Why Is Gravity the Weakest Force?

StartsWithABang writes: If you calculate the forces between two fundamental particles separated by subatomic distances, you find that the strong, electromagnetic or weak nuclear force could all be the strongest, dependent on the particulars of your setup. But throw gravity in there, and it turns out to be weaker by some 40 orders of magnitude. This discrepancy, that gravity is such an oddball, is known as the hierarchy problem, and is by many measures the greatest unsolved problem in theoretical physics. Yet the new, upgraded run of the LHC has the potential to uncover any one of four possible solutions, some of which we have hints for already.

Comments

It has to be

[Waffle Iron]

Unlike the other three forces, gravity neither cancels out because of negative and positive versions, nor peters out beyond subatomic distances. Its effects are therefore cumulative over huge swaths of the universe.

If gravity were much stronger, the entire universe would collapse into a singularity, and we wouldn't be here to gaze at our navels about the issue.

Re:It has to be

[tomxor]

If the force of gravity is the inverse square of the distance, what are the 'powers' of the other forces? Cubed, quad power, 10th power?

I always had roughly the same thoughts on this argument, that other fundamental forces don't appear to operate over the distances that gravity does... but it's actually quite logical when you play out the details: The inverse square function of distance is no coincidence, it's comes from the dimensionality of space and an omnidirectional force which is why it applies to other things like electromagnetic waves.

Other forces are stronger (the strong nuclear force is 10^38 times stronger than gravity at the same distance!) and i think they probably have the same distance function... So why isn't it stronger at large distances? As others have said the main difference between gravity and other forces is it's insatiability, (it's cumulative). When some subatomic particles form an atom, the forces at play are satisfied to some degree and the resulting matter is less reactive (has less attraction to other similar matter); whereas when matter coalesces under the force of gravity, only separation is satisfied, the force is just combines resulting in a denser gravitational force in a region of space.

Another way to compare is by imagining under what hypothetical scenario another force would act the same way: for instance how could you make a strong nuclear force on a universal scale, you would need a large mass (i.e the size of the earth) of protons or something... and they need to stay in the same place (not fly apart) oh and they need to have not reacted with anything... That scenario would result in a frighteningly large force but it will also never happen because those forces tend to get satisfied on small scales very quickly.

Re:Hype

[InterGuru]

I thought the cost of the LHC was insanely expensive, then I realized we spent more to bail out one sleazy bank ( while the banksters still got huge bonuses. )