravity, including its non-linearity whereby it affects itself, is one the great triumphs of twentieth century physics. – Andrew Steane Mar 10 '19 at 17:10

4 Answers4

18

Gravity does affect itself. What you've just given is basically a correct argument for the fact that general relativity must be a nonlinear theory.

Gravity is energy, right?

Gravity has energy. For example, the mass of the earth contains a negative contribution from its negative gravitational binding energy.

In more detail, here is an argument to the effect that general relativity must be nonlinear.

As a concrete example, when the earth condensed out of the primordial solar nebula, large amounts of heat were produced, and this energy was then gradually radiated into outer space, decreasing the total mass of the earth. If we pretend, as in the figure, that this process involved the merging of only two bodies, each with mass $m$, then the net result was essentially to take separated masses $m$ and $m$ at rest, and bring them close together to form close-neighbor masses $m$ and $m$, again at rest.

cartoon of earth forming

The amount of energy radiated away was proportional to $m^2$, so the inertial mass of the combined system has been reduced from $2m$ to $2m+\delta$, where $\delta\sim -G/c^2r$. The reduction in inertial mass due to radiation in this scenario is in fact almost exactly identical to the result of the thought experiment used by Einstein in his original paper on $E=mc^2$. Based on the equivalence principle, we expect that this reduction in inertial mass must be accompanied by an equal reduction in the gravitational mass. We therefore find that there is a nonlinear dependence of the gravitational field on the masses.

This nonlinearity is incorporated into general relativity in the Einstein field equation, which is a nonlinear differential equation.

  • so you are saying that I enhanced Einstein's theory? – How Come Oct 18 '13 at 21:42
  • 5
    @HowCome correctly predicted a part of Einstein's theory. General relativity is already nonlinear in this way, and gravity does "sustain itself" for this reason. – Robert Mastragostino Oct 18 '13 at 21:45
  • 3
    @HowCome Sorry, nope. But you did anticipate a complication with gravity so subtle that Einstein was the first person slick enough to figure it out. That at least puts you on par with him right? =p – David H Oct 18 '13 at 22:23
  • 3
    @Ben, If you have the time or care to, I'd personally like to see you expand your answer a bit. It would be great to have an insightful layman discussion of this topic on file here. – David H Oct 18 '13 at 22:32
  • 1
    Doesn't the binding energy reduce the mass? – JDługosz Feb 17 '16 at 03:46
  • I don't think gravity 'has' energy, I think gravity is 'energy'; or, you might say 'has energy associated with it'; sorry to be nitpicking but I don't come from a physics background. Also, due to energy-conservation gravity cannot 'produce' energy; this is worth noting in physics in general and not merely in the study of gravity; gravity seems to be an effect which is correlated somewhat strongly with the concept of mass as we observe; however there are also a great deal of areas in which we don't as yet fully understand the full implications (in detail) of general relativity. – Sam Cottle Jun 14 '18 at 19:41
  • @DavidH: Thanks for the encouragement. Done. –  Mar 10 '19 at 17:30
  • @JDługosz: Thanks, my original version had the wrong sign. Fixed. –  Mar 10 '19 at 17:30
7

Gravity, the physical phenomena, does affect itself. On the other hand the physical theories expected to explain gravity may of may not admit this self interaction. The General Theory of Relativity does admit while Newtonian Gravitation does not.

Newtonian Gravitation satisfies the Superposition Principle: If you have two masses $M_1$ and $M_2$ attracting a test particle $m$ the resultant force on the probe is just the vector sum of the forces each of the masses $M_1$ and $M_2$ generates separately. The same does not happen in General Relativity. In Einstein's gravitation, energy also generates gravity. The two masses $M_1$ and $M_2$ interact gravitationally with each other which means this system have energy. This energy generates an additional gravity on $m_1$. The spacetime deformations generated by each mass isolated do not simply add when we put them together. In other words the resultant force on $m_1$ is different from the sum of the forces generated by $M_1$ and $M_2$ separately.

There are alternative ways to understand this "lack of superposition" presented by gravity and admitted by General Relativity. Microscopically we can think of gravitons which self interact. This interaction leads to energy which leads to more gravitons. You get the idea. Notice this effect does not happens with electromagnetism. The photons do not interact with themselves (at least at low energies) and electromagnetism satisfies the Superposition Principle.

Other people prefer to think about fields and their symmetries. In this case one has theories which are locally symmetric under certain groups of symmetry. For General Relativity this group is non-Abelian (two consecutive coordinate transformations depend on the order). The same happens for QCD. This non-Abelian property implies in non-linear equations which (from the mathematical point of view) can be seen as the reason why the Superposition Principle fails.

Diracology
  • 17,700
  • 3
  • 54
  • 97
6

Within the General Relativity formulation of the gravitational field , yes the field does interact with itself. Which makes the model of it highly non-linear. One of the reasons there is no viable quantum theory of gravity.

0

Note - gravity is not a pull in GR.

Anyway, I think the answer is no. If that was true, wouldn't all masses turn into black holes.

If gravity pulled itself (because it is energy), then it would create more energy by pulling on itself, thus more gravity and so on.. eventually turning into a black hole.

Gravity pulls on itself only in the sense that the pull extends to large distances. Just like a large mass less string was used to pull.

kpv
  • 4,509