If all three start off motionless relative to each other, they’ll all just collide and end up in a boring lump. If they start off with relative velocities, then it depends on what those velocities are. Most likely, they’ll all end up moving away from each other fast enough that they won’t be able to stop each other. Much less likely, two of them might end up in a stable orbit around each other, while the third one moves away too quickly to be stopped. Least likely of all, they all three end up in a stable bound system.
Lest one object that multi-object orbital systems are quite common in the Universe, that’s because they start off with far more than three bodies. Many of them end up ejected, while the rest stabilize.
given infinite space and time they will end up as a lump, end of story.
Gravity has no limit to its range. if you changed the op to say a superduperultramassive black hole a golf ball and a marble the only significant change would be the amount of time it takes. (well that and the whole no bouncing part) so yeah you would get some near miss slingshot effects but over a long enough time they will end up together.
I’ve been thinking about this, whether, since there are three masses and three positions to play with, they might miss each other. I kind of suspect they’ll all get to the center of mass at the same time, but I didn’t work through the math.
What about four masses? Will they necessarily hit each other? They don’t have to be co-planer, so there’s more freedom to miss.
There are some musings that gravity is actually a result of the second law of thermodynamics (i.e., entropy must increase). This is clearly seen in the case of black holes, which are maximum-entropy objects (and thus they make sense as a final state of a system with increasing entropy), but the rest of the time it requires a more careful look to understand why.
The key insight comes from the holographic principle, which essentially states that the internal workings of a system can be completely described by a theory that operates only on the boundary of that system. When you apply thermodynamic entropy to that surface theory, you end up with behavior that looks very much like gravity.
That this is at least possible shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. There are other, well-known forces that are also entropic in nature. For instance, the force in a rubber band is not (quite) due to intermolecular forces as commonly believed, but instead is better explained as an entropic force: the stretched band has far fewer microscopic possibilities as compared to the relaxed state, and therefore there is a force from one state to the other.
Erik Verlinde is the leader in this subject and has written a surprisingly accessible paper.
I think it’s a fair assumption to say that time, as its own dimension, is a manifestation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics/increased entropy.
Moving backward through time would require reversing entropy, and not like locally open systems of order do (e.g. life).
That said, I do think there’s more to gravity than meets the eye—or your ass to the ground. As a relatively weak force, compared to the others, its like an unseen puppet master that pulls the strings on spacetime and matter/energy.
Also, it’s not necessarily true given infinite time, they’d all ended up as a clump in equalibreum. In a flat spacetime, not undergoing expansion, If the marble, say, gained enough speed from earlier circumstantial orbital pertubations, or colisions, it could easily reach escape velocity from the other two, and would just keep going and going and going.
And going…
Is “gravity” present in microcosmic events? I really like Bohr’s model and I know that comparing macrocosm with microcosm may be irrelevant, but can you imagine one model responsible of spinning it all - I can.
What do you mean by “what is moving electrons”? The whole point of all of physics from Newton to the present day is that motion needs no cause-- Only changes in motion need cause. And if you’re asking what changes the motion of electrons, that’s overwhelmingly the electromagnetic force (though there are also weaker effects from the weak nuclear force and from gravity).
And yes, it is plausible that all of the “fundamental” forces really are just different manifestations of the same thing, and a great many physicists have put in a great deal of effort in trying to figure out how. So far, it’s been rather conclusively established that electromagnetism and the weak force are manifestations of the same thing, and there’s strong circumstantial evidence that the strong force ties in there, too, but thus far, the concept of unifying gravity with the others has been driven almost entirely by wishful thinking. The best you can say is that the string model predicts it, but then, there’s really no evidence for the string model, either.
A marble, a golfball and a baseball all roll into a bar. Many of the patrons stumble over them, slipping and falling on their drunken asses. One customer fractures one of his ribs and his right collar bone and sues the owner for the medical expenses and punitive damages for having to take two weeks off his job to recover, not having workman’s comp.
Actually, you are being too coy about that, and there’s no way the teeming millions can elaborate on it, because we have no clue what you’re talking about.
No, I don’t think so nor any string theory either. This is not a theory, but a beginning of an idea.
Put aside what makes it - everything seems to be spinning. Now, sub-atomic phenomena is very hard to observe and gravity seems to “work” at the speed of light. However the Universe does no work - so electrons must use paths with the least energy levels - all the electrons of the universe synchronously. That is the start …
The planets do not orbit around the sun because of electromagnetic fields. They orbit around the sun because of gravity. The same force that causes you to hit the ground when you jump off a chair is also the same force that keeps the Moon falling around the Earth, but constantly missing.
Now, as Chronos said, it may be true that there is some deeper force that is responsible for both electromagnetism and gravity. Physicists have spent a lot of time over the past couple of decades trying to figure this out, but gravity is still pretty mysterious.
But you, my friend, have not figured out the connection between electromagnetism and gravity, because you don’t even know what questions to ask. Maxwell described a unified theory of electromagetism back in the 1800s. What can you tell me about Maxwell’s equations?
You don’t know enough about physics to know that you don’t know anything about physics. And that’s why your musings about how what if, like, the solar system was a giant atom and the planets are the electrons, are kind of silly. Have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, really looked at it?