The Fundamental Forces
-
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm
The Fundamental Forces
Standard theory has it that there are four fundamental forces of nature, gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. For observing interactions in the universe we can ignore for now the nuclear forces, that leaves gravitational and electromagnetic, which misleadingly implies that there are two types of interaction on the large scale, when in fact there are three. In EU it's suggested that bodies carry a different charge which will result in them attracting or repelling one another , but in addition to this many have a magnetic field which will result in another force between them . Just how powerful is this magnetic interaction, for example between the sun and earth? If bodies do carry a different charge then we should expect to see in some cases bodies repel each other as the electrostatic repelling forces overcome the gravitational attraction. I'm not sure we see this.
-
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:49 pm
Re: The Fundamental Forces
Maxwell Unified the Electric Force and the Magnetic Force.
To simplify it they are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.
The problem still remains as to how to explain the mechanism of these two forces.
The Standard Model that you refer to explains the mechanism of the 4 Forces by Mythical Exchange Particles.
Gravity - by the exchange of Gravitons - Never been observed
Electromagnetism - by the exchange of photons -Never been observed and whats more have zero Mass (Give me a Break)
Strong Force - exchange of Gluons - free gluons remain undetected in experiments
Weak Force - exchange of W and Z Bosons - Just a Heavy electrons created from high energy collision that quickly decay to an electron
These so called Exchange Particles are collectively referred to as Gauge Bosons
And as far as I am concerned nobody has satisfactory explained how the exchange of a particle can produce an Attractive Force.
It can explain a Repulsive force
To simplify it they are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.
The problem still remains as to how to explain the mechanism of these two forces.
The Standard Model that you refer to explains the mechanism of the 4 Forces by Mythical Exchange Particles.
Gravity - by the exchange of Gravitons - Never been observed
Electromagnetism - by the exchange of photons -Never been observed and whats more have zero Mass (Give me a Break)
Strong Force - exchange of Gluons - free gluons remain undetected in experiments
Weak Force - exchange of W and Z Bosons - Just a Heavy electrons created from high energy collision that quickly decay to an electron
These so called Exchange Particles are collectively referred to as Gauge Bosons
And as far as I am concerned nobody has satisfactory explained how the exchange of a particle can produce an Attractive Force.
It can explain a Repulsive force
- Krackonis
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:44 am
- Location: Moncton, NB, Canada
Re: The Fundamental Forces
There is a description on Holoscience referring to "Electric Gravity". A google search will bring you to the page, but an excerpt may help:
“The Standard Model of particle physics would appear to fail in nearly every possible way, and all of its failures seem to stem from the early 1930s. By all indications science seems to have taken a wrong turn about this time. After three hundred years of progressively simplifying the description of the universe, with fewer entities and simpler laws, it suddenly turned the other way, with complexity and entities multiplying like rabbits.” [4]
and....
“The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.” [12]
From my understanding of the new material all forces are derivations of the EM forces. Repulsion and Attraction are EM staples, Charges will attract, then approach, then repel. (The Like-likes-Like concept) but Radioactive Decay rates, Gravity and Magnetism for example, are subsets, powered by the overall force, but much weaker.
The one you refer to, magnetism, drops, like gravity, at the square of distance, where the Electric Force drops linearly. This establishes the suns solar environment (via the solar wind) and it's magnetism as a subset of this force, like gravity. It's reach is contained within the earths plasma "bubble" and is distorted by the solar wind.
Magnetism can be shielded against however, with metals for example, or plasmas. Gravity cannot be shielded so it's effects can be felt at longer ranges. Keep in mind it is not the moving particles themselves doing work, but the fields they generate.
I hope this helped somewhat.
Neil
“The Standard Model of particle physics would appear to fail in nearly every possible way, and all of its failures seem to stem from the early 1930s. By all indications science seems to have taken a wrong turn about this time. After three hundred years of progressively simplifying the description of the universe, with fewer entities and simpler laws, it suddenly turned the other way, with complexity and entities multiplying like rabbits.” [4]
and....
“The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.” [12]
From my understanding of the new material all forces are derivations of the EM forces. Repulsion and Attraction are EM staples, Charges will attract, then approach, then repel. (The Like-likes-Like concept) but Radioactive Decay rates, Gravity and Magnetism for example, are subsets, powered by the overall force, but much weaker.
The one you refer to, magnetism, drops, like gravity, at the square of distance, where the Electric Force drops linearly. This establishes the suns solar environment (via the solar wind) and it's magnetism as a subset of this force, like gravity. It's reach is contained within the earths plasma "bubble" and is distorted by the solar wind.
Magnetism can be shielded against however, with metals for example, or plasmas. Gravity cannot be shielded so it's effects can be felt at longer ranges. Keep in mind it is not the moving particles themselves doing work, but the fields they generate.
I hope this helped somewhat.
Neil
Neil Thompson
EET
"We are the universe trying to understand itself." - Delen, Babylon 5
EET
"We are the universe trying to understand itself." - Delen, Babylon 5
- tayga
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
Re: The Fundamental Forces
I am pretty sure that there is only one fundamental interaction, the electrostatic. I am checking some work by another researcher that proves there can be no strong and weak nuclear forces and which rules out the existence of internuclear neutrons and also, by extension, neutrinos.
I think Ralph Sansbury and Wal Thornhill have it right that gravity and mass are a function of charge distribution. T T Brown's electrogravitic work certainly indicated a connection and who knows what Tesla found before his work on similar was stolen.
I disagree with Thornhill on 2 things: I don't buy into the subtron idea and think that the particle model in general is a flawed assumption. Secondly, I don't know where the notion that opposite charges repel at close range comes from. Electrons don't collapse into the atomic nucleus because their lowest energy state is at orbital range. The simple illustration of this is the comparative stabilities of the hydrogen atom and the neutron which have the same particle components but in which the electron is at different distances from the proton at different energy levels.
I think Ralph Sansbury and Wal Thornhill have it right that gravity and mass are a function of charge distribution. T T Brown's electrogravitic work certainly indicated a connection and who knows what Tesla found before his work on similar was stolen.
I disagree with Thornhill on 2 things: I don't buy into the subtron idea and think that the particle model in general is a flawed assumption. Secondly, I don't know where the notion that opposite charges repel at close range comes from. Electrons don't collapse into the atomic nucleus because their lowest energy state is at orbital range. The simple illustration of this is the comparative stabilities of the hydrogen atom and the neutron which have the same particle components but in which the electron is at different distances from the proton at different energy levels.
tayga
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
-
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:49 pm
Re: The Fundamental Forces
But what exactly is "Charge" ?
We know that rubbing ,say , a glass rod with a silk cloth the rod will attract small bits of paper or plastic.
It may produce a spark (electrical discharge)
And we say the glass rod has acquired a static charge
This charge is then explained in terms of -ve and +ve charged invisible particles and our overall atomic theory of matter
The former is an "experimental" observation , the force of attraction can be described by Coulomb's law, which is an inverse square law as is gravity.
The latter (the mechanism) is theory and subject to alternative explanations
We know that rubbing ,say , a glass rod with a silk cloth the rod will attract small bits of paper or plastic.
It may produce a spark (electrical discharge)
And we say the glass rod has acquired a static charge
This charge is then explained in terms of -ve and +ve charged invisible particles and our overall atomic theory of matter
The former is an "experimental" observation , the force of attraction can be described by Coulomb's law, which is an inverse square law as is gravity.
The latter (the mechanism) is theory and subject to alternative explanations
-
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm
Re: The Fundamental Forces
Thanks for your reply Neil.... My understanding is all forces are related to square of distance....Krackonis wrote: ... magnetism, drops, like gravity, at the square of distance, where the Electric Force drops linearly. Neil
.....still investigating other points you raise....
-
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm
Re: The Fundamental Forces
Tayga said:
So why does the electron not continue to collapse into the nucleus ?
Jack
Ps. I think all 4 fundamental forces are basically somehow electromagnetic;, but I don't know how they work.
It seems to me that "Electrons don't collapse into the atomic nucleus" means the same thing (saying the same thing in a different way) as "their lowest energy state is at orbital range", therefore I do not understand the use of the word BECAUSE. One does not explain the other, does it ?Electrons don't collapse into the atomic nucleus because their lowest energy state is at orbital range.
So why does the electron not continue to collapse into the nucleus ?
Jack
Ps. I think all 4 fundamental forces are basically somehow electromagnetic;, but I don't know how they work.
- tayga
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
Re: The Fundamental Forces
OK, my attempt at explanation was pretty poor. Part of the reason being that I don't fully grasp what is going on but maybe if I lay out the ideas going round in my head we can formulate somethingjacmac wrote:Tayga said:
It seems to me that "Electrons don't collapse into the atomic nucleus" means the same thing (saying the same thing in a different way) as "their lowest energy state is at orbital range", therefore I do not understand the use of the word BECAUSE. One does not explain the other, does it ?Electrons don't collapse into the atomic nucleus because their lowest energy state is at orbital range.
So why does the electron not continue to collapse into the nucleus ?
Let's start with atomic orbital theory. It's obviously an over-simplfication to assume that electrons orbit the nucleus but it suffices for this discussion. There is a distance from the nucleus at which an electron possesses the least energy. The distance is non-zero so we are positing that there is either an electrostatic repulsion in effect at shorter distances (a concept I am rejecting due to its inconsistency with Coulomb's Law) or something else increases the energy of the electron.
For illustration, I am imagining the neutron as a hydrogen atom in which the electron is orbiting inside the minimum energy radius and the greater mass and lower stability of the neutron compared to the hydrogen atom is an indication of the increased energy associated with the electron. I posit that this is kinetic energy associated with a higher velocity in a tighter orbit. The absence of Brehmsstrahlung is one reason for which 'orbiting' is obviously not the right concept but let's just acknowledge that and move on for now.
Staying with the faulty orbiting model, it would be easy to imagine that the instability of the neutron is simply due to the centrifugal force on the electron. To compound matters, the tighter orbit of the electron requires its velocity to increase in order to conserve angular momentum. As its velocity increases its mass also increases due to relativistic effects.
The minimum orbital distance, then, is that at which the electrostatic attraction between the electron and the proton is just sufficient to overcome the centrifugal force on the electron. It's an escape velocity issue.
Last edited by tayga on Thu May 01, 2014 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
tayga
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
- tayga
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
Re: The Fundamental Forces
The electrostatic and gravitational interactions certainly are. The absence of a similar formulation for the strong and weak forces is one of the nails in the coffin of these concepts for me.oz93666 wrote: My understanding is all forces are related to square of distance....
tayga
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
- tayga
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
Re: The Fundamental Forces
That's a very important question not answered by Physics. Along with spin, I think that charge may be the only fundamental property of a 'particle'. I use quotes because I think that all particle phenomena are waves, standing waves and vortices in an aether. Charge might be simply the handedness of a 3 or more-dimensional vortex in the aether.peter wrote:But what exactly is "Charge" ?
Maybe someone with a better visual imagination or understanding of mechanics than me could quantify how many dimensions would be required to sustain 4 unique vortex types (combinations of rotation about x, y, z... axes) for electron, proton, positron and antiproton. I think that's all you'd need to build a universe.
tayga
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
- tayga
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
Re: The Fundamental Forces
On the subject of interactions, mainstream Physics has all forces being mediated by bosons all of which have integer spin and all of which are theoretical particles, including the photon. If it were the case that none of these particles existed then there would be only fermions, all of which have half-integer spin (quarks are also theoretical) and carry charge. I think there is a case to be made for the connection between spin and charge.
tayga
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
-
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm
Re: The Fundamental Forces
~
OZ93666 wrote:
Magnetic forces commonly obey an inverse cube law
∑
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/activity/l23.pdf
OZ93666 wrote:
just to add a footknot, i mean knote:My understanding is all forces are related to square of distance....
Magnetic forces commonly obey an inverse cube law
∑
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/activity/l23.pdf
-
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm
Re: The Fundamental Forces
Thanks for that , we live and learn. I guess that answers my question about the magnetic fields of celestial bodies interacting , virtually no effect.seasmith wrote:~
OZ93666 wrote:
just to add a footknot, i mean knote:My understanding is all forces are related to square of distance....
Magnetic forces commonly obey an inverse cube law
∑
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/activity/l23.pdf
I wonder what the theory is behind that inverse cube force?
- tayga
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
Re: The Fundamental Forces
Magnetic forces are slightly different because there is no such thing as a magnetic monopole and the distance on which the force depends is a distance from a magnetic dipole system. This may account for the additional distance term.seasmith wrote:just to add a footknot, i mean knote:
Magnetic forces commonly obey an inverse cube law
tayga
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
- Krackonis
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:44 am
- Location: Moncton, NB, Canada
Re: The Fundamental Forces
I have seen that charge may be the "thing" that makes redshift what it is. And like quasars it may have an impact on the material properties of ALL MATTER in a given system. As I think of how semiconductors make fields within themselves and molecules with more proton-electron shell imbalance sit around other molecules with different imbalances also create these capacitive fields, maybe as charge increases, the properties change, much like they do for BJT's for example. It may affect more than just "gravity" "voltage" "coulombs" and "decay rates". It could affect how hard it is, how electrically conductive, how brittle, how thermally conductive and perhaps other properties as well.tayga wrote:That's a very important question not answered by Physics. Along with spin, I think that charge may be the only fundamental property of a 'particle'. I use quotes because I think that all particle phenomena are waves, standing waves and vortices in an aether. Charge might be simply the handedness of a 3 or more-dimensional vortex in the aether.peter wrote:But what exactly is "Charge" ?
Maybe someone with a better visual imagination or understanding of mechanics than me could quantify how many dimensions would be required to sustain 4 unique vortex types (combinations of rotation about x, y, z... axes) for electron, proton, positron and antiproton. I think that's all you'd need to build a universe.
What is charge? Well, the more I think about it, the more complex it is.
Neil Thompson
EET
"We are the universe trying to understand itself." - Delen, Babylon 5
EET
"We are the universe trying to understand itself." - Delen, Babylon 5
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests