> OK here's Newton's law of gravitation defined: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation > > When bodies are large with respect to the distance between them, or > even "overlap", forces on every tiny volume of a given body are > computed as the sum of forces over many small units of volume of the > surrounding space. This summation is an integration process, with the > volumes being examined in the limit where they approach zero volume. > In the limit the number of chunks of volume dV becomes infinite and > their volumes become zero - i.e. points. This is just basic > calculus. This is how Coulomb's law (and Newton's gravitational > equivalent) is applied for non-point objects. It works for ordinary > volumes, like spheres, even inside them, and it works for wave > functions.
Yes, but you seem to ignore that this working gives a different result (rate of change or strength) in each of those cases you mention. And particularly on the subatomic scale, as you said, this different result is to be associated with a wave function. This wave function then, in the case of the Coloumb force, does prevent the electron from collapsing into the nucleus, and prevents the protons to be escaping from it. If this very particular wave function(supposing this is so), or another factor, at those scales has effects so dramatic on the strength of the Coulomb force, why it could not have effects also on the gravitational force? Particularly: Why are we going to accept that the comparision between the strengths of these forces is valid at those scales, when at least one of these forces clearly suffers alterations, even independently of the fact that these alterations are explained or associated (or not) with a wave function? Best regards Mauro
