Talk:Fundamental interaction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
"Fundamental force" -- wasn't that that old TV series with Mr. T? :-)
[edit] ANTIMATTER and MATTER have ± mass?
Just like to point out that gravity can be deemed to be inversely proportional with regards antimatter as the mass is opposite, i comment on this but it was removed by Dachannien do you think it should be in? RMW42 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I posted to my talk page: The mass of a particle and its antiparticle are identical. See Antiparticle for more info. Also, while it hasn't been experimentally proven, most physicists favor the hypothesis that antimatter attracts antimatter and matter with the same force that matter does. See Gravitational interaction of antimatter for more info. --DachannienTalkContrib 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] interaction v. "force"
Which is the most correct term - '... interaction' or '... nuclear force'. 'Interaction' kind of implies a particle physics way of thinking. Just this needs to be agreed as someone has written a weak nuclear force article which covers the same as the weak interaction stuff. -- Na
Good point - I have a somewhat limited grasp of the nuclear weak force/weak interaction, but I felt that a bit of a stub might interest others in adding to it. (and if not, I've been doing a bit of reading on the subject, and figured I'd fix it up once I had my facts in order) The reason I ended up on weak nuclear force were twofold: 1 - that is the way I had always heard of it and 2 - the page that inspired me to create the entry was theory of everything and the author(s) used strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force so I carried through. Come to think of it, I only stumbled on Theory of Everything - I had always thought it would be grand unification theory. -- DS
[edit] "electroweak force"?
Add to Fundamental force a comment on "electroweak force"?
[edit] finite "velocity of gravity"
I had to modify the description of gravity to include the finite velocity of propagation of gravity. As the article stood, if the universe were infinite, we would have been saying that gravity propagates instantly. AstroNomer 18:41 Aug 20, 2002 (PDT)#
[edit] singular or plural?
Should this be merged with fundamental forces? --Ellmist Saturday, August 31st, 2002
- I say yes -- with the plural redirecting here. --mav
-
- Yup. AxelBoldt 07:49 Aug 31, 2002 (PDT)
[edit] Table data
Where do the numbers in the table at the top come from? They're in disagreement with the numbers on the famous poster on fundamental forces and interactions, online care of LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab) at [1]. When I google for "fundamental force relative strength," every website I hit says something different--probably because it depends upon what actual particles and distances we're putting in to the various equations! We should say something about where these numbers come from. --zandperl 14:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- the table seems badly aligned, it is overlapped. Can somebody fix this please? (The first table) -- Alvo 07:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Is the Range of the SNF larger than the range of the WNF? If it true I appologize for questioning it, but it seems counterintuitive to me. If anyone can get the values from a respectable source, filling the table and mentioning the source, it would be of help. Seems those values change quite a bit depending on the source. --Nuno Cordeiro 07:13, 28 October 2005 (GMT)
- Strong force infinite range and behaviour set to 1 ? Is this right ??
-
- Yes. Whereas the nuclear force has short range, the strong force is 1/r^2 at close range and 1 out to infinity. -- Xerxes 14:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I have cleaned this table up and generally brought it in line with how these tables are usually presented. In the table, the strong force has a short range. In the strong force section, this is clarified and expanded upon. Strait 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends crucially on what you mean by range, which is not well defined here. Personally, I feel the current listing is factually incorrect and do not see any way to improve it. My solution: complete elimination of that column. -- Xerxes 23:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Seems like a fine solution. However, I'm still uncomfortable with the strong force having "1" listed as its "long distance behaviour". I'm going to try to clarify this somehow. Strait 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, if you have the technical sophistication to understand why that's not exactly right, you must also realize that the electromagnetic force is not exactly 1/r2 itself. We can make these approximate relations arbitrarily complicated if we really want to. I think it's more clear to novices if we ignore screening effects such as the running of the coupling or string breaking. -- Xerxes 17:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Issues with Gravity
It says that the force field theory of gravity (Newtonian) is incorrect. Quantum Mechanics still says that there are different ways of looking at the same thing. Even GR says that gravity is also identical to acceleration. And couldn't the curvature of space be a force field??? If I don't get disproval within a week, I'm going to put that in the article. Sabejias 03:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Certainly you can mathematically model gravity as a "force", but it's being distinguished semantically from "real" forces, which are theorized to exert acceleration by particle exchange. -- Beland 05:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] when did all of this happen ?
when did all of the fundamental forces become aware of? as of along a timeline? would someone please tell me?
i am not a physics student but would gladly listen.
[edit] Gravity
I removed the section that said:
"But oddly, during a moonwalk where the experiment was repeated, a feather was dropped simultaneously with a moon rock. The moon rock fell slightly faster than the feather. So, there may be more physics experiments to perform in this area."
There is no doubt that the objects would arrive at the same time. I didn't find anything with a feather and a moon rock but this page features a video of the experience done by Astronaut David Scott during Apollo 15 with a feather and a hammer: http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/feather.html.
I am not sure that it is appropriate to write here to document a change. Is there a defined way to document changes when editing? I didn't find that information in the help. Wilhem 84.5.248.255 00:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Why is it necessary for gravity to be a fundamental force?
GR describes gravitation as a curvature of spacetime, and states that there is no force acting on an object under the influence of gravitation.
Given this, why is it assumed that gravity is a fundamental force? Is there an underlying assumption that spacetime couldn’t “curve” without a force acting on it? Is spacetime without the effects of gravitation assumed to be “at rest,” and under some kind of tension where under the influence of a mass?
Is it possible to accept the curvature of spacetime as a property of spacetime itself rather than the result of the action of a force? Would this invalidate anything about quantum mechanics?
Dgroberts@ 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Particles source gravity, but a particle in a quantum theory can be in a superposition of distinct positions. This means that the curvature itself can be a superposition of distinct curvatures, which would not be possible in classical physics. Conversely, if you force the curvature to be classical then there's a hidden variable giving away information about true positions of the particles, but such hidden variables contradict the postulates of quantum mechanics. JarahE 01:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
JarahE, your comments betray a deeper knowlege of physics than mine. I think you are saying that gravity was "promoted" from a property to a force because as a property it contradicts classical physics on one hand and quantum mechanics on the other. I'm not sure how making gravity a force corrects the contradictions, but I have a feeling that you do! Thanks.
[edit] Errors?
Maybe it's just me. But I'm getting these errors, in big red font, for the Long-Distance Behaviour:
- Strong: Failed to parse (Can't write to or create math output directory): 1
- Electromagnetic: Failed to parse (Can't write to or create math output directory): \frac{1}{r^2}
- Weak: Failed to parse (Can't write to or create math output directory): \frac{e^{-m_{W,Z}r}}{r}
- Gravity: Failed to parse (Can't write to or create math output directory): \frac{1}{r^2}
Ideas? 60.224.253.187 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stuff
What is the force where two solid objects collide with each other and apply force to each other, is it "strong force" can we clarify in the artcile?
I diagree that gravery has infinite range whereas other forces like magnatism don't. Both gravery and magnatism have infinite range, and with both the force exerted gets less over distance away from the object. Gravery seems to have more promenace because planets are verry heavy, However even a cheap small frige magnet can pick up a paperclip againsed the force of the graverty of the whole world (earth). Alan2here 15:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- The force is contact force. The others aren't words. -lysdexia 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- The others aren't words? Alan2here 15:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] About "Long-Distance Behavior"
Is the range of each interaction circumstantial to the standard ènèrjies that each happen at? That is, the range of E could also be 1, like C (coloral), if its reactions have Schwinger breakdowns that repeat the near-field potentials. Then, C can also have a range that decays greater than 1 if its glueballs are inductively-damped into other gluònic matter? -lysdexia 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Date
"Grand unified theories seek to unify the electroweak force and the strong nuclear interaction, but none have passed experimental muster as of 2006." should the year be changed to 2007? 74.166.189.233 00:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] dependence of strong interaction on distance
I found the following apparently conflicting statements in the section about the strong interaction:
- This causes the strong interaction's strength to be independent of distance.
- This nuclear force does not have constant strength for different particle separations, but rather goes as 1/r7 with an effective range of 1.4 x 10−15 m.
Is there a difference in definition between "strong interaction" and "nuclear force" that I'm not aware of?
GilHamiltonTheArm 06:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
