Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By Farsight
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By forrest noble

Thread: The Fundamental Forces of Nature Question

  1. #1 The Fundamental Forces of Nature Question 
    Forum Freshman Deno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    32
    Hey everyone, I'm trying to get more of a grasp on the fundamental forces of nature. So if anyone is interested, could you write down your explanation of each force. I am looking for quantum definitions (using words like particles, protons, neutrons, electrons, and energy may help me).

    Please add 'What it does, also why and how it does what it does'. Do not feel confined to write small definitions, if that is what you wish to write go ahead, but I am willing to read all anyone has to write on this.
    Thanks in advance!


    Gravity..

    Electromagnetism..

    The Strong Force..
    +The residual strong force

    The Weak force..

    EDIT: If you have vast knowledge of only one or two of the above forces, then you are fully welcome to share information on only those.


    Last edited by Deno; October 4th, 2012 at 03:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,084
    Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Try google to get more references.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman Deno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    32
    I should have added. Do not give me links like wikipedia and such, I have read all of them.

    I am looking for different explanations of the forces, the slightly different ways different individuals explain them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    I've got an outline idea of how they work, but it isn't in current textbooks, I might get into bother for it, so unless I've got permission to speak freely from some supermoderator I'm keeping quiet. Note though that when it comes to electromagnetism, there are two forces, electric force and magnetic force, and of course the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Also note that the electromagnetic and weak interactions are usually bundled together as electroweak, gravitomagnetism is a pale shadow electromagnetism, and there’s a “fifth force” that causes the expansion of the universe.

    Deno likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman Deno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    32
    I would very much like to hear your explanation, if this thread gets thrown in to the pseudo-science area because of it, so be it. I am interested in explanations of the forces, whether it lines up with the scientific communities current beliefs perfectly or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I would very much like to hear your explanation, if this thread gets thrown in to the pseudo-science area because of it, so be it. I am interested in explanations of the forces, whether it lines up with the scientific communities current beliefs perfectly or not.
    May be you could be interested in the concept of forces in a proposed new Physics' theory: Particles and Forces
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I never realised there was quite so much woodwork around here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    whether it lines up with the scientific communities current beliefs perfectly or not.
    Oh well, in that case ...

    I am convinced that the forces all have a single underlying cause. There are all caused by tiny invisible flying pink unicorns moving objects around. There is no evidence that this is not the case.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman Deno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    32
    I never expected to see so many irrelevant posts on a science forum, rather a waste in bandwidth.
    Very nice, perhaps you can formulate your theory on the flying pink unicorns and present it some day
    @Martillo Thanks for a relevant link
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    Very nice, perhaps you can formulate your theory on the flying pink unicorns and present it some day
    Well, I suppose I could waste more time by arguing that:

    1) Mathematics doesn't tell you why, it just describes what. We need a new paradigm to understand the underlying mechanisms. This is what my model provides.

    2) The mathematics and predictions of my theory are exactly the same as the Standard Model and GR.

    3) Einstein didn't know any mathematics.

    4) I am correct and you are too narrow minded and mired in conventional releigio-scientifc fundamentalism to see it.

    5) If you actually read and understood what I wrote you would see it is true.

    6) I have been banned from other websites (like Galileo) for trying to reveal this urgent new revelation.

    7) I have been working on this radical new theory that will change all of known physics for over 60 years so you cannot just dismiss it.

    8) My theory proves we can have faster than light travel, time travel, free energy and cheap beer.

    9) There is a conspiracy of internatiuonal scientists, bankers, doctors, the oild industry .... to keep these ideas from you.

    10) I have a YouTube video so it must be right.

    11) PROVE ME WRONG!!!

    But I really can't be bothered.

    The important point is that this theory is not too different from 99.99% of "personal theories" presented by people on forums like this.

    The only significant difference is that I accept it is nonsense, unlike the deluded fools who are convinced they have made some sort of intellectual breakthrough based on nothing more than their version of invisible pink unicorns.

    But, whatever. If you want to collect some fruitcakes ...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    I never expected to see so many irrelevant posts on a science forum, rather a waste in bandwidth.
    I shall work from the assumption that one of the posts you consider irrelevant is one of mine, wherein I say, "I never knew there was so much woodwork around here." I shall argue that this observation is relevant, significant and important.

    Something coming out of the woowork is an idiom used to refer to an unpleasant person or concept that has made an unexpected and unwelcome appearance. Martillo and Farsight have ideas that arguably fall into this category. You have indicated a readiness to explore such ideas.

    I would argue that openess to new ideas has to be firmly placed in the context of the probable quality of those ideas. This can be assessed in effectively in just a few ways:
    1. Does the idea have evidence supporting it?
    2. Does the idea offer an improvement over existing theories?
    3. Is the idea consistent with established, validated observations?

    If the answer to any one of these is negative then the only open minded approach is to accept that it is valueless. The close minded approach is to ignore the warning signs and continue to explore the ideas (non-existent) possibilities.

    I'm saying pretty much the same thing as Strange, just using a different format to do it in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I think Deno is looking for some issues on the concepts of forces which remains as not totally well solved in Physics like the concept of "action at a distance" for which the electric and magnetic phenomena are clear examples. I thought he could find interesting ideas in that page independently of the theory behind. I even think the concepts of that page should be valid for any theory independently of which would be the right one.
    Last edited by martillo; October 5th, 2012 at 10:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman Deno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    32
    Thanks Martillo, anyone else willing to comment that isn't just out to waste time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman Deno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    I never expected to see so many irrelevant posts on a science forum, rather a waste in bandwidth.
    I shall work from the assumption that one of the posts you consider irrelevant is one of mine, wherein I say, "I never knew there was so much woodwork around here." I shall argue that this observation is relevant, significant and important.
    Important how exactly? it sure is a nice waste of time and bandwidth, and no, it is not relevant to the subject of the thread.
    Starting to think there are more trolls here than anything. If you have nothing relevant to say on topic that is serious then why waste the threads space? I can see now though how you all have so many posts. This 'science forum' is looking to be quite the joke, I can see why people would not linger long. Perhaps the moderators should do their job keeping threads on topic rather than permitting de-constructive bashing.

    If your minds are too limited to realise that what we have now in the field of physics is currently incomplete, then perhaps you should find a forum with a name similar to.. 'http://www.iknoweverythingforum.com, because science today IS incomplete and everything starts with an idea. We do not know everything, so I see no harm in looking at a variety of ways the fundamental forces can be explained. I couldn't care less if you think the posts here are rubbish, until you can give me a theory of everything your words mean nothing to me. Go fill up your own threads with bullshit, this is my thread, there's no point in commenting as you all have been doing so simply as an attempt at showing everyone how clever you think you are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    If your minds are too limited to realise that what we have now in the field of physics is currently incomplete, then perhaps you should find a forum with a name similar to.. 'http://www.iknoweverythingforum.com, because science today IS incomplete and everything starts with an idea.
    Like, duh. We know that. That is, as has been pointed out in another thread, what makes science so exciting.

    But those ideas have to be based in science; you know, compatible with existing observation (and therefore existing theory) and based on evidence and math. They are not going to come from people on Internet forums talking about tiny invisible flying pink unicorns quantum aether vortexes or whatever their particular fantasy is.

    If you want to discuss some of the more "out there" scientific theories, then that is great. But just encouraging yet more crackpots to share their idiotic ideas is a waste of time and bandwidth.

    I haven't looked at martillo's ideas, for example, but the fact he is discussing them here and on a web site rather than publishing them in scientific journals tells me all I need to know.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I should have added. Do not give me links like wikipedia and such, I have read all of them.
    Well, and that's fine and dandy, but have you understood what you have read there ? The topic of fundamental forces ( i.e. quantum field theory ) is one of the most complex and involved ones in theoretical physics, so understanding all the information presented is quite a tall order.
    Can you be more specific as to what area you need more information on ?
    What is your level of knowledge of the maths and physics principles involved ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    Thanks Martillo, anyone else willing to comment that isn't just out to waste time?
    Like every other theory out there, there are alternative mainstream proposals, as well as generally unknown proposals concerning what the forces of nature might really be.

    1) The Strong Force is accordingly the force that supposedly holds theoretical quarks together via hypothetical gluons within protons and neutrons. It is also called the Strong Interaction as it relates to holding nucleons together within nuclei.

    2) The Weak Force accordingly is the force that holds primarily isotopic neutrons within the nucleus of atoms. Isotopic neutrons are the extra neutrons beyond the most stable form of an atom, but it is accordingly active within all nuclei. It is supposedly the Force involved with the radio active decay of neutrons.

    3) The Electromagnetic Force: The fundamental force involved with electric and magnetic fields which is involved in binding atomic, molecular structures, also being involved in chemical reactions. It has two forms. One involves a pulling force at a distance, and the other a pushing force at a distance, respectively called attraction and repulsion.

    4) Some still include gravity as a force, even though General Relativity proposes otherwise.

    5) Now, some have begun to include Dark Energy as another so-called Force of Nature.

    Alternative hypotheses, not mainstream, would be that not only gravity but magnetism as well as all the other so-called forces of nature have a mechanical or alternative less complicated explanation for what we observe and therefore would not really be fundamental forces, something like Einstein's warped space explanation as being the cause of gravity.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 6th, 2012 at 04:36 PM.
    Deno likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,852
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Alternative hypotheses, not mainstream, would be that not only gravity but magnetism as well as all the other so-called forces of nature have a mechanical or alternative less complicated explanation for what we observe and therefore would not really be forces, something like Einstein's warped space explanation.
    Calling something a "mechanical force" doesn't actually simplify anything. It just paints over an infinity of complexities. When you push on something mechanically, you are actually seeing the result of electromagnetic forces. So you haven't actually achieved any simplification at all. You've just renamed things in a way that makes what you've done less obvious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Something coming out of the woowork is an idiom used to refer to an unpleasant person or concept that has made an unexpected and unwelcome appearance. Martillo and Farsight have ideas that arguably fall into this category.
    You cheeky git. How dare you accuse me of peddling woo. You should check the quality of my posts. Compare them with your own, I don't peddle woo, I oppose it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Your post #4 contains several features diagnostic of those promoting pseudo science. Go back and read it objectively then tell me that you honestly do not see them. Your intent is irrelevant next to perception. What am I or anyone to think when you tell us you have an understanding not to be found in textbooks. Something that will require moderator approval to post. Alarm bells and not the way to fight woo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Alternative hypotheses, not mainstream, would be that not only gravity but magnetism as well as all the other so-called forces of nature have a mechanical or alternative less complicated explanation for what we observe and therefore would not really be forces, something like Einstein's warped space explanation.
    Calling something a "mechanical force" doesn't actually simplify anything. It just paints over an infinity of complexities. When you push on something mechanically, you are actually seeing the result of electromagnetic forces. So you haven't actually achieved any simplification at all. You've just renamed things in a way that makes what you've done less obvious.
    The so-called Forces of Nature are considered forces acting at a distance, force carriers traversing a distance to deliver a force. They are supposedly something separate in the universe from matter or energy. If they are instead caused mechanically, then something would be pushing something else applying a classical Newtonian force; two things could be mechanically connected, attempting to separate them would result in a resistance; the warping of space proposal, etc. If this is what the forces of nature really are then these so-called Forces would not be a separate part of nature, just a name given to interactions which could accordingly have simple mechanical causes and explanations.

    Einstein applied this same idea to gravity by saying that it is not a force, that it accordingly is simply a reaction to something physical, the so-called warping of space. I don't like Einstein's idea but I do like the related principle which he used involving the then so-called fundamental force instead relating to mechanical changes as being the cause of the action.
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 7th, 2012 at 01:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I don't like Einstein's idea but I do like the related principle which he used involving a fundamental force relating to mechanical changes as being the cause of the action.
    Gravity is not a force in GR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I don't like Einstein's idea but I do like the related principle which he used involving a fundamental force relating to mechanical changes as being the cause of the action.
    Gravity is not a force in GR.
    Of course not, I said the opposite. You misinterpreted my quote out of context. I maybe should have said ".... involving a (so-called) fundamental force ..........." (parenthesis added)
    Last edited by forrest noble; October 6th, 2012 at 11:56 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Strange,

    Regarding your posting #!0.... cheap beer like cheap energy is like a superlative. It is unbelievable.
    We'll simply settle for lower temperatures in the summer and higher temperatures in the winter resulting in lower energy costs, as well as cheaper beer all year round without sacrificing quality. We're easy to please
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    Thanks Martillo, anyone else willing to comment that isn't just out to waste time?
    Oh, well then you're disqualified...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Anyway, interactions and how they hang together. On the wikipedia vacuum permittivity page you can find a reference to the fine structure constant alpha:



    There's arguably evidence for that varying across space, see papers such as Indications of a spatial variation of the fine structure constant by Webb et al. We already know it varies with energy, see NIST:

    "Thus α depends upon the energy at which it is measured, increasing with increasing energy, and is considered an effective or running coupling constant. Indeed, due to e+e- and other vacuum polarization processes, at an energy corresponding to the mass of the W boson (approximately 81 GeV, equivalent to a distance of approximately 2 x 10-18 m), α(mW) is approximately 1/128 compared with its zero-energy value of approximately 1/137. Thus the famous number 1/137 is not unique or especially fundamental".

    The QED explanation for this is that e varies, which contradicts conservation of charge. You can read something about that on the NIST page, where we see mention of virtual electrons and screening. Note though that virtual electrons are not short-lived electrons, just as virtual photons are not transient twinkles of light. A magnet doesn't shine. Virtual particles are field quanta, "chunks of field", like you've divided a field up into little squares and said each square is a virtual particle. This field is in space, so rather than saying effective charge varies, it's more accurate to say the effect of the charge varies when the properties of space vary. So you keep the e as is and let the other terms vary instead. OK, now look at SpaceTime Mission: Clock Test of Relativity at Four Solar Radii where you can read this: "The mission is based on a clock experiment that will search for a violation of the Equivalence Principle through the observation of a variation of the fine structure constant, α". Forget the reference to the equivalence principle and think about what this experiment is looking at. If alpha varies across space in line with gravitational potential, and if alpha also gives the ratio of the strength of the electromagnetic and strong interactions, then at the fundamental level, a gravitational field is merely a region where the ratio of the relative strength of the electromagnetic and strong interactions varies. I know that doesn't actually explain how any of the interactions actually work, but nevertheless I hope it proves interesting and stimulating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Fundamental Forces solved by layman
    By Eleven in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: October 4th, 2012, 06:01 PM
  2. Electromagnetic nature of the nuclear forces and a toroid model of nucleons in atomic nuclei
    By atanasilchev in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 24th, 2012, 03:13 AM
  3. Unification of the 4 Fundamental Forces
    By victorespinoza in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2010, 07:26 PM
  4. The 4 forces and a question
    By Always.Asking in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 24th, 2009, 08:19 AM
  5. there are 6 fundamental forces not 4...
    By kryon of magnetic dna in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 13th, 2009, 04:57 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •