Can a magnetic field of an object be stronger than its gravity?Were effects of a planetary magnetic field reversal observed on other planets than Earth?Does the Moon's magnetic field affect Earth's magnetic field?If the moon still had a magnetic field how long would have been possible to keep an atmosphere?Are a black hole's jets caused by the black hole's magnetic field?Why did Venus not lose its atmosphere without magnetic field?Is it possible to tell if a certain extrasolar planet produces its own magnetic field?Are all gas planets guaranteed to produce their own magnetic field?Can you simulate artificial gravity by using an electromagnetic field?What could possibly save an atmosphere other than a magnetic field? Why can't a magnetic field save the atmosphere in certain cases?

Should I do a regression analysis even if the variables do not seem to be associated at all?

Is dark matter inside galaxies different from dark matter in intergalactic space?

Why did the police not show up at Brett's apartment during the shootout?

Does animal blood, esp. human, really have similar salinity as ocean water, and does that prove anything about evolution?

Term for anticipating counterarguments and rebutting them

What could a technologically advanced but outnumbered alien race do to destroy humanity?

What's the most profitable use for an elemental transmuter?

What is this second smaller runway next to London City Airport?

How to apply a macro for every single matching pattern

Homogeneous vector bundles with zero chern classes

Ubuntu 19.10: grub not shown

Why did the people of Zion never find evidence of the previous cycles?

Is CR12 too difficult for two level 4 characters?

If a tournament advertises G/30, can either player demand G/25 d5?

A partially ugly group with a casual secret

Can a trainer send me a gift every day without opening my gift?

How do functional equations for zeta functions arise from the structure of a homology group?

How wavy is an array?

Multiple devices with one IPv6 to the Internet?

Unexpected results when comparing list comprehension with generator expression

Hangman game backward #12

Command which removes data left side of ";" (semicolon) on each row

Doubt on finding simplex's initial canonical tableau (II Phase)

How do I figure out how many hydrogens my compound actually has using a mass and NMR spectrum?



Can a magnetic field of an object be stronger than its gravity?


Were effects of a planetary magnetic field reversal observed on other planets than Earth?Does the Moon's magnetic field affect Earth's magnetic field?If the moon still had a magnetic field how long would have been possible to keep an atmosphere?Are a black hole's jets caused by the black hole's magnetic field?Why did Venus not lose its atmosphere without magnetic field?Is it possible to tell if a certain extrasolar planet produces its own magnetic field?Are all gas planets guaranteed to produce their own magnetic field?Can you simulate artificial gravity by using an electromagnetic field?What could possibly save an atmosphere other than a magnetic field? Why can't a magnetic field save the atmosphere in certain cases?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;

.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;








19














$begingroup$


Can a planet, star or otherwise have a magnetic field that is stronger or have more range than its gravity?










share|improve this question












$endgroup$










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    interesting question!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 4:40






  • 23




    $begingroup$
    Gravity and electromagnetism both have infinite range.
    $endgroup$
    – user76284
    May 30 at 8:40






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Magnetar? "The magnetic field of a magnetar would be lethal even at a distance of 1000 km due to the strong magnetic field distorting the electron clouds of the subject's constituent atoms, rendering the chemistry of life impossible": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    May 30 at 16:44






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Magnetic field and force have different units/dimensions and cannot be compared directly.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 31 at 7:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Jamesqf Proton precession ...?
    $endgroup$
    – Russell McMahon
    May 31 at 11:37

















19














$begingroup$


Can a planet, star or otherwise have a magnetic field that is stronger or have more range than its gravity?










share|improve this question












$endgroup$










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    interesting question!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 4:40






  • 23




    $begingroup$
    Gravity and electromagnetism both have infinite range.
    $endgroup$
    – user76284
    May 30 at 8:40






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Magnetar? "The magnetic field of a magnetar would be lethal even at a distance of 1000 km due to the strong magnetic field distorting the electron clouds of the subject's constituent atoms, rendering the chemistry of life impossible": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    May 30 at 16:44






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Magnetic field and force have different units/dimensions and cannot be compared directly.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 31 at 7:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Jamesqf Proton precession ...?
    $endgroup$
    – Russell McMahon
    May 31 at 11:37













19












19








19


7



$begingroup$


Can a planet, star or otherwise have a magnetic field that is stronger or have more range than its gravity?










share|improve this question












$endgroup$




Can a planet, star or otherwise have a magnetic field that is stronger or have more range than its gravity?







gravity fundamental-astronomy magnetic-field stellar-astrophysics stellar-dynamics






share|improve this question
















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited May 31 at 18:54







Muze the good Troll.

















asked May 30 at 0:11









Muze the good Troll.Muze the good Troll.

1




1










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    interesting question!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 4:40






  • 23




    $begingroup$
    Gravity and electromagnetism both have infinite range.
    $endgroup$
    – user76284
    May 30 at 8:40






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Magnetar? "The magnetic field of a magnetar would be lethal even at a distance of 1000 km due to the strong magnetic field distorting the electron clouds of the subject's constituent atoms, rendering the chemistry of life impossible": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    May 30 at 16:44






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Magnetic field and force have different units/dimensions and cannot be compared directly.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 31 at 7:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Jamesqf Proton precession ...?
    $endgroup$
    – Russell McMahon
    May 31 at 11:37












  • 3




    $begingroup$
    interesting question!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 4:40






  • 23




    $begingroup$
    Gravity and electromagnetism both have infinite range.
    $endgroup$
    – user76284
    May 30 at 8:40






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Magnetar? "The magnetic field of a magnetar would be lethal even at a distance of 1000 km due to the strong magnetic field distorting the electron clouds of the subject's constituent atoms, rendering the chemistry of life impossible": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    May 30 at 16:44






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Magnetic field and force have different units/dimensions and cannot be compared directly.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 31 at 7:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Jamesqf Proton precession ...?
    $endgroup$
    – Russell McMahon
    May 31 at 11:37







3




3




$begingroup$
interesting question!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 30 at 4:40




$begingroup$
interesting question!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 30 at 4:40




23




23




$begingroup$
Gravity and electromagnetism both have infinite range.
$endgroup$
– user76284
May 30 at 8:40




$begingroup$
Gravity and electromagnetism both have infinite range.
$endgroup$
– user76284
May 30 at 8:40




2




2




$begingroup$
Magnetar? "The magnetic field of a magnetar would be lethal even at a distance of 1000 km due to the strong magnetic field distorting the electron clouds of the subject's constituent atoms, rendering the chemistry of life impossible": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
May 30 at 16:44




$begingroup$
Magnetar? "The magnetic field of a magnetar would be lethal even at a distance of 1000 km due to the strong magnetic field distorting the electron clouds of the subject's constituent atoms, rendering the chemistry of life impossible": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
May 30 at 16:44




2




2




$begingroup$
Magnetic field and force have different units/dimensions and cannot be compared directly.
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 31 at 7:37




$begingroup$
Magnetic field and force have different units/dimensions and cannot be compared directly.
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 31 at 7:37




1




1




$begingroup$
@Jamesqf Proton precession ...?
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 31 at 11:37




$begingroup$
@Jamesqf Proton precession ...?
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 31 at 11:37










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















17
















$begingroup$

Let's look at the proper magnetic force (as opposed to the Lorentz force on a moving, charged object described in @KenG's answer) on a specimen $S$ of magnetized material with mass $M_S$ as a way to try to compare. Let's arbitrarily assume it has a fixed, permanent magnetic moment $m_S$. We can't use iron because it will saturate too easily.



Then let's look at how the forces scale differently with distance



$$mathbfF_G = -fracG M_S Mr^2mathbfhatr tag1$$



$$mathbfF_B =nabla (mathbfm_S cdot mathbfB(mathbfr)) tag2$$



If we reduce these to scalar equations at a radius $R$ (assume $mathbfm_S$ and $mathbfB$ are parallel) assume all forces are attractive, and evaluate the potentials and their gradients on the equator of the body at it's physical radius $R$. Since the magnetic force on our dipole specimen drops off faster than the gravitational force, we have to evaluate the two at the closest physically possible distance:



$$F_G = fracG M_S MR^2 tag3$$



$$F_B = frac3 m_S B_r=RR tag4$$



where our specimen is a distance $R$ from our field source, and it's moment $m_S$ is a magnetization of 1 Tesla times the volume of a 1 kg rare earth magnet, about 0.000125 cubic meters.



All MKS units, all rough, ballpark numbers with emphasis on strongest magnetic fields



Body R (m) M (kg) B(r=R) (T) F_G (N) F_B (N) F_B/F_G
Earth 6.4E+06 6.0E+24 5.0E-05 9.8E+00 2.9E-15 3.0E-16
Jupiter 7.1E+07 1.9E+27 4.2E-04 2.5E+01 2.2E-15 8.8E-17
Neutron Star 1.0E+04 4.0E+30 5.0E+10 2.7E+12 1.9E+03 7.0E-10
Magnetar 1.0E+04 4.0E+30 2.0E+11 2.7E+12 7.6E+03 2.8E-09


So even for a Magnetar (see also 1, 2) a kind of neutron star with a very strong magnetic field), the magnetic force on our 1kg specimen of permanent magnet is only 3 parts per billion as strong as the gravitational force.



You might see a much more favorable ratio if you compared two subatomic particles at short ranges (e.g. 1E-15 meters) but for astronomical objects, gravity seems to win smartly.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    I don't think your expression for magnetic force is correct. For a magnetic material it should depend on $B^2$. And if you are putting in $G$ and using SI units, then where is the $mu_0/4pi$?
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 31 at 7:45










  • $begingroup$
    @RobJeffries the word "magnetic" is an artifact from a previous version and I'll change it to "magnetized". The next sentence states that it's a permanent magnet with magnetic moment $mathbfm_S$ (1 kg, density of about 8000 kg/m^2, 1 Tesla magnetization) and later I mention that we can assume $mathbfm_S$ and $B$ to be parallel (or antiparallel) It's of course preposterous to put a magnet near the surface of a neutron star (unless it's in a General Products hull). I just want to show that gravity wins by a landslide.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 31 at 7:48











  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – called2voyage
    Jun 1 at 22:52


















36







+50









$begingroup$

It depends on what object it's acting on. There are many objects, including stars, that have magnetic fields where Lorentz forces on charged particles like electrons and protons are stronger than the gravitational force on them.



Also remember that the strength of the Lorentz force depends on the speed of the particle moving through it, so a fast enough moving electron even here on Earth will receive a larger magnetic force than a force of gravity. This is how the Earth's magnetic field is able to contain charged particles in the Van Allen belts that its gravity could not contain.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Excellent! +1 I totally forgot about the Lorentz force experienced by charged particles and just did plain old static magnetic force versus gravitational force.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 4:55







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Nice answer to a somehow ill posed question
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    May 30 at 9:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1 also for pointing out the big difference. Gravity is unaffected by (discrete || <<< c) speed while Lorentz force is.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    May 30 at 12:38






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alchimista That is the Pearls >>> Sand the Stack runs on. Scoop the bottom of the ocean. Questions are like sand but the scooped section may contain pearls somewhere. A question can be measured by the quality of the answers it sparked.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    May 30 at 12:40






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Mindwin Thank You very much. I actually put much thought in the question. How would you word it?
    $endgroup$
    – Muze the good Troll.
    May 30 at 23:08


















9
















$begingroup$

It isn't impossible, but the short answer is "no".



A gravitational field will accelerate all matter and energy equally while a magnetic field will only accelerate moving electric charges (other magnets).



The force due to gravity is proportional to the inverse square of the distance, and the force due to magnetism asymptotically approaches the inverse cube of the distance. At some critical distance the gravitational force will become stronger than the magnetic force.



Unless most of the large body was magnetic, even over the magnetic poles the magnetic field would probably be too low to levitate a typical magnet in the large body's gravitational field.






share|improve this answer










$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Electrons have large magnetic moments and small mass, so there might be a chance for them, and ortho-positronium has a magnetic moment, small mass, and is uncharged so there wouldn't be any Lorentz force.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 22:49











  • $begingroup$
    Excellent comment. Bottom line is that magnetic forces exceed gravitational forces only if the object is tiny, such as an electron or an atom.
    $endgroup$
    – PERFESSER CREEK-WATER
    Jun 4 at 19:11










  • $begingroup$
    Still here? just wandering?
    $endgroup$
    – Muze the good Troll.
    Jun 5 at 1:04












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "514"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);














draft saved

draft discarded
















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32096%2fcan-a-magnetic-field-of-an-object-be-stronger-than-its-gravity%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown


























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









17
















$begingroup$

Let's look at the proper magnetic force (as opposed to the Lorentz force on a moving, charged object described in @KenG's answer) on a specimen $S$ of magnetized material with mass $M_S$ as a way to try to compare. Let's arbitrarily assume it has a fixed, permanent magnetic moment $m_S$. We can't use iron because it will saturate too easily.



Then let's look at how the forces scale differently with distance



$$mathbfF_G = -fracG M_S Mr^2mathbfhatr tag1$$



$$mathbfF_B =nabla (mathbfm_S cdot mathbfB(mathbfr)) tag2$$



If we reduce these to scalar equations at a radius $R$ (assume $mathbfm_S$ and $mathbfB$ are parallel) assume all forces are attractive, and evaluate the potentials and their gradients on the equator of the body at it's physical radius $R$. Since the magnetic force on our dipole specimen drops off faster than the gravitational force, we have to evaluate the two at the closest physically possible distance:



$$F_G = fracG M_S MR^2 tag3$$



$$F_B = frac3 m_S B_r=RR tag4$$



where our specimen is a distance $R$ from our field source, and it's moment $m_S$ is a magnetization of 1 Tesla times the volume of a 1 kg rare earth magnet, about 0.000125 cubic meters.



All MKS units, all rough, ballpark numbers with emphasis on strongest magnetic fields



Body R (m) M (kg) B(r=R) (T) F_G (N) F_B (N) F_B/F_G
Earth 6.4E+06 6.0E+24 5.0E-05 9.8E+00 2.9E-15 3.0E-16
Jupiter 7.1E+07 1.9E+27 4.2E-04 2.5E+01 2.2E-15 8.8E-17
Neutron Star 1.0E+04 4.0E+30 5.0E+10 2.7E+12 1.9E+03 7.0E-10
Magnetar 1.0E+04 4.0E+30 2.0E+11 2.7E+12 7.6E+03 2.8E-09


So even for a Magnetar (see also 1, 2) a kind of neutron star with a very strong magnetic field), the magnetic force on our 1kg specimen of permanent magnet is only 3 parts per billion as strong as the gravitational force.



You might see a much more favorable ratio if you compared two subatomic particles at short ranges (e.g. 1E-15 meters) but for astronomical objects, gravity seems to win smartly.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    I don't think your expression for magnetic force is correct. For a magnetic material it should depend on $B^2$. And if you are putting in $G$ and using SI units, then where is the $mu_0/4pi$?
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 31 at 7:45










  • $begingroup$
    @RobJeffries the word "magnetic" is an artifact from a previous version and I'll change it to "magnetized". The next sentence states that it's a permanent magnet with magnetic moment $mathbfm_S$ (1 kg, density of about 8000 kg/m^2, 1 Tesla magnetization) and later I mention that we can assume $mathbfm_S$ and $B$ to be parallel (or antiparallel) It's of course preposterous to put a magnet near the surface of a neutron star (unless it's in a General Products hull). I just want to show that gravity wins by a landslide.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 31 at 7:48











  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – called2voyage
    Jun 1 at 22:52















17
















$begingroup$

Let's look at the proper magnetic force (as opposed to the Lorentz force on a moving, charged object described in @KenG's answer) on a specimen $S$ of magnetized material with mass $M_S$ as a way to try to compare. Let's arbitrarily assume it has a fixed, permanent magnetic moment $m_S$. We can't use iron because it will saturate too easily.



Then let's look at how the forces scale differently with distance



$$mathbfF_G = -fracG M_S Mr^2mathbfhatr tag1$$



$$mathbfF_B =nabla (mathbfm_S cdot mathbfB(mathbfr)) tag2$$



If we reduce these to scalar equations at a radius $R$ (assume $mathbfm_S$ and $mathbfB$ are parallel) assume all forces are attractive, and evaluate the potentials and their gradients on the equator of the body at it's physical radius $R$. Since the magnetic force on our dipole specimen drops off faster than the gravitational force, we have to evaluate the two at the closest physically possible distance:



$$F_G = fracG M_S MR^2 tag3$$



$$F_B = frac3 m_S B_r=RR tag4$$



where our specimen is a distance $R$ from our field source, and it's moment $m_S$ is a magnetization of 1 Tesla times the volume of a 1 kg rare earth magnet, about 0.000125 cubic meters.



All MKS units, all rough, ballpark numbers with emphasis on strongest magnetic fields



Body R (m) M (kg) B(r=R) (T) F_G (N) F_B (N) F_B/F_G
Earth 6.4E+06 6.0E+24 5.0E-05 9.8E+00 2.9E-15 3.0E-16
Jupiter 7.1E+07 1.9E+27 4.2E-04 2.5E+01 2.2E-15 8.8E-17
Neutron Star 1.0E+04 4.0E+30 5.0E+10 2.7E+12 1.9E+03 7.0E-10
Magnetar 1.0E+04 4.0E+30 2.0E+11 2.7E+12 7.6E+03 2.8E-09


So even for a Magnetar (see also 1, 2) a kind of neutron star with a very strong magnetic field), the magnetic force on our 1kg specimen of permanent magnet is only 3 parts per billion as strong as the gravitational force.



You might see a much more favorable ratio if you compared two subatomic particles at short ranges (e.g. 1E-15 meters) but for astronomical objects, gravity seems to win smartly.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    I don't think your expression for magnetic force is correct. For a magnetic material it should depend on $B^2$. And if you are putting in $G$ and using SI units, then where is the $mu_0/4pi$?
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 31 at 7:45










  • $begingroup$
    @RobJeffries the word "magnetic" is an artifact from a previous version and I'll change it to "magnetized". The next sentence states that it's a permanent magnet with magnetic moment $mathbfm_S$ (1 kg, density of about 8000 kg/m^2, 1 Tesla magnetization) and later I mention that we can assume $mathbfm_S$ and $B$ to be parallel (or antiparallel) It's of course preposterous to put a magnet near the surface of a neutron star (unless it's in a General Products hull). I just want to show that gravity wins by a landslide.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 31 at 7:48











  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – called2voyage
    Jun 1 at 22:52













17














17










17







$begingroup$

Let's look at the proper magnetic force (as opposed to the Lorentz force on a moving, charged object described in @KenG's answer) on a specimen $S$ of magnetized material with mass $M_S$ as a way to try to compare. Let's arbitrarily assume it has a fixed, permanent magnetic moment $m_S$. We can't use iron because it will saturate too easily.



Then let's look at how the forces scale differently with distance



$$mathbfF_G = -fracG M_S Mr^2mathbfhatr tag1$$



$$mathbfF_B =nabla (mathbfm_S cdot mathbfB(mathbfr)) tag2$$



If we reduce these to scalar equations at a radius $R$ (assume $mathbfm_S$ and $mathbfB$ are parallel) assume all forces are attractive, and evaluate the potentials and their gradients on the equator of the body at it's physical radius $R$. Since the magnetic force on our dipole specimen drops off faster than the gravitational force, we have to evaluate the two at the closest physically possible distance:



$$F_G = fracG M_S MR^2 tag3$$



$$F_B = frac3 m_S B_r=RR tag4$$



where our specimen is a distance $R$ from our field source, and it's moment $m_S$ is a magnetization of 1 Tesla times the volume of a 1 kg rare earth magnet, about 0.000125 cubic meters.



All MKS units, all rough, ballpark numbers with emphasis on strongest magnetic fields



Body R (m) M (kg) B(r=R) (T) F_G (N) F_B (N) F_B/F_G
Earth 6.4E+06 6.0E+24 5.0E-05 9.8E+00 2.9E-15 3.0E-16
Jupiter 7.1E+07 1.9E+27 4.2E-04 2.5E+01 2.2E-15 8.8E-17
Neutron Star 1.0E+04 4.0E+30 5.0E+10 2.7E+12 1.9E+03 7.0E-10
Magnetar 1.0E+04 4.0E+30 2.0E+11 2.7E+12 7.6E+03 2.8E-09


So even for a Magnetar (see also 1, 2) a kind of neutron star with a very strong magnetic field), the magnetic force on our 1kg specimen of permanent magnet is only 3 parts per billion as strong as the gravitational force.



You might see a much more favorable ratio if you compared two subatomic particles at short ranges (e.g. 1E-15 meters) but for astronomical objects, gravity seems to win smartly.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$



Let's look at the proper magnetic force (as opposed to the Lorentz force on a moving, charged object described in @KenG's answer) on a specimen $S$ of magnetized material with mass $M_S$ as a way to try to compare. Let's arbitrarily assume it has a fixed, permanent magnetic moment $m_S$. We can't use iron because it will saturate too easily.



Then let's look at how the forces scale differently with distance



$$mathbfF_G = -fracG M_S Mr^2mathbfhatr tag1$$



$$mathbfF_B =nabla (mathbfm_S cdot mathbfB(mathbfr)) tag2$$



If we reduce these to scalar equations at a radius $R$ (assume $mathbfm_S$ and $mathbfB$ are parallel) assume all forces are attractive, and evaluate the potentials and their gradients on the equator of the body at it's physical radius $R$. Since the magnetic force on our dipole specimen drops off faster than the gravitational force, we have to evaluate the two at the closest physically possible distance:



$$F_G = fracG M_S MR^2 tag3$$



$$F_B = frac3 m_S B_r=RR tag4$$



where our specimen is a distance $R$ from our field source, and it's moment $m_S$ is a magnetization of 1 Tesla times the volume of a 1 kg rare earth magnet, about 0.000125 cubic meters.



All MKS units, all rough, ballpark numbers with emphasis on strongest magnetic fields



Body R (m) M (kg) B(r=R) (T) F_G (N) F_B (N) F_B/F_G
Earth 6.4E+06 6.0E+24 5.0E-05 9.8E+00 2.9E-15 3.0E-16
Jupiter 7.1E+07 1.9E+27 4.2E-04 2.5E+01 2.2E-15 8.8E-17
Neutron Star 1.0E+04 4.0E+30 5.0E+10 2.7E+12 1.9E+03 7.0E-10
Magnetar 1.0E+04 4.0E+30 2.0E+11 2.7E+12 7.6E+03 2.8E-09


So even for a Magnetar (see also 1, 2) a kind of neutron star with a very strong magnetic field), the magnetic force on our 1kg specimen of permanent magnet is only 3 parts per billion as strong as the gravitational force.



You might see a much more favorable ratio if you compared two subatomic particles at short ranges (e.g. 1E-15 meters) but for astronomical objects, gravity seems to win smartly.







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited May 31 at 7:51

























answered May 30 at 4:40









uhohuhoh

11k3 gold badges30 silver badges95 bronze badges




11k3 gold badges30 silver badges95 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    I don't think your expression for magnetic force is correct. For a magnetic material it should depend on $B^2$. And if you are putting in $G$ and using SI units, then where is the $mu_0/4pi$?
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 31 at 7:45










  • $begingroup$
    @RobJeffries the word "magnetic" is an artifact from a previous version and I'll change it to "magnetized". The next sentence states that it's a permanent magnet with magnetic moment $mathbfm_S$ (1 kg, density of about 8000 kg/m^2, 1 Tesla magnetization) and later I mention that we can assume $mathbfm_S$ and $B$ to be parallel (or antiparallel) It's of course preposterous to put a magnet near the surface of a neutron star (unless it's in a General Products hull). I just want to show that gravity wins by a landslide.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 31 at 7:48











  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – called2voyage
    Jun 1 at 22:52
















  • $begingroup$
    I don't think your expression for magnetic force is correct. For a magnetic material it should depend on $B^2$. And if you are putting in $G$ and using SI units, then where is the $mu_0/4pi$?
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 31 at 7:45










  • $begingroup$
    @RobJeffries the word "magnetic" is an artifact from a previous version and I'll change it to "magnetized". The next sentence states that it's a permanent magnet with magnetic moment $mathbfm_S$ (1 kg, density of about 8000 kg/m^2, 1 Tesla magnetization) and later I mention that we can assume $mathbfm_S$ and $B$ to be parallel (or antiparallel) It's of course preposterous to put a magnet near the surface of a neutron star (unless it's in a General Products hull). I just want to show that gravity wins by a landslide.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 31 at 7:48











  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – called2voyage
    Jun 1 at 22:52















$begingroup$
I don't think your expression for magnetic force is correct. For a magnetic material it should depend on $B^2$. And if you are putting in $G$ and using SI units, then where is the $mu_0/4pi$?
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 31 at 7:45




$begingroup$
I don't think your expression for magnetic force is correct. For a magnetic material it should depend on $B^2$. And if you are putting in $G$ and using SI units, then where is the $mu_0/4pi$?
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 31 at 7:45












$begingroup$
@RobJeffries the word "magnetic" is an artifact from a previous version and I'll change it to "magnetized". The next sentence states that it's a permanent magnet with magnetic moment $mathbfm_S$ (1 kg, density of about 8000 kg/m^2, 1 Tesla magnetization) and later I mention that we can assume $mathbfm_S$ and $B$ to be parallel (or antiparallel) It's of course preposterous to put a magnet near the surface of a neutron star (unless it's in a General Products hull). I just want to show that gravity wins by a landslide.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 31 at 7:48





$begingroup$
@RobJeffries the word "magnetic" is an artifact from a previous version and I'll change it to "magnetized". The next sentence states that it's a permanent magnet with magnetic moment $mathbfm_S$ (1 kg, density of about 8000 kg/m^2, 1 Tesla magnetization) and later I mention that we can assume $mathbfm_S$ and $B$ to be parallel (or antiparallel) It's of course preposterous to put a magnet near the surface of a neutron star (unless it's in a General Products hull). I just want to show that gravity wins by a landslide.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 31 at 7:48













$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– called2voyage
Jun 1 at 22:52




$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– called2voyage
Jun 1 at 22:52













36







+50









$begingroup$

It depends on what object it's acting on. There are many objects, including stars, that have magnetic fields where Lorentz forces on charged particles like electrons and protons are stronger than the gravitational force on them.



Also remember that the strength of the Lorentz force depends on the speed of the particle moving through it, so a fast enough moving electron even here on Earth will receive a larger magnetic force than a force of gravity. This is how the Earth's magnetic field is able to contain charged particles in the Van Allen belts that its gravity could not contain.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Excellent! +1 I totally forgot about the Lorentz force experienced by charged particles and just did plain old static magnetic force versus gravitational force.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 4:55







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Nice answer to a somehow ill posed question
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    May 30 at 9:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1 also for pointing out the big difference. Gravity is unaffected by (discrete || <<< c) speed while Lorentz force is.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    May 30 at 12:38






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alchimista That is the Pearls >>> Sand the Stack runs on. Scoop the bottom of the ocean. Questions are like sand but the scooped section may contain pearls somewhere. A question can be measured by the quality of the answers it sparked.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    May 30 at 12:40






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Mindwin Thank You very much. I actually put much thought in the question. How would you word it?
    $endgroup$
    – Muze the good Troll.
    May 30 at 23:08















36







+50









$begingroup$

It depends on what object it's acting on. There are many objects, including stars, that have magnetic fields where Lorentz forces on charged particles like electrons and protons are stronger than the gravitational force on them.



Also remember that the strength of the Lorentz force depends on the speed of the particle moving through it, so a fast enough moving electron even here on Earth will receive a larger magnetic force than a force of gravity. This is how the Earth's magnetic field is able to contain charged particles in the Van Allen belts that its gravity could not contain.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Excellent! +1 I totally forgot about the Lorentz force experienced by charged particles and just did plain old static magnetic force versus gravitational force.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 4:55







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Nice answer to a somehow ill posed question
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    May 30 at 9:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1 also for pointing out the big difference. Gravity is unaffected by (discrete || <<< c) speed while Lorentz force is.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    May 30 at 12:38






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alchimista That is the Pearls >>> Sand the Stack runs on. Scoop the bottom of the ocean. Questions are like sand but the scooped section may contain pearls somewhere. A question can be measured by the quality of the answers it sparked.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    May 30 at 12:40






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Mindwin Thank You very much. I actually put much thought in the question. How would you word it?
    $endgroup$
    – Muze the good Troll.
    May 30 at 23:08













36







+50







36







+50



36






+50



$begingroup$

It depends on what object it's acting on. There are many objects, including stars, that have magnetic fields where Lorentz forces on charged particles like electrons and protons are stronger than the gravitational force on them.



Also remember that the strength of the Lorentz force depends on the speed of the particle moving through it, so a fast enough moving electron even here on Earth will receive a larger magnetic force than a force of gravity. This is how the Earth's magnetic field is able to contain charged particles in the Van Allen belts that its gravity could not contain.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$



It depends on what object it's acting on. There are many objects, including stars, that have magnetic fields where Lorentz forces on charged particles like electrons and protons are stronger than the gravitational force on them.



Also remember that the strength of the Lorentz force depends on the speed of the particle moving through it, so a fast enough moving electron even here on Earth will receive a larger magnetic force than a force of gravity. This is how the Earth's magnetic field is able to contain charged particles in the Van Allen belts that its gravity could not contain.







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited May 30 at 4:44









uhoh

11k3 gold badges30 silver badges95 bronze badges




11k3 gold badges30 silver badges95 bronze badges










answered May 30 at 0:49









Ken GKen G

4,7461 gold badge8 silver badges16 bronze badges




4,7461 gold badge8 silver badges16 bronze badges










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Excellent! +1 I totally forgot about the Lorentz force experienced by charged particles and just did plain old static magnetic force versus gravitational force.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 4:55







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Nice answer to a somehow ill posed question
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    May 30 at 9:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1 also for pointing out the big difference. Gravity is unaffected by (discrete || <<< c) speed while Lorentz force is.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    May 30 at 12:38






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alchimista That is the Pearls >>> Sand the Stack runs on. Scoop the bottom of the ocean. Questions are like sand but the scooped section may contain pearls somewhere. A question can be measured by the quality of the answers it sparked.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    May 30 at 12:40






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Mindwin Thank You very much. I actually put much thought in the question. How would you word it?
    $endgroup$
    – Muze the good Troll.
    May 30 at 23:08












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Excellent! +1 I totally forgot about the Lorentz force experienced by charged particles and just did plain old static magnetic force versus gravitational force.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 4:55







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Nice answer to a somehow ill posed question
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    May 30 at 9:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1 also for pointing out the big difference. Gravity is unaffected by (discrete || <<< c) speed while Lorentz force is.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    May 30 at 12:38






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alchimista That is the Pearls >>> Sand the Stack runs on. Scoop the bottom of the ocean. Questions are like sand but the scooped section may contain pearls somewhere. A question can be measured by the quality of the answers it sparked.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    May 30 at 12:40






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Mindwin Thank You very much. I actually put much thought in the question. How would you word it?
    $endgroup$
    – Muze the good Troll.
    May 30 at 23:08







1




1




$begingroup$
Excellent! +1 I totally forgot about the Lorentz force experienced by charged particles and just did plain old static magnetic force versus gravitational force.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 30 at 4:55





$begingroup$
Excellent! +1 I totally forgot about the Lorentz force experienced by charged particles and just did plain old static magnetic force versus gravitational force.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 30 at 4:55





1




1




$begingroup$
Nice answer to a somehow ill posed question
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
May 30 at 9:35




$begingroup$
Nice answer to a somehow ill posed question
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
May 30 at 9:35




1




1




$begingroup$
+1 also for pointing out the big difference. Gravity is unaffected by (discrete || <<< c) speed while Lorentz force is.
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
May 30 at 12:38




$begingroup$
+1 also for pointing out the big difference. Gravity is unaffected by (discrete || <<< c) speed while Lorentz force is.
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
May 30 at 12:38




1




1




$begingroup$
@Alchimista That is the Pearls >>> Sand the Stack runs on. Scoop the bottom of the ocean. Questions are like sand but the scooped section may contain pearls somewhere. A question can be measured by the quality of the answers it sparked.
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
May 30 at 12:40




$begingroup$
@Alchimista That is the Pearls >>> Sand the Stack runs on. Scoop the bottom of the ocean. Questions are like sand but the scooped section may contain pearls somewhere. A question can be measured by the quality of the answers it sparked.
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
May 30 at 12:40




1




1




$begingroup$
@Mindwin Thank You very much. I actually put much thought in the question. How would you word it?
$endgroup$
– Muze the good Troll.
May 30 at 23:08




$begingroup$
@Mindwin Thank You very much. I actually put much thought in the question. How would you word it?
$endgroup$
– Muze the good Troll.
May 30 at 23:08











9
















$begingroup$

It isn't impossible, but the short answer is "no".



A gravitational field will accelerate all matter and energy equally while a magnetic field will only accelerate moving electric charges (other magnets).



The force due to gravity is proportional to the inverse square of the distance, and the force due to magnetism asymptotically approaches the inverse cube of the distance. At some critical distance the gravitational force will become stronger than the magnetic force.



Unless most of the large body was magnetic, even over the magnetic poles the magnetic field would probably be too low to levitate a typical magnet in the large body's gravitational field.






share|improve this answer










$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Electrons have large magnetic moments and small mass, so there might be a chance for them, and ortho-positronium has a magnetic moment, small mass, and is uncharged so there wouldn't be any Lorentz force.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 22:49











  • $begingroup$
    Excellent comment. Bottom line is that magnetic forces exceed gravitational forces only if the object is tiny, such as an electron or an atom.
    $endgroup$
    – PERFESSER CREEK-WATER
    Jun 4 at 19:11










  • $begingroup$
    Still here? just wandering?
    $endgroup$
    – Muze the good Troll.
    Jun 5 at 1:04















9
















$begingroup$

It isn't impossible, but the short answer is "no".



A gravitational field will accelerate all matter and energy equally while a magnetic field will only accelerate moving electric charges (other magnets).



The force due to gravity is proportional to the inverse square of the distance, and the force due to magnetism asymptotically approaches the inverse cube of the distance. At some critical distance the gravitational force will become stronger than the magnetic force.



Unless most of the large body was magnetic, even over the magnetic poles the magnetic field would probably be too low to levitate a typical magnet in the large body's gravitational field.






share|improve this answer










$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Electrons have large magnetic moments and small mass, so there might be a chance for them, and ortho-positronium has a magnetic moment, small mass, and is uncharged so there wouldn't be any Lorentz force.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 22:49











  • $begingroup$
    Excellent comment. Bottom line is that magnetic forces exceed gravitational forces only if the object is tiny, such as an electron or an atom.
    $endgroup$
    – PERFESSER CREEK-WATER
    Jun 4 at 19:11










  • $begingroup$
    Still here? just wandering?
    $endgroup$
    – Muze the good Troll.
    Jun 5 at 1:04













9














9










9







$begingroup$

It isn't impossible, but the short answer is "no".



A gravitational field will accelerate all matter and energy equally while a magnetic field will only accelerate moving electric charges (other magnets).



The force due to gravity is proportional to the inverse square of the distance, and the force due to magnetism asymptotically approaches the inverse cube of the distance. At some critical distance the gravitational force will become stronger than the magnetic force.



Unless most of the large body was magnetic, even over the magnetic poles the magnetic field would probably be too low to levitate a typical magnet in the large body's gravitational field.






share|improve this answer










$endgroup$



It isn't impossible, but the short answer is "no".



A gravitational field will accelerate all matter and energy equally while a magnetic field will only accelerate moving electric charges (other magnets).



The force due to gravity is proportional to the inverse square of the distance, and the force due to magnetism asymptotically approaches the inverse cube of the distance. At some critical distance the gravitational force will become stronger than the magnetic force.



Unless most of the large body was magnetic, even over the magnetic poles the magnetic field would probably be too low to levitate a typical magnet in the large body's gravitational field.







share|improve this answer













share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer










answered May 30 at 20:43









anonymousanonymous

911 bronze badge




911 bronze badge










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Electrons have large magnetic moments and small mass, so there might be a chance for them, and ortho-positronium has a magnetic moment, small mass, and is uncharged so there wouldn't be any Lorentz force.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 22:49











  • $begingroup$
    Excellent comment. Bottom line is that magnetic forces exceed gravitational forces only if the object is tiny, such as an electron or an atom.
    $endgroup$
    – PERFESSER CREEK-WATER
    Jun 4 at 19:11










  • $begingroup$
    Still here? just wandering?
    $endgroup$
    – Muze the good Troll.
    Jun 5 at 1:04












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Electrons have large magnetic moments and small mass, so there might be a chance for them, and ortho-positronium has a magnetic moment, small mass, and is uncharged so there wouldn't be any Lorentz force.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 30 at 22:49











  • $begingroup$
    Excellent comment. Bottom line is that magnetic forces exceed gravitational forces only if the object is tiny, such as an electron or an atom.
    $endgroup$
    – PERFESSER CREEK-WATER
    Jun 4 at 19:11










  • $begingroup$
    Still here? just wandering?
    $endgroup$
    – Muze the good Troll.
    Jun 5 at 1:04







1




1




$begingroup$
Electrons have large magnetic moments and small mass, so there might be a chance for them, and ortho-positronium has a magnetic moment, small mass, and is uncharged so there wouldn't be any Lorentz force.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 30 at 22:49





$begingroup$
Electrons have large magnetic moments and small mass, so there might be a chance for them, and ortho-positronium has a magnetic moment, small mass, and is uncharged so there wouldn't be any Lorentz force.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 30 at 22:49













$begingroup$
Excellent comment. Bottom line is that magnetic forces exceed gravitational forces only if the object is tiny, such as an electron or an atom.
$endgroup$
– PERFESSER CREEK-WATER
Jun 4 at 19:11




$begingroup$
Excellent comment. Bottom line is that magnetic forces exceed gravitational forces only if the object is tiny, such as an electron or an atom.
$endgroup$
– PERFESSER CREEK-WATER
Jun 4 at 19:11












$begingroup$
Still here? just wandering?
$endgroup$
– Muze the good Troll.
Jun 5 at 1:04




$begingroup$
Still here? just wandering?
$endgroup$
– Muze the good Troll.
Jun 5 at 1:04


















draft saved

draft discarded















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32096%2fcan-a-magnetic-field-of-an-object-be-stronger-than-its-gravity%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown









Popular posts from this blog

Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?