ABSTRACT

Gravity was the first fundamental force that humanity recognized, yet it remains the least understood.
Physicists can predict the influence of gravity on bowling balls, stars and planets with exquisite accuracy,
but no one knows how the force interacts with minute particles, or quanta. At the heart of the thorniest
problem in theoretical physics lies a clash between the field's two greatest triumphs. Albert
Einstein's theory of general relativity replaced Isaac Newton's notion of simple attraction between objects
with a description of matter or energy bending space and time around it, and nearby objects following
those curved paths, acting as if they were attracted to one another. In Einstein's equations, gravity is the
shape of space itself. The current problem with a fully unified field theory is in finding a way to
incorporate gravity (which is explained under Einstein's theory of general relativity) with the Standard
Model that describes the quantum mechanical nature of the other three fundamental interactions. The
curvature of space-time that is fundamental to general relativity leads to difficulties in the quantum
physics representations of the Standard Model. Albert Einstein coined the term "Unified Field Theory,"
which describes any attempt to unify the fundamental forces of physics between elementary particles into
a single theoretical framework. Einstein spent the latter part of his life searching for such a unified field
theory, but was unsuccessful. We could not further move forward in Physics because of unmanifest
knowledge of Gravity. To get the Physics into the next level, we need to explore more about which cause
Gravity and its quantum nature. Many of factors like Density, Angular momentum, Magnetic field and
others play on important role on Gravity. This Project deals with the analysis of impacts of Density on
Gravity.

INTRODUCTION

Early concepts
Newton argued that the movements of celestial bodies and the free fall of objects on Earth are determined
by the same force. The classical Greek philosophers, on the other hand, did not consider the celestial
bodies to be affected by gravity, because the bodies were observed to follow perpetually repeating
nondescending trajectories in the sky. Thus, Aristotle considered that each heavenly body followed a
particular “natural” motion, unaffected by external causes or agents. Aristotle also believed that massive
earthly objects possess a natural tendency to move toward Earth’s centre. Those Aristotelian concepts
prevailed for centuries along with two others: that a body moving at constant speed requires a continuous
force acting on it and that force must be applied by contact rather than interaction at a distance. These
ideas were generally held until the 16th and early 17th centuries, thereby impeding an understanding of
the true principles of motion and precluding the development of ideas about universal gravitation. This
impasse began to change with several scientific contributions to the problem of earthly and celestial
motion, which in turn set the stage for Newton’s later gravitational theory.

The 17th-century German astronomer Johannes Kepler accepted the argument of Nicolaus
Copernicus (which goes back to Aristarchus of Samos) that the planets orbit the Sun, not Earth. Using the
improved measurements of planetary movements made by the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe during the
16th century, Kepler described the planetary orbits with simple geometric and arithmetic
relations. Kepler’s three quantitative laws of planetary motion are:
1. The planets describe elliptic orbits, of which the Sun occupies one focus (a focus is one of two points
inside an ellipse; any ray coming from one of them bounces off a side of the ellipse and goes through
the other focus).
2. The line joining a planet to the Sun sweeps out equal areas in equal times.
3. The square of the period of revolution of a planet is proportional to the cube of its average distance
from the Sun.
During this same period the Italian astronomer and natural philosopher Galileo Galilei made progress in
understanding “natural” motion and simple accelerated motion for earthly objects. He realized that bodies
that are uninfluenced by forces continue indefinitely to move and that force is necessary to change
motion, not to maintain constant motion. In studying how objects fall toward Earth, Galileo discovered
that the motion is one of constant acceleration. He demonstrated that the distance a falling body travels
from rest in this way varies as the square of the time. As noted above, the acceleration due to gravity at
the surface of Earth is about 9.8 metres per second per second. Galileo was also the first to show by
experiment that bodies fall with the same acceleration whatever their composition (the weak principle of
equivalence).

Newton’s law of gravity

Newton discovered the relationship between the motion of the Moon and the motion of a body falling
freely on Earth. By his dynamical and gravitational theories, he explained Kepler’s laws and established
the modern quantitative science of gravitation. Newton assumed the existence of an
attractive force between all massive bodies, one that does not require bodily contact and that acts at a
distance. By invoking his law of inertia (bodies not acted upon by a force move at constant speed in a
straight line), Newton concluded that a force exerted by Earth on the Moon is needed to keep it in a
circular motion about Earth rather than moving in a straight line. He realized that this force could be, at
long range, the same as the force with which Earth pulls objects on its surface downward. When Newton
discovered that the acceleration of the Moon is 1/3,600 smaller than the acceleration at the surface of
Earth, he related the number 3,600 to the square of the radius of Earth. He calculated that the circular
orbital motion of radius R and period T requires a constant inward acceleration A equal to the product of

4π2 and the ratio of the radius to the square of the time:
Newton saw that the gravitational force between bodies must depend on the masses of the bodies. Since a
body of mass M experiencing a force F accelerates at a rate F/M, a force of gravity proportional
to M would be consistent with Galileo’s observation that all bodies accelerate under gravity toward Earth
at the same rate, a fact that Newton also tested experimentally. In Newton’s equation

F12 is the magnitude of the gravitational force acting between masses M1 and M2 separated by distance r12.
The force equals the product of these masses and of G, a universal constant, divided by the square of the
distance.The constant G is a quantity with the physical dimensions (length)3/(mass)(time)2; its numerical
value depends on the physical units of length, mass, and time used. (G is discussed more fully
in subsequent sections.)
Newton showed that the equatorial bulge of Earth was a consequence of the balance between
the centrifugal forces of the rotation of Earth and the attractions of each particle of Earth on all others.
The value of gravity at the surface of Earth increases in a corresponding way from the Equator to the
poles. Among the data that Newton used to estimate the size of the equatorial bulge were the adjustments
to his pendulum clock that the English astronomer Edmond Halley had to make in the course of his
astronomical observations on the southern island of Saint Helena. Jupiter, which rotates faster than Earth,
has a proportionally larger equatorial bulge, the difference between its polar and equatorial radii being
about 10 percent. Another success of Newton’s theory was his demonstration that comets move in
parabolic orbits under the gravitational attraction of the Sun. In a thorough analysis in the Principia, he
showed that the great comet of 1680–81 did indeed follow a parabolic path.

It was already known in Newton’s day that the Moon does not move in a simple Keplerian orbit. Later,
more-accurate observations of the planets also showed discrepancies from Kepler’s laws. The motion of
the Moon is particularly complex; however, apart from a long-term acceleration due to tides on Earth, the
complexities can be accounted for by the gravitational attraction of the Sun and the planets. The
gravitational attractions of the planets for each other explain almost all the features of their motions. The
exceptions are nonetheless important. Uranus, the seventh planet from the Sun, was observed to undergo
variations in its motion that could not be explained by perturbations from Saturn, Jupiter, and the other
planets. Two 19th-century astronomers, John Couch Adams of Britain and Urbain-Jean-Joseph Le
Verrier of France, independently assumed the presence of an unseen eighth planet that could produce the
observed discrepancies. They calculated its position within a degree of where the planet Neptune was
discovered in 1846. Measurements of the motion of the innermost planet, Mercury, over an extended
period led astronomers to conclude that the major axis of this planet’s elliptical orbit precesses in space at
a rate 43 arc seconds per century faster than could be accounted for from perturbations of the other
planets. In this case, however, no other bodies could be found that could produce this discrepancy, and
very slight modification of Newton’s law of gravitation seemed to be needed. Einstein’s theory
of relativity precisely predicts this observed behaviour of Mercury’s orbit.

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity

In 1905, Albert Einstein published his theory of special relativity. This theory is discussed in great detail
in Relativity in the third volume of this text, so we say only a few words here. In this theory, no motion
can exceed the speed of light—it is the speed limit of the Universe. This simple fact has been verified in
countless experiments. However, it has incredible consequences—space and time are no longer absolute.
Two people moving relative to one another do not agree on the length of objects or the passage of time.
Almost all of the mechanics you learned in previous chapters, while remarkably accurate even for speeds
of many thousands of miles per second, begin to fail when approaching the speed of light.

This speed limit on the Universe was also a challenge to the inherent assumption in Newton’s law of
gravitation that gravity is an action-at-a-distance force. That is, without physical contact, any change in
the position of one mass is instantly communicated to all other masses. This assumption does not come
from any first principle, as Newton’s theory simply does not address the question. (The same was
believed of electromagnetic forces, as well. It is fair to say that most scientists were not completely
comfortable with the action-at-a-distance concept.)
A second assumption also appears in Newton’s law of gravitation (Equation). The masses are assumed to
be exactly the same as those used in Newton’s second law, →F=m→aF→=ma→. We made that
assumption in many of our derivations in this chapter. Again, there is no underlying principle that this
must be, but experimental results are consistent with this assumption. In Einstein’s subsequent theory of
general relativity (1916), both of these issues were addressed. His theory was a theory of space-time
geometry and how mass (and acceleration) distort and interact with that space-time. It was not a theory of
gravitational forces. The mathematics of the general theory is beyond the scope of this text, but we can
look at some underlying principles and their consequences. Our modern understanding of Gravity comes
from Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which stands as one of the best-tested theories in
science. General Relativity predicted many phenomena years before they were observed, including Black
holes, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, the expansion of the Universe. Today researchers
continue to test the theory’s predictions for a better understanding of how gravity works.

The Principle of Equivalence

Einstein came to his general theory in part by wondering why someone who was free falling did not feel
his or her weight. Indeed, it is common to speak of astronauts orbiting Earth as being weightless, despite
the fact that Earth’s gravity is still quite strong there. In Einstein’s general theory, there is no difference
between free fall and being weightless. This is called the principle of equivalence. The equally
surprising corollary to this is that there is no difference between a uniform gravitational field and a
uniform acceleration in the absence of gravity. Let’s focus on this last statement. Although a perfectly
uniform gravitational field is not feasible, we can approximate it very well.
Within a reasonably sized laboratory on Earth, the gravitational field →gg→ is essentially uniform. The
corollary states that any physical experiments performed there have the identical results as those done in a
laboratory accelerating at →a=→ga→=g→ in deep space, well away from all other masses.

How can these two apparently fundamentally different situations be the same? The answer is that
gravitation is not a force between two objects but is the result of each object responding to the effect that
the other has on the space-time surrounding it. A uniform gravitational field and a uniform acceleration
have exactly the same effect on space-time.

A Geometric Theory of Gravity

Euclidian geometry assumes a “flat” space in which, among the most commonly known attributes, a
straight line is the shortest distance between two points, the sum of the angles of all triangles must be 180
degrees, and parallel lines never intersect. Non-Euclidean geometry was not seriously investigated until
the nineteenth century, so it is not surprising that Euclidean space is inherently assumed in all of
Newton’s laws.

The general theory of relativity challenges this long-held assumption. Only empty space is flat. The
presence of mass—or energy, since relativity does not distinguish between the two—distorts or curves
space and time, or space-time, around it. The motion of any other mass is simply a response to this curved
space-time. Figure is a two-dimensional representation of a smaller mass orbiting in response to the
distorted space created by the presence of a larger mass. In a more precise but confusing picture, we
would also see space distorted by the orbiting mass, and both masses would be in motion in response to
the total distortion of space. Note that the figure is a representation to help visualize the concept. These
are distortions in our three-dimensional space and time. We do not see them as we would a dimple on a
ball. We see the distortion only by careful measurements of the motion of objects and light as they move
through space.

For weak gravitational fields, the results of general relativity do not differ significantly from Newton’s
law of gravitation. But for intense gravitational fields, the results diverge, and general relativity has been
shown to predict the correct results. Even in our Sun’s relatively weak gravitational field at the distance
of Mercury’s orbit, we can observe the effect. Starting in the mid-1800s, Mercury’s elliptical orbit has
been carefully measured. However, although it is elliptical, its motion is complicated by the fact that the
perihelion position of the ellipse slowly advances. Most of the advance is due to the gravitational pull of
other planets, but a small portion of that advancement could not be accounted for by Newton’s law. At
one time, there was even a search for a “companion” planet that would explain the discrepancy. But
general relativity correctly predicts the measurements. Since then, many measurements, such as the
deflection of light of distant objects by the Sun, have verified that general relativity correctly predicts the
observations.
Einstein field equations
The Einstein field equations are a system of 10 partial differential equations which describe how matter
affects the curvature of space-time. The system is often expressed in the form

Gμν + Λ gμν = Tμν

where Gμν is the Einstein tensor, gμν is the metric tensor, Tμν is the stress–energy tensor, Λ is
the cosmological constant, G is the Newtonian constant of gravitation and c is the speed of light. The
constant k = 8 π G/c^4 is referred to as the Einstein gravitational constant.

A major area of research is the discovery of exact solutions to the Einstein field equations. Solving these
equations amounts to calculating a precise value for the metric tensor (which defines the curvature and
geometry of spacetime) under certain physical conditions. There is no formal definition for what
constitutes such solutions, but most scientists agree that they should be expressable using elementary
functions or linear differential equations.[38] Some of the most notable solutions of the equations include:

 The Schwarzschild solution, which describes spacetime surrounding a spherically symmetric non-
rotating uncharged massive object. For compact enough objects, this solution generated a black
hole with a central singularity.[39] At points far away from the central mass, the accelerations
predicted by the Schwarzschild solution are practically identical to those predicted by Newton's
theory of gravity.[40]
 The Reissner–Nordström solution, which analyzes a non-rotating spherically symmetric object with
charge and was independently discovered by several different researchers between 1916 and 1921.
[41]
In some cases, this solution can predict the existence of black holes with double event horizons.[42]
 The Kerr solution, which generalizes the Schwarzchild solution to rotating massive objects. Because
of the difficulty of factoring in the effects of rotation into the Einstein field equations, this solution
was not discovered until 1963.[43]
 The Kerr–Newman solution for charged, rotating massive objects. This solution was derived in 1964,
using the same technique of complex coordinate transformation that was used for the Kerr solution.[44]
 The cosmological Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker solution, discovered in 1922
by Alexander Friedmann and then confirmed in 1927 by Georges Lemaître. This solution was
revolutionary for predicting the expansion of the Universe, which was confirmed seven years later
after a series of measurements by Edwin Hubble.[45] It even showed that general relativity was
incompatible with a static universe, and Einstein later conceded that he had been wrong to design his
field equations to account for a Universe that was not expanding.[46]
Today, there remain many important situations in which the Einstein field equations have not been
solved. Chief among these is the two-body problem, which concerns the geometry of spacetime around
two mutually interacting massive objects (such as the Sun and the Earth, or the two stars in a binary star
system). The situation gets even more complicated when considering the interactions of three or more
massive bodies (the "n-body problem"), and some scientists suspect that the Einstein field equations will
never be solved in this context.[47] However, it is still possible to construct an approximate solution to the
field equations in the n-body problem by using the technique of post-Newtonian expansion.[48] In general,
the extreme nonlinearity of the Einstein field equations makes it difficult to solve them in all but the most
specific cases

General Relativity predicts its own failure

Classical General Relativity is a beautiful theory with celebrated successes as sketched above. However,
it predicts its own failure. Gravity is an attractive force and any amount of matter even over large
distances tends to clump. Interstellar gas contracts and ignites a sun by nuclear fusion of hydrogen to
helium once the core temperature due to gravitational pressure from the outer shell exceeds some ten
million Kelvin. When the hydrogen has been burnt up, helium fusion starts but that process runs at a
lower temperature which makes the sun expand up to a red giant. When the helium has been used up, the
kinetic energy of the stellar plasma can no longer counter balance the gravitational pressure. The star
would have to expand further to find a new equilibrium but there is not sufficient energy to work against
its own gravitational pull and the star implodes. This implosion does not happen uniformly throughout the
plasma but leads to regions with very high pressure and corresponding temperatures which makes parts of
the star explode into a supernova. The further fate of the star depends on whether the rest of its mass is
above or below the Chandrasekhar limit of about 1.4 solar masses. If it is below that limit, then it ends up
as a white dwarf or a neutron star. These stars withstand the gravitational pressure not due to kinetic
(temperature) pressure but because of the Pauli pressure: One can imagine a white dwarf as a metal
because gas under these extreme conditions has freely moving electrons. Electrons are fermions and thus
obey the Pauli exclusion principle. They cannot be squeezed arbitrarily since they must not have the same
position and momentum, they must be in different quantum states. This strange quantum effect may
withstand the gravitational pressure up to typical size of approximately one solar mass in a radius of
1000km. At higher pressures inverse beta decay occurs and the electrons combine with the protons to
neutrons. Also neutrons are fermions and create a Pauli pressure which counter balances the gravitational
pressure up to a typical pressure of about one solar mass in a radius of 1km.
This is simultaneously the Schwarzschild radius of a solar mass star. If so much matter is squeezed into
such a small volume, no undiscovered force whatsoever can prevent its total gravitational collapse into a
single point! The reason is causality: The curvature of spacetime becomes so extreme that within the
Schwarzschild radius any beam of light runs into the centre. Since any interaction obeying causality
underlies the rule that signals cannot travel faster than light, any force no matter how strong cannot push
the surface of the star out of the Schwarzschild radius any more. Everything collapses into a single point,
the so called singularity. The curvature of space-time and the matter energy density become infinite here.
Divergent quantities in a physical theory indicate that its domain of validity has been left. It must be
replaced by a more fundamental theory. Since the seminal works of Penrose and Hawking it is known that
total gravitational collapse of a sufficient amount of matter is a generic prediction of GR.
Literally the same applies to the initial singularity, the big bang, at which space-time itself is supposed to
have been created. Again the mathematical equations become meaningless and suggest that the theory
predicts its own failure.

QUANTUM GRAVITY

Quantum gravity (QG) is a field of theoretical physics that seeks to describe gravity according to the
principles of quantum mechanics; it deals with environments in which neither gravitational nor quantum
effects can be ignored, such as in the vicinity of black holes or similar compact astrophysical objects,
such as neutron stars.
Three of the four fundamental forces of physics are described within the framework of quantum
mechanics and quantum field theory. The current understanding of the fourth force, gravity, is based
on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which is formulated within the entirely different
framework of classical physics. However, that description is incomplete: describing the gravitational field
of a black hole in the general theory of relativity leads physical quantities, such as the space-time
curvature, to diverge at the center of the black hole.
This signals the breakdown of the general theory of relativity and the need for a theory that goes beyond
general relativity into the quantum realm. At distances very close to the center of the black hole (closer
than the Planck length), quantum fluctuations of space-time are expected to play an important role. To
describe these quantum effects a theory of quantum gravity is needed. Such a theory should allow the
description to be extended closer to the center and might even allow an understanding of physics at the
center of a black hole. On more formal grounds, one can argue that a classical system cannot consistently
be coupled to a quantum one.
The field of quantum gravity is actively developing, and theorists are exploring a variety of approaches to
the problem of quantum gravity, the most popular being M-theory and loop quantum gravity. All of these
approaches aim to describe the quantum behavior of the gravitational field. This does not necessarily
include unifying all fundamental interactions into a single mathematical framework. However, many
approaches to quantum gravity, such as string theory, try to develop a framework that describes all
fundamental forces. Such a theory is often referred to as a theory of everything. Others, such as loop
quantum gravity, make no such attempt; instead, they make an effort to quantize the gravitational field
while it is kept separate from the other forces.
One of the difficulties of formulating a quantum gravity theory is that direct observation of quantum
gravitational effects is thought to only appear at length scales near the Planck scale, around 10−35 meters, a
scale far smaller, and hence only accessible with far higher energies, than those currently available in
high energy particle accelerators. Therefore, physicists lack experimental data which could distinguish
between the competing theories which have been proposed.
STRING THEORY

string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced
by one-dimensional objects called strings. String theory describes how these strings propagate through
space and interact with each other. On distance scales larger than the string scale, a string looks just like
an ordinary particle, with its mass, charge, and other properties determined by the vibrational state of the
string. In string theory, one of the many vibrational states of the string corresponds to the graviton,
a quantum mechanical particle that carries the gravitational force. Thus, string theory is a theory
of quantum gravity.
String theory is a broad and varied subject that attempts to address a number of deep questions
of fundamental physics. String theory has contributed a number of advances to mathematical physics,
which have been applied to a variety of problems in black hole physics, early
universe cosmology, nuclear physics, and condensed matter physics, and it has stimulated a number of
major developments in pure mathematics. Because string theory potentially provides a unified description
of gravity and particle physics, it is a candidate for a theory of everything, a self-contained mathematical
model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. Despite much work on these problems, it
is not known to what extent string theory describes the real world or how much freedom the theory allows
in the choice of its details.
String theory was first studied in the late 1960s as a theory of the strong nuclear force, before being
abandoned in favor of quantum chromo dynamics. Subsequently, it was realized that the very properties
that made string theory unsuitable as a theory of nuclear physics made it a promising candidate for a
quantum theory of gravity. The earliest version of string theory, bosonic string theory, incorporated only
the class of particles known as bosons. It later developed into superstring theory, which posits a
connection called super symmetry between bosons and the class of particles called fermions. Five
consistent versions of superstring theory were developed before it was conjectured in the mid-1990s that
they were all different limiting cases of a single theory in 11 dimensions known as M-theory. In late
1997, theorists discovered an important relationship called the anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory
correspondence, which relates string theory to another type of physical theory called a quantum field
theory.
One of the challenges of string theory is that the full theory does not have a satisfactory definition in all
circumstances. Another issue is that the theory is thought to describe an enormous landscape of possible
universes, which has complicated efforts to develop theories of particle physics based on string theory.
These issues have led some in the community to criticize these approaches to physics, and to question the
value of continued research on string theory unification.

Schwarzschild classification of Black holes

Schwarzschild radius, also called gravitational radius, the radius below which the gravitational
attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse. This
phenomenon is thought to be the final fate of the more massive stars (see black hole).

The Schwarzschild radius (Rg) of an object of mass M is given by the following formula, in which G is the
universal gravitational constant and c is the speed of light: Rg = 2GM/c2.

For a mass as small as a human being, the Schwarzschild radius is of the order of 10-23 cm, much smaller
than the nucleus of an atom; for a typical star such as the Sun, it is about 3 km (2 miles).

Any object whose radius is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is called a black hole. The surface at the
Schwarzschild radius acts as an event horizon in a non-rotating body (a rotating black hole operates
slightly differently). Neither light nor particles can escape through this surface from the region inside,
hence the name "black hole".
Black holes can be classified based on their Schwarzschild radius, or equivalently, by their density, where
density is defined as mass of a black hole divided by the volume of its Schwarzschild sphere. As the
Schwarzschild radius is linearly related to mass, while the enclosed volume corresponds to the third
power of the radius, small black holes are therefore much more dense than large ones. The volume
enclosed in the event horizon of the most massive black holes has an average density lower than main
sequence stars.
Approx. Approx.
Class
mass radius

Supermassive black 105–1010 0.001–400

hole MSun AU

Intermediate-mass 103 km
103 MSun
black hole ≈ REarth

Stellar black hole 10 MSun 30 km

up to
Micro black hole up to MMoon
0.1 mm

Gravitational Waves :

Gravitational waves are waves of the intensity of gravity generated by the accelerated masses of an
orbital binary system that propagate as waves outward from their source at the speed of light. They were
first proposed by Oliver Heaviside in 1893 and then later by Henri Poincaré in 1905 as waves similar
to electromagnetic waves but the gravitational equivalent. Gravitational waves were later predicted in
1916 by Albert Einstein on the basis of his general theory of relativity as ripples in spacetime. Later he
refused to accept gravitational waves.[6] Gravitational waves transport energy as gravitational radiation,
a form of radiant energy similar to electromagnetic radiation.If the masses that are the source of a field
change with time, they radiate energy as waves of curvature of the field. Gravitational waves were first
directly detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) in 2015.

Theory and sources

Superficially, there are many similarities between gravity and electromagnetism. For example, Newton’s
law for the gravitational force between two point masses and Coulomb’s law for the electric
force between two point charges indicate that both forces vary as the inverse square of the separation
distance. Yet in Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell’s theory for electromagnetism, accelerated
charges emit signals (electromagnetic radiation) that travel at the speed of light, whereas
in Newton’s theory of gravitation accelerated masses transmit information (action at a distance) that
travels at infinite speed. This dichotomy is repaired by Einstein’s theory of gravitation, wherein
accelerated masses also produce signals (gravitational waves) that travel only at the speed of light. And,
just as electromagnetic waves can make their presence known by the pushing to and fro of electrically
charged bodies, so too can gravitational waves be detected by the tugging to and fro of massive bodies.
However, because the coupling of gravitational forces to masses is intrinsically much weaker than the
coupling of electromagnetic forces to charges, the generation and detection of gravitational radiation are
much more difficult than those of electromagnetic radiation. Indeed, it was nearly 100 years after
Einstein’s discovery of general relativity in 1916 that there was a direct detection of gravitational waves.

According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, such a system ought to be losing orbital energy
through the radiation of gravitational waves at a rate that would cause them to spiral together on a
timescale of about 3 × 108 years. The observed decrease in the orbital period in the years since the
discovery of the binary pulsar does indeed indicate that the two stars are spiraling toward one another at
exactly the predicted rate. Gravitational radiation is the only known means by which that could happen.
(American physicists Russell Hulse and Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1993
for their discovery of PSR 1913+16.)The implosion of the core of a massive star to form a neutron
star prior to a supernova explosion, if it takes place in a nonspherically symmetric way, ought to provide a
powerful burst of gravitational radiation. Simple estimates yield the release of a fraction of the mass-
energy deficit, roughly 1053 ergs, with the radiation primarily coming out at wave periods between the
vibrational period of the neutron star, approximately 0.3 millisecond, and the gravitational radiation
damping time, about 300 milliseconds.

Detectors and observations

Three types of detectors have been designed to look for gravitational radiation, which is very weak. The
changes of curvature of space-time would correspond to a dilation in one direction and a contraction at
right angles to that direction. One scheme, first tried out about 1960, employed a massive cylinder that
might be set in mechanical oscillation by a gravitational signal. The authors of this apparatus argued that
signals had been detected, but their claim was not substantiated.
In a second scheme an optical interferometer is set up with freely suspended reflectors at the ends of long
paths that are at right angles to each other. Shifts of interference fringes corresponding to an increase in
length of one arm and a decrease in the other would indicate the passage of gravitational waves. One such
interferometer is the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), which consists of two
interferometers with arm lengths of 4 km (2 miles), one in Hanford, Washington, and the other in
Livingston, Louisiana. LIGO was the first observatory to directly detect gravitational waves. On
September 14, 2015, it observed two black holes 1.3 billion light-years away, which were 36 and 29 times
the mass of the Sun, spiralling inward to form a new black hole of 62 solar masses. The remaining three
solar masses were converted into gravitational waves.

ROCHE LIMIT

The Roche limit, sometimes referred to as the Roche radius, is the distance within which a celestial body
held together only by its own gravity will disintegrate due to a second celestial body's tidal forces
exceeding the first body's gravitational self-attraction. Inside the Roche limit, orbiting material will tend
to disperse and form rings, while outside the limit, material will tend to coalesce. The term is named
after Édouard Roche, the French astronomer who first calculated this theoretical limit in 1848.

Typically, the Roche limit applies to a satellite disintegrating due to tidal forces induced by its primary,
the body about which it orbits. Some real satellites, both natural and artificial, can orbit within their
Roche limits because they are held together by forces other than gravitation. Jupiter's moon Metis
and Saturn's moon Pan are examples of such satellites, which hold together because of their tensile
strength. In extreme cases, objects resting on the surface of such a satellite could actually be lifted away
by tidal forces. A weaker satellite, such as a comet, could be broken up when it passes within its Roche
limit.

Since tidal forces overwhelm gravity within the Roche limit, no large satellite can coalesce out of smaller
particles within that limit. Indeed, almost all known planetary rings are located within their Roche limit
(Saturn's E-Ring being a notable exception). They could either be remnants from the planet's proto-
planetary accretion disc that failed to coalesce into moonlets, or conversely have formed when a moon
passed within its Roche limit and broke apart.

(Note that the Roche limit should not be confused with the concept of the Roche lobe or Roche sphere,
which are also named after Édouard Roche. The Roche lobe describes the limits at which an object which
is in orbit around two other objects will be captured by one or the other. The Roche sphere approximates
the gravitational sphere of influence of one astronomical body in the face of perturbations from another
heavier body around which it orbits.)

The Roche limit depends on the rigidity of the satellite. At one extreme, a completely rigid satellite will
maintain its shape until tidal forces break it apart. At the other extreme, a highly fluid satellite gradually
deforms leading to increased tidal forces, causing the satellite to elongate, further compounding the tidal
forces and causing it to break apart more readily. Most real satellites are somewhere between these two
extremes, with internal friction, viscosity, and tensile strength rendering the satellite neither perfectly
rigid nor perfectly fluid.
Rigid satellites

To calculate the rigid body Roche limit for a spherical satellite, the cause of the rigidity is neglected but
the body is assumed to maintain its spherical shape while being held together only by its own self-gravity.
Other effects are also neglected, such as tidal deformation of the primary, rotation of the satellite, and its
irregular shape. These somewhat unrealistic assumptions greatly simplify the Roche limit calculation.

The Roche limit, d, for a rigid spherical satellite orbiting a spherical primary is:

where R is the radius of the primary, ρM is the density of the primary, and ρm is the density of the
satellite.
Fluid satellites

A more accurate approach for calculating the Roche Limit takes the deformation of the satellite into
account. An extreme example would be a tidally locked liquid satellite orbiting a planet, where any force
acting upon the satellite would deform it (into a prolate spheroid).

The calculation is complex and its result cannot be represented as an algebraic formula. Historically,
Roche himself derived the following numerical solution for the Roche Limit:

Potential theory
For irregular, nonspherical mass distributions in three dimensions, Newton’s original vector equation (4)
is inefficient, though theoretically it could be used for finding the resulting gravitational field. The main
progress in classical gravitational theory after Newton was the development of potential theory, which
provides the mathematical representation of gravitational fields. It allows practical as well as theoretical
investigation of the gravitational variations in space and of the anomalies due to the irregularities and
shape deformations of Earth.

Potential theory led to the following elegant formulation: the gravitational acceleration g is a function of
position R, g(R), which at any point in space is given from a function Φ called the gravitational potential,
by means of a generalization of the operation of differentiation:
in which i, j, and k stand for unit basis vectors in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system. The
potential and therefore g are determined by an equation discovered by the French mathematician Siméon-

Denis Poisson: where ρ(R) is the density at the

vector position R.
The significance of this approach is that Poisson’s equation can be solved under rather general conditions,
which is not the case with Newton’s equation. When the mass density ρ is nonzero, the solution is

expressed as the definite integral: where the integral is a three-

dimensional integral over the volume of all space. When ρ = 0 (in particular, outside Earth), Poisson’s
equation reduces to the simpler equation of Laplace.
The appropriate coordinates for the region outside the nearly spherical Earth are spherical polar
coordinates: R, the distance from the centre of Earth; θ, the colatitude measured from the North Pole; and
the longitude measured from Greenwich. The solutions are series of powers of R multiplied by
trigonometric functions of colatitude and longitude, known as spherical harmonics; the first terms are:

The constants J2, J3, and so forth are determined by the detailed mass distribution of Earth; and, since
Newton showed that for a spherical body all the Jn are zero, they must measure the deformation of Earth
from a spherical shape. J2 measures the magnitude of Earth’s rotational equatorial bulge, J3 measures a
slight pear-shaped deformation of Earth, and so on. The orbits of spacecraft around Earth, other planets,
and the Moon deviate from simple Keplerian ellipses in consequence of the various spherical harmonic
terms in the potential. Observations of such deviations were made for the very first artificial spacecraft.
The parameters J2 and J3 for Earth have been found to be 1,082.7 × 10−6 and −2.4 × 10−6, respectively.
Very many other harmonic terms have been found in that way for Earth and also for the Moon and for
other planets. Halley had already pointed out in the 18th century that the motions of the moons of Jupiter
are perturbed from simple ellipses by the variation of gravity around Jupiter.
DENSITY

Density is defined as mass per unit volume. It has the SI unit kg m-3 or kg/m3 and is an absolute quantity.
Experimentally Scientists proved that the Surface gravity mainly depends upon density. Let see how it
affects on outside the surface.

Let's say we have two spheres. One is twice as dense as the other but they have the same mass. Were you
to stand on the surface of each would you experience any difference in gravitational force or would they
be the same?

The acceleration due to gravity g on a sphere of radius r with mass M is given by

g=GM/r2

where G is the universal constant of gravitation.

The volume of a sphere is given by
V=4/3 πr^3

and density ρ is given by

ρ=M/V

Combining those equations and eliminating r we get

g=G(4π/3)^2/3 M^1/3 ρ^2/3

So if mass is constant and density is doubled, gravity is scaled by 2^2/3, or approximately 1.5874. So if
you did this to the Earth g would go up from 9.81ms−2 to 15.57ms−2.

The concepts of Roche Limit and the Potential theory clearly explain the role of density as above. But an
impact of Density on Gravity differs in planets with its composition. And also for the detailed
Investigation, we will analyze Terrestrial and Gaseous planets separately.
 PLANETORY FACT SHEET - NASA:

VENUS EARTH MOON MARS JUPITER SATURN URANUS NEPTUNE

MERCURY

Mass (1024kg) 0.330 4.87 5.97 0.073 0.642 1898 568 86.8 102

Diameter (km) 4879 12,104 12,756 3475 6792 142,984 120,536 51,118 49,528

Density (kg/m3) 5429 5243 5514 3340 3934 1326 687 1270 1638

Gravity (m/s2) 3.7 8.9 9.8 1.6 3.7 23.1 9.0 8.7 11.0

Escape
4.3 10.4 11.2 2.4 5.0 59.5 35.5 21.3 23.5
Velocity (km/s)

Rotation
1407.6 -5832.5 23.9 655.7 24.6 9.9 10.7 -17.2 16.1
Period (hours)

Length of
4222.6 2802.0 24.0 708.7 24.7 9.9 10.7 17.2 16.1
Day (hours)

Distance from
57.9 108.2 149.6 0.384* 228.0 778.5 1432.0 2867.0 4515.0
Sun (106 km)

Perihelion (106 km) 46.0 107.5 147.1 0.363* 206.7 740.6 1357.6 2732.7 4471.1

Aphelion (106 km) 69.8 108.9 152.1 0.406* 249.3 816.4 1506.5 3001.4 4558.9

Orbital Period (days) 88.0 224.7 365.2 27.3* 687.0 4331 10,747 30,589 59,800
Orbital
47.4 35.0 29.8 1.0* 24.1 13.1 9.7 6.8 5.4
Velocity (km/s)

Orbital
7.0 3.4 0.0 5.1 1.8 1.3 2.5 0.8 1.8
Inclination (degrees)

Orbital Eccentricity 0.206 0.007 0.017 0.055 0.094 0.049 0.052 0.047 0.010

Obliquity to
0.034 177.4 23.4 6.7 25.2 3.1 26.7 97.8 28.3
Orbit (degrees)

Mean
167 464 15 -20 -65 -110 -140 -195 -200
Temperature (C)

Surface
0 92 1 0 0.01 Unknown* Unknown* Unknown* Unknown*
Pressure (bars)

Number of Moons 0 0 1 0 2 79 82 27 14

Ring System? No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Global Magnetic
Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Field?

MERCURY VENUS EARTH MOON MARS JUPITER SATURN URANUS NEPTUNE

TERRESTIAL PLANETS:

S.N RADIU MASS(10> GRAVI MASS(10>

PLANET
O S 20) TY 23)
MERCU 24200
1 3300 3.76 3.3
RY 00
60850
2 VENUS 48700 8.77 48.7
00
63710
3 EARTH 59630 9.8 59.63
00
33750
4 MARS 6490 3.8 6.49
00
17300
5 MOON 734 1.62 0.734
0
 MASS(10>20)
70000
60000
50000
40000 MASS(10>20)
30000
20000
10000
0
MER VENUS EARTH MARS MOON
CURY

GRAVITY
12

10

8
GRAVITY
6

0
MER VENUS EARTH MARS MOON
CURY
 70

60

50

40
GRAVITY
30 MASS(10>23)

20

10

0
MERCURY VENUS EARTH MARS MOON

ANALYSIS :

There is no match in the slope for both Gravity and Mass in the diagram.

From the table, the Gravity of Mercury and Mars are nearly equal but the difference between their mass is
huge which also shows Gravity not only depends on Mass. From that the above data, we come to know
Gravity is directly proportional to Density. By comparing the Mass and Density of both,

Mass of Mercury * (Density of Mercury)^x =Mass of Mars * (Density of Mars)^x

3300 * (5427^x) = 6490 * (3933^x)

6490/3300 = (5427/3933)^x

1.96666667 = (1.3798627)^x

By taking Logarithm on both sides,

x = 2.10053935 (or)

x = 2 (approx.)

From the calculation, we come to know that, In Terrestrial Planets, Gravity is directly proportional to
Density’s square.

S.NO PLANET RADIUS MASS(10>20) GRAVITY DENSITY m*d*d m*d*d(10^11)

1 MOON 173000 734 1.62 3350 8237315000 0.08237315
2 MERCURY 2420000 3300 3.76 5427 97192685700 0.971926857
3 MARS 3375000 6490 3.8 3933 1.0039E+11 1.003904936
4 VENUS 6085000 48700 8.77 5243 1.33872E+12 13.38716686
5 EARTH 6371000 59630 9.8 5515 1.81366E+12 18.13659867
 m*d*d(10^11)
20
18
16
14
12 m*d*d(10^11)
10
8
6
4
2
0
MOON MERCURY MARS VENUS EARTH

GRAVITY
12

10

8
GRAVITY
6

0
MOON MERCURY MARS VENUS EARTH
 20
18
16
14
12
10 GRAVITY
m*d*d(10^11)
8
6
4
2
0
MOON MERCURY MARS VENUS EARTH

GASEOUS PLANETS:

S.NO PLANET RADIUS MASS(10>20) GRAVITY MASS(10>26)

6 SATURN 60400000 5690000 10.4 5.69
7 URANUS 23600000 868000 10.4 0.868

8 NEPTUNE 22300000 1030000 13.8 1.03

9 JUPITOR 71400000 19000000 24.9 19

MASS(10>20)
20000000
18000000
16000000
14000000
12000000 MASS(10>20)
10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
SATURN URANUS NEPTUNE JUPITOR
 GRAVITY
30

25

20
GRAVITY
15

10

0
SATURN URANUS NEPTUNE JUPITOR

30

25

20

15 GRAVITY
MASS(10>26)
10

0
SATURN URANUS NEPTUNE JUPITOR

ANALYSIS :

There is no match in the slope for both Gravity and Mass in the diagram.

From the table, the Gravity of Saturn and Uranus are equal but the difference between their mass is huge
which also shows Gravity not only depends on Mass. Like Terrestrial Planets, Gravity is directly
proportional to Density in Gaseous planets. By comparing the Mass and Density of both,

Mass of Saturn * (Density of Saturn)^x =Mass of Uranus * (Density of Uranus)^x

5690000 * (687)^x = 868000 * (1270)^x

5690000/868000 = (1270/687)^x

6.55529954 = (1.84861718)^x
By taking Logarithm on both sides,

We got, x = 3.06015277 (or)

x=3 (approx.)

From the calculation, we come to know that, In gaseous Planets, Gravity is directly proportional to
Density’s cube.

S.NO PLANET RADIUS MASS(10>20) GRAVITY DENSITY m*d*d*d m*d*d*d(10^15)

6040000 1.84494E+1
6 SATURN 0 5690000 10.4 687 5 1.84494098
2360000
7 URANUS 0 868000 10.4 1270 1.778E+15 1.777996444
NEPTUN 2230000 4.52667E+1
8 E 0 1030000 13.8 1638 5 4.526670854
7140000
9 JUPITOR 0 19000000 24.9 1326 4.4298E+16 44.29800554

m*d*d*d
5E+016
4.5E+016
4E+016
3.5E+016
3E+016 m*d*d*d
2.5E+016
2E+016
1.5E+016
1E+016
5000000000000000
0
1 2 3 4
 GRAVITY
30

25

20
GRAVITY
15

10

0
1 2 3 4

50
45
40
35
30
25 GRAVITY
m*d*d*d(10^15)
20
15
10
5
0
SATURN URANUS NEPTUNE JUPITOR
CONCLUSION :

For Terrestrial planets and satellites, Gravity is directly Proportional to the square of its Density. On the
other hand, In Gaseous planets, Gravity is directly proportional to the cube of its Density. If we expand
this analysis to stars especially for Neutron stars, Red giant stars and black holes, we can get the exact the
manifestation of role of Density on Gravity. Gravity is not only depends Density. At the same time, it is
also depend Inertial Mass, Angular Momentum, Magnetic field and the Thermal conditions. To define
exactly about Gravity, we need to analysis in detail the impacts of the above from the Quantum level to
Cosmos. Then It will certainly leads to the Unified theory of what the physics need.

REFERENCES :

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/

https://www.britannica.com/science/gravity-physics