The Fundamental Forces

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby oz93666 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:21 pm

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.
oz93666
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby peter » Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:12 am

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
peter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby Krackonis » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:00 pm

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
Neil Thompson

EET

"We are the universe trying to understand itself." - Delen, Babylon 5
User avatar
Krackonis
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:44 am
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby tayga » Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:08 pm

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.
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
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby peter » Wed Apr 30, 2014 5:08 pm

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
peter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby oz93666 » Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:06 pm

Krackonis wrote: ... magnetism, drops, like gravity, at the square of distance, where the Electric Force drops linearly. Neil


Thanks for your reply Neil.... My understanding is all forces are related to square of distance....

Image

.....still investigating other points you raise....
oz93666
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby jacmac » Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:45 pm

Tayga said:

Electrons don't collapse into the atomic nucleus because their lowest energy state is at orbital range.


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 ?

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.
jacmac
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby tayga » Thu May 01, 2014 1:31 am

jacmac wrote:Tayga said:

Electrons don't collapse into the atomic nucleus because their lowest energy state is at orbital range.


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 ?

So why does the electron not continue to collapse into the nucleus ?


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 something ;)

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
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby tayga » Thu May 01, 2014 1:46 am

oz93666 wrote: My understanding is all forces are related to square of distance....


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.
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
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby tayga » Thu May 01, 2014 2:06 am

peter wrote:But what exactly is "Charge" ?


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.

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
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby tayga » Thu May 01, 2014 2:16 am

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
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby seasmith » Thu May 01, 2014 8:05 pm

~
OZ93666 wrote:

My understanding is all forces are related to square of distance....


just to add a footknot, i mean knote:
Magnetic forces commonly obey an inverse cube law



http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/activity/l23.pdf
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby oz93666 » Fri May 02, 2014 12:51 am

seasmith wrote:~
OZ93666 wrote:

My understanding is all forces are related to square of distance....


just to add a footknot, i mean knote:
Magnetic forces commonly obey an inverse cube law

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/activity/l23.pdf


Thanks for that , we live and learn. I guess that answers my question about the magnetic fields of celestial bodies interacting , virtually no effect.
I wonder what the theory is behind that inverse cube force?
oz93666
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby tayga » Fri May 02, 2014 1:50 am

seasmith wrote:just to add a footknot, i mean knote:
Magnetic forces commonly obey an inverse cube law


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.
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
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby Krackonis » Fri May 02, 2014 12:36 pm

tayga wrote:
peter wrote:But what exactly is "Charge" ?


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.

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.


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.

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
User avatar
Krackonis
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:44 am
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests