# Gravity can be repulsive!

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Created:** [September 18, 2020, 12:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785 "2020-09-18T12:25:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 16\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2020, 11:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/21 "2020-09-19T23:41:48Z")

</div>

OK, so to recap (correct me if I’m wrong):

1. Gravity is attractive for ordinary matter.
2. LambdaCDM implies that repulsive gravity must exist.
3. This repulsive gravity must be generated by some unknown exotic matter which violates the SEC and we call _dark energy_, which would explain point 2.
4. We have no idea what DE is nor what it properties are, such that it can violate the SEC.
5. The logical next step would be to look and test for possible candidates of matter/energy that can violate the SEC, which seems to be what Villata was doing - he proposed that antimatter violated the SEC and can explain point 2. These kinds of hypotheses can then be tested in the lab.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PdotdQ](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/pdotdq/32/1248_2.png) [@PdotdQ](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/PdotdQ)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 12:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/22 "2020-09-20T00:01:22Z")

</div>

I would add the following corrections:  
-) The fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating (not necessarily LambdaCDM) gives rise to the hypothesis that gravity can be repulsive  
-) Dark energy is a general, catch-all term for a form of energy that permeates the universe and causes the accelerating expansion of the universe  
-) The cosmological constant, Lambda, is a specific model for dark energy  
-) LambdaCDM proposes that Lambda IS dark energy

Further, I would be careful when saying

> [@dga471](#):
>
> - Gravity is attractive for ordinary matter.

For example, gravitational waves is gravity that is created by ordinary matter, yet when it hits LIGO it causes changes in the lengths of the arms in an oscillatory fashion; this looks neither attractive or repulsive to me. Another example: in addition to its usual attractive gravity, a spinning star generates gravity that causes other objects to spin along with it. Again, this looks neither attractive or repulsive to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 12:04am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/23 "2020-09-20T00:04:27Z")

</div>

> [@PdotdQ](#):
>
> For example, gravitational waves is gravity that is created by ordinary matter, yet when it hits LIGO it causes changes in the lengths of the arms in an oscillatory fashion; this looks neither attractive or repulsive to me. Another example: in addition to its usual attractive gravity, a spinning star generates gravity that causes other objects to spin along with it. Again, this looks neither attractive or repulsive to me.

OK, but you can surely agree that gravity is non-repulsive for ordinary matter?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 12:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/24 "2020-09-20T00:10:58Z")

</div>

Now you’re getting all physicist-superior. Not cool.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PdotdQ](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/pdotdq/32/1248_2.png) [@PdotdQ](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/PdotdQ)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 12:21am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/25 "2020-09-20T00:21:00Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Now you’re getting all physicist-superior.

I don’t think I am. I wanted to make sure I am answering your question properly, so I wanted to see what exactly you are asking for. Never did I say that physicists\>\>other scientists.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PdotdQ](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/pdotdq/32/1248_2.png) [@PdotdQ](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/PdotdQ)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 12:21am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/26 "2020-09-20T00:21:20Z")

</div>

> [@dga471](#):
>
> that gravity is non-repulsive for ordinary matter?

All evidence points to this at the moment. Or rather, I have not seen evidence to the contrary. I would also point out that the word “ordinary” in “ordinary matter” is human-centric. If LambdaCDM is correct, there are much more of this “exotic” matter than “ordinary” matter.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 12:22am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/27 "2020-09-20T00:22:58Z")

</div>

Going back to the question of gravitational waves being neither clearly attractive nor repulsive, is there a rigorous definition (other than the SEC itself) for what it means for gravity to be “attractive” or “repulsive” anyway?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PdotdQ](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/pdotdq/32/1248_2.png) [@PdotdQ](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/PdotdQ)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 12:57am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/28 "2020-09-20T00:57:40Z")

</div>

First of, the SEC is not a definition for attraction/repulsion, it’s just a property of the matter.

In general relativity, attraction/repulsion can be rigorously defined in terms of the geodesic motion of test particles. Suppose a central object; if the geodesics all get “sucked” into the central object, then it’s attractive, if the geodesics get repelled, then it’s repulsive.

For the other forces, attraction/repulsion can be rigorously defined in terms of the energy-momentum flux being positive or negative (I learned this in Matt Schwartz’s class).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 1:50am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/29 "2020-09-20T01:50:28Z")

</div>

> [@PdotdQ](#):
>
> I wanted to see what exactly you are asking for.

Assume I’m not a physicist and I don’t know how to write the equations you asked for (apparently) gravity in general relativity. Assume that when I clearly don’t know what you are saying you should reply in the best layman’s terms you can manage. You’re coming off as showing how much you know without explaining what you know, whether or not you intend to.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PdotdQ](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/pdotdq/32/1248_2.png) [@PdotdQ](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/PdotdQ)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 2:07am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/30 "2020-09-20T02:07:12Z")

</div>

I don’t need you to write equations of gravity in general relativity. I just wanted to make sure that we are talking about the same things, so I need you to write what you mean when you ask, for example, whether the strength of repulsive gravity is a high-order polynomial power of distance. This:

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> It can’t be the square of distance, or it would just uniformly lesses the apparent gravitational constant. It must be a higher power of distance, because it predominates at higher distances. And it must apparently grow stronger as distance increases.

to me sounds like you are asking whether that the gravitational force is:

F = F\_r(r) + \frac{GMm}{r^2} \; ,

where F\_r(r) is the repulsive part of gravity, and that F\_r(r) is a “high-degree polynomial function of distance”.

If so, the answer is no. But I don’t want to presume that this is indeed what you are asking, which is why, if I were to answer the question

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Is it directly proportional to some high-degree polynomial function of distance?

I need to know what is the equation that you are talking about that is a high-degree polynomial function of distance.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 4:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/31 "2020-09-20T04:01:02Z")

</div>

OK. Don’t know how to do equations in a nice pretty way, but it would be something like F sub r = (G sub r)(Mm)(r^x), where x is an integer greater than 2. (G sub r would be the repulsive gravitational constant.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PdotdQ](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/pdotdq/32/1248_2.png) [@PdotdQ](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/PdotdQ)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 4:21am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/32 "2020-09-20T04:21:36Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> F sub r = (G sub r)(Mm)(r^x), where x is an integer greater than 2. (G sub r would be the repulsive gravitational constant.)

OK, I now understand what you are asking. Knowing this I can now answer your question on whether dark energy is…

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> … directly proportional to some high-degree polynomial function of distance?

The answer is no, for two main reasons:

1. The gravitational interaction is not split to a “repulsive” part and an “attractive” part
2. The equation F=GMm/r^2 is only valid in very specific conditions (Newtonian limit, i.e., very weak gravity, and only for point particles) – these conditions are not the situations for dark energy

There are also further technical issues. For example, defining the repulsive gravitational constant as you do, G\_r, will introduce length scales, as this means G\_r will have an extra unit of [length]^(x-2) to keep the units of Force to be Newton. This is not a problem per say, but is an issue nonetheless that needs to be addressed in the theory.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 4:43am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/33 "2020-09-20T04:43:21Z")

</div>

> [@PdotdQ](#):
>
> First of, the SEC is not a definition for attraction/repulsion, it’s just a property of the matter.
> 
> In general relativity, attraction/repulsion can be rigorously defined in terms of the geodesic motion of test particles. Suppose a central object; if the geodesics all get “sucked” into the central object, then it’s attractive, if the geodesics get repelled, then it’s repulsive.

Right. After rereading the relevant sections in Chapter 4 of Carroll’s GR textbook (2004): in the situation you described where the test particles are initially at rest and follow the geodesics \theta, then their evolution is described by  
 \frac{d\theta}{d\tau} = -4 \pi G (\rho + p\_x + p\_y + p\_z) (eq. 4.86, p. 168), where \rho = energy density and p = pressure components of the energy momentum tensor. If the quantity in the parentheses is positive, then gravity is attractive. And this is exactly what the SEC posits: one of its conditions is \rho + 3 p \geq 0 (p. 175, assuming the case of a perfect fluid where p\_i = p). Thus, while the SEC doesn’t strictly _define_ attraction or repulsion, it seems mathematically equivalent to a test of whether a source object results in attractive or repulsive gravity.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PdotdQ](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/pdotdq/32/1248_2.png) [@PdotdQ](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/PdotdQ)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 5:33am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/34 "2020-09-20T05:33:51Z")

</div>

I think you get the idea. There is still one caveat: Carroll is talking about the Raychauduri equation, which tells you whether two geodesics converges or diverges. This is almost, but not quite the same as the question of whether an object (say, a blob in space, not necessarily spherically symmetric) generates a spacetime whose geodesics (initialized with “0 velocity” in an appropriate way) all point toward the blob (attraction) or is repelled by the blob (repulsion). There are super fine-tuned, edge-cases in which I can have geodesics move away from the blob (repulsion) but still at certain points, converge with each other. For most cases, however, using the concept of attraction/repulsion in the Raychauduri sense is good enough. This is doubly true for spherically symmetric situations, as is the case of Dark Energy in cosmology.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> Thus, while the SEC doesn’t strictly _define_ attraction or repulsion, it seems mathematically equivalent to a test of whether a source object results in attractive or repulsive gravity.

Keep in mind, however, that the energy condition is not defined so that attraction/repulsion in the Raychouduri sense is obtained, but rather is motivated by considerations such as making sure that the object has positive mass-energy in its rest frame. In this sense, I would claim that their relevance to attraction/repulsion (in the Raychauduri sense) is a symptom of the energy conditions, but is not their defining trait.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thoughtful](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/thoughtful/32/9230_2.png) [@thoughtful](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/thoughtful)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2020, 5:34am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/35 "2020-09-20T05:34:01Z")

</div>

> [@PdotdQ](#):
>
> Are you sure? You won’t like what I have to say.

I don’t make posts to appear smart. I make posts to have people tell me I’m dumb so that I have something else to consider. So yes, I want you to comment.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [September 21, 2020, 2:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785/36 "2020-09-21T14:44:43Z")

</div>

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> I don’t make posts to appear smart. I make posts to have people tell me I’m dumb so that I have something else to consider.

AND we love you for it. 🙂

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gravity-can-be-repulsive/11785.md?page=1)