Could the universe exist without gravity? A serious question.?

Question

Cosmology cannot explain certain phenomenon using gravity alone. Various theories attempt to explain acceleration of the expansion of the universe. They'll attempt to add elements that have not been documented to the existing known forces. Could observations be better explained by eliminating gravity. As all matter is composed of particles with intrinsic dipole moments, could the cumulative course of these dipole moments be used to explain gravity? Although I have core college level understanding physics and a strong mathematical background, this problem exceeds my abilities.

Let me attempt to preempt potential arguments against my thought. I am aware of the concept of dipoles dissipating over great distances -- I have never seen it proven and this is the basis for my question. I have considered dielectrics, but they have mass which makes the challenge of interpreting their placement difficult at best. I am aware of the disparity in the magnitudes of gravity and electromagnetism and wonder if the cumulative dipole moments, at a distance, are all that remains of the electromagnetic force.

I know my question sounds crazy, but consider what problems in physics it solves:
Quantum gravity
Dark energy
Apparent differences in rates a fall for different materials

I also know problems it raises:
Curvature of space
Black holes, especially charged

Does anyone have any thoughts on how I might approach the problem?

Answer 1

"All matter is composed of particles with intrinsic dipole moments"?
false if you are talking about electric dipoles. But it is true that many
fundamental particles have magnetic dipole moments.
(Does the neutrino? Not known.)
Dipole effects fall off faster than inverse square law (inverse cube) and hence behave very differently than gravity. So, sorry.

However, it is possible that gravity can be explained in a nongravitational manner as a side effect of other forces.
The beginnings of a theory of how that could happen, was
proposed by A.Sakharov in the late 1960s or early 1970s.
This idea has been investigated by a number of others since then
(including me in unpublished work) although it is not the mainstream. If you look in Sakharov's autobiography or
Misner-Thorne-Wheeler Gravity book, can start to find out more.

Answer 2

Gravity is a very obscure subject which involves magnetism, as I am sure you are very well aware of. I'm also aware that you must know the process of a forming black hole. If the Universe had no gravity, I'm very sure that it would be a chaotic nothing and resembling the rings of Saturn; each meteor has its own rotation, but oftentimes it's very slow unless they collide and fall to Saturn's core. The rotation of anything in space that contains magnetic poles will create a pull towards the core.

Let's use the Big Bang theory as an example. The universe by theory was a big massive ball of flame and gases. The reason it would have done that in the first place would have been because gravity was existent, and having such a large amount of mass and tons upon tons immeasurable of magnetic pull to hold all of that together caused the pressure to become too high to contain anymore, and thus Big Bang. Supernovas, to me are the same thing, although on a MUCH smaller scale; The star's life is beginning to expire and expands (I forget the reason) and swallows all of its satellites. After that process, it turns into a dwarf star, where the gravity begins to pull the surface inwards and keeps pulling and eventually, the gravity gets extremely intense and turns into it's own form of a vacuum which is a black hole.

Without gravity, none of that would happen, so the Universe would exist, but without life forms.

Answer 3

Well, i would have to agree with you because gravity is a weak form of energy. I believe it goes something like this: Gravity, Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, and Electromagnetism. But then again, it could also be a very strong force. As noted with Dark Matter and Black Holes. The thing is, that we are attempting to answer these questions with what amounts to an elementary knowledge of physics and the universe. I strongly believe that we wont be able to answer these questions any time soon, i mean what if in 700 years, the speed of light is broken the same way the speed of sound was broken? We really dont know anything about the universe around us, and who are we to say that this law is right or this law is wrong? We arent going to know anything untill we go out there into the universe and find out.

Answer 4

It seems to me, reading your additional information, that what you are trying to do is not so much do away with gravity as find a more satisfactory definition slash understanding of it. My own understanding has always been that gravity is a coefficient of matter, rather like time - so as some areas of physics explore the relationship between time and matter, you want to explore the influence of changing gravity - or at least that would be one avenue a different understanding of gravity might make possible.

Which makes me wonder - has anyone explored the gravitational side effects of time/matter changes?

Can't help you with the mathematics but it sounds an avenue worth pursuing.

Answer 5

Well, I certainly don't claim to be a physicist, but it was my understanding that anything with mass exerts a force on everything around it, so no, I don't think the universe could exist without gravity. fundamentally there just wouldn't be anything in it.

A lot of people have brought up string theory to unify general relatvity with quantum mechanics, while this does appear to be the best theory for unification of these seemingly contradictory theories, I have a small problem with string theory.

As of right now it is untestable. In fact it may never be testable because strings would not be detectable in any meanginful way with observational equipment we coudl develop. In some ways string theory approaches the realm of faith rather than science, despite the equations backing it up. Just my thoughts, I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me.

Answer 6

No. That is like saying can a lake exist without water.
Planets and starts and galaxies cause a bend in the fabric of space and it is this bend that causes gravity. Think of a piece of fabric with a bowling ball in the center and the weight of the bowling ball causes the fabric to bend down in the middle.
To have no gravity you have to have no matter or anti-matter, as that also has mass. Gravity is the by-product of mass, and mass is a part of the universe. So the answer is no.

Answer 7

Gravity is essential to our universe. The observations you speak of would not be better explained by eliminating gravity, they just mean there is some other force (or mass) at work which we have not been able to discover yet. Another solution to the acceleration of the expansion that has been proposed is that our understanding of gravity is not complete. Gravity might not be constant.

Answer 8

Here's my thinking. Our universe started in the big bang with the simultaneous creation of matter and antimatter. There was a slight preponderance of matter, and this resulted in our universe consisting of matter, except in unusual circumstances result in the creation of a particle of antimatter. (as far as I know, these happenings are all man made)

Gravity being a fundamental concomitant of mass, I would say that any universe where mass exists, that gravity must also, willy-nilly, exist. However , there is nothing barring the postulation of a universe without mass-------the particle/antiparticle dichotomy would result in a universe without mass if the creation ratio were exactly equal. In such a universe there would be, consequently, no gravity.

Answer 9

When the bing bang happened four universal forces were made. Gravity ,Nuclear both strong and weak and the electro magnetic force. None of these forces would be capable without gravity and then their would be no universe as we know it. Sorry I can't be of more help I am in a rush.

Answer 10

The universe could not exist without gravity. Stars could not form. No stars, no universe. How could you not know this with a college understanding of physics? Stars need gravity for nuclear fusion. Gravity is what drives the fusion.