polarity for other forces than electrostatics

[michel123456]

While little statesmen and philosophers and divines often adore a foolish consistency, physicists do not necessarily do so. We need evidence and math before we dive off the deep end. You have neither.

 

Hm. In this case, there is a difference between math and evidence.

Evidence shows that only positive mass exists, and only positive distance exists, and only positive time exists.

On the other hand, maths provide the negatives.

The question is thus simply to ask if we can insert those mathematical negatives when explaining evidence.

 

And from a pure theoretical point of vue I don't see any reason why not.

[D H]

What does math have to do with it? All math does is describe and calculate patterns of observations, no?

To answer your first question, math has everything to do with it. If you are not using math you are not doing physics. If the math you are using does not spring from some deeper principles, you are not doing physics. By deeper principles, I mean something analogous to using binding energies or the Higgs mechanism to explain mass. Both, by the way, explain why mass is positive, not negative.

 

To answer your second question, I am reminding you once again that per the rules of this speculation forum, you either need to give some evidence that your conjecture has merit (you won't find such evidence) or some proof of your conjecture. Relying on foolish consistency is not proof. Coming up with something very different from binding energies or the Higgs mechanism would constitute proof. You cannot just say "what if mass is negative" and leave explaining what that means to us. That is not how science works.

 

 

Evidence is always consistent with existing theory, as far as I know.

An experiment whose results stand up to time and which contradict theory is the deepest wish of experimentalists of all ilk, experimental physicists in particular. It is the evidence that is not consistent with existing theory that pushes science forward. Some examples: Galileo's experiments, the Michelson-Morley experiment, the precession of Mercury, the discovery of radioactivity, the discovery of the muon (to which Nobel physicist Isaac Rabi quipped "who ordered that?"), the expansion of the universe, just to name a few.

 

 

When you call it a "foolish consistency" that all forces should have polarity because electrostatics does, or that the intersection of electrostatic and nuclear force in protons should have analogies in the intersections between other forces, I wonder if it's because you have proactively determined something foolish about it or if you're just reacting to the fact that you've never thought in that way before.

When I referred to "foolish consistency" I was paraphrasing Emerson, and I left out the insulting part.

 

Mass is a very different property from charge, so why should it be consistent with electrostatics? My thoughts on your demands that it should be, contrary to all evidence and contrary to very deep theory, and with nary a reason but a foolish consistency is best left unsaid.

Edited January 23, 2011 by D H

[swansont]

It's OK to ask the question. But there have been a few examples given why the scenario fails , not least of which is the gravitational field is not observed to be a dipole (orbital dynamics wouldn't work) and there is no theoretical basis for it. Arguing based solely on aesthetics or metaphysics doesn't trump reality.

 

As to michel's question, go ahead and try it. See what the equations predict and then compare that to what is observed. It doesn't match up.