Is Gravity Truly Omnipresent and Can It Exist Without Mass?

[Jake Minneman]

If Gravity is considered one of the four fundamental forces why is it not itself omnipresent? The other three forces are variables that do not rely on the existence of another thing, but in the case of gravity mass is essential to its creation. Could the force gravity exist without massive objects warping the fabric of space? When I enter space do I warp the fabric of space? If so could objects on the molecular scale revolve around me?

I did not know what section this belonged in so...

 

[WannabeNewton]

As a refutation classical electric fields require the presence of charge which is "another thing".

 

[Chalnoth]

As a refutation classical electric fields require the presence of charge which is "another thing".

To be fair, electromagnetic waves can exist without any charges at all. But then again, so can gravitational waves exist without any mass.

 

[phinds]

If Gravity is considered one of the four fundamental forces why is it not itself omnipresent? The other three forces are variables that do not rely on the existence of another thing, but in the case of gravity mass is essential to its creation. Could the force gravity exist without massive objects warping the fabric of space? When I enter space do I warp the fabric of space? If so could objects on the molecular scale revolve around me?

I did not know what section this belonged in so...

I'm not answering this question but really expanding it from my own ignorance ... what I don't understand, but what you are stating as fact, is that the other forces exist without the presence of another thing. I always thought that the strong and weak forces were forces that interact among subatomic particles. If that IS the case then what does it mean to say that these forces exists without at least two things for them to interact between? If the strong force is mediated by gluons, how is that different from gravity being mediated by gravitons? I am NOT trying here to refute what you are saying, I just don't understand it so am using it as a springboard for the related question of "do the other forces in fact exist in the absence of other things in any way differently than gravity does?".

 

[sardar]

I can provide a response to this question regarding the omnipresence of gravity. Gravity is indeed considered one of the four fundamental forces in the universe, along with electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force. However, unlike the other three forces, gravity is not considered to be omnipresent.

This is because, as the question states, gravity relies on the existence of mass to create its effects. The other three forces do not require the presence of mass to function. For example, electromagnetism can act between two charged particles without the need for any other material or mass. On the other hand, gravity is a force that is directly related to mass and its distribution.

To address the second part of the question, it is theoretically possible for gravity to exist without massive objects warping the fabric of space. This is known as the concept of "gravitons," which are hypothetical particles that are thought to carry the force of gravity. However, this is still a topic of ongoing research and has not been definitively proven.

Regarding the question of whether you would warp the fabric of space when entering space, the answer is yes. Any object with mass, no matter how small, will have some gravitational effect on its surroundings. However, this effect would be incredibly small and would not be noticeable on the molecular scale.

In conclusion, while gravity is a fundamental force in the universe, it is not considered to be omnipresent due to its reliance on mass. Further research and understanding of gravity and its effects on the fabric of space are ongoing in the scientific community.