What Actually causes Attraction & Repulsion at the fundamental level ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

A lot of the activity of fundamental particles relies on degrees of attraction or repulsion by such things as + & - ELECTRIC CHARGE or MAGNETIC attraction or repulsion. At the 'Rock Face' , what is actually going on to cause a going towards , or a going away pressure.? This can include other forces such as GRAVITY. Etc

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Off-topic response regarding strings, and subsequent posts, have been removed. Respond with actual, accepted theory.

 

The short answer is that the way the electromagnetic interaction is modeled is that it is mediated by photon exchange.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

!

Moderator Note

Off-topic response regarding strings, and subsequent posts, have been removed. Respond with actual, accepted theory.

 

The short answer is that the way the electromagnetic interaction is modeled is that it is mediated by photon exchange.

 

So going for the "Rock Face" principle.

Here we have some source of Charge ( Say Positive + ) or Magnetic Pole (say North Pole N).

 

We are sitting here in space Just ,off the Positive source or small distance off the North magnetic Pole.

 

A) to a similar Charge or similar magnetic pole at a short distance away.

B) to opposite Charge or opposite magnetic pole.at a short distance away

 

What prompts any photons to be released? Do they have a quantum energy, frequency etc and what happens to them when they reach the similar or opposite (charge or pole)

 

And What makes A) the devices to push apart or B) the devices to pull together.

 

Do the photons push, pull or what ?

Edited January 25, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

http://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFAQ/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=414

 

Remember that these are models — physics explains how things behave, and not so much what's really, fundamentally, going on.

[qsa]

the thread is confusing. it is a question in speculation ! then the answer must be mainstream !

 

anyway for a good technical mainstream you can read ZEE's book. he calls the derivation of Coulomb law the 20th century triumph. yet it is only given in terms of energy variation. read 1.4, 1.5

 

http://gr.xjtu.edu.cn/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=21699&folderId=223292&name=DLFE-2506.pdf

 

 

I also have my own "speculative" theory, the mechanism is direct and clear. If you like, I can open a thread about it in speculation.

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

http://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFAQ/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=414

 

Remember that these are models — physics explains how things behave, and not so much what's really, fundamentally, going on.

 

Thanks for links , But if Physics does " not explain so much what's really, fundamentally ,going on. " then who does ?

 

the thread is confusing. it is a question in speculation ! then the answer must be mainstream !

 

anyway for a good technical mainstream you can read ZEE's book. he calls the derivation of Coulomb law the 20th century triumph. yet it is only given in terms of energy variation. read 1.4, 1.5

 

http://gr.xjtu.edu.cn/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=21699&folderId=223292&name=DLFE-2506.pdf

 

 

I also have my own "speculative" theory, the mechanism is direct and clear. If you like, I can open a thread about it in speculation.

 

 

QSA Great, ! do it here if you like as we are already in speculations. I perhaps should have asked the question in main threads. However I did think there might be some interesting ideas about.

 

.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[qsa]

Thanks for links , But if Physics does " not explain so much what's really, fundamentally ,going on. " then who does ?

 

 

 

QSA Great, ! do it here if you like as we are already in speculations. I perhaps should have asked the question in main threads. However I did think there might be some interesting ideas about.

 

.

the mechanism is an automatic outcome of a more comprehensive theory that was presented before in speculation. but you can read the basic direct answer in this link and ask more questions if you like.

 

http://www.qsa.netne.net/index_files/Page310.htm

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

the mechanism is an automatic outcome of a more comprehensive theory that was presented before in speculation. but you can read the basic direct answer in this link and ask more questions if you like.

 

http://www.qsa.netne.net/index_files/Page310.htm

 

EEk, You are coming at me again , That science is all Maths .( as Mr Tegmark has said a couple of times.) I need an Asprin and a good nights' sleep.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[qsa]

I will try to make an amendment to clarify my explanation in a simple way. if you look at my avatar which represents my theory, and imagine due to the logic in the program that when lines crossed you ignore them. In another word they are not registered, in turn makes the numbers of start position in the particle to shift away from the other particle. that denotes repulsion. If OTOH you ignore the lines that don't reach each other, you get the opposite effect , i.e. attraction. If I only consider the lines that meet head on then I get a very very small attraction. At one time I interpreted that as gravity, but I think it needs more studying.

EEk, You are coming at me again , That science is all Maths .( as Mr Tegmark has said a couple of times.) I need an Asprin and a good nights' sleep.

well, your profile shows that you are Retired Physics Teacher/Electronic Engineer so the math presented is very elementary. With a bit of patience you should get the general idea. If you can't understand my math you sure won't understand Zee's not in a million years. But then I read that you really want to know the fundamentals, so you should make some effort to read and understand all the links provided.

[swansont]

Thanks for links , But if Physics does " not explain so much what's really, fundamentally ,going on. " then who does ?

 

In reality, nobody. Philosophers, theologians and crackpots pretend to know, however. In physics, the issue is that you can't find a way to test models' mechanisms at the fundamental level, only that the models work to give you the right result.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

In reality, nobody. Philosophers, theologians and crackpots pretend to know, however. In physics, the issue is that you can't find a way to test models' mechanisms at the fundamental level, only that the models work to give you the right result.

 

If that is the case, that frightens me. That's really what I always want to know. That puts me at sea without a Paddle !

 

On the other hand, that would put the mathematical models, up a notch or two. Meaning the maths IS NOT the fundamental level but a very precise operational descriptor. In another way, its what you have been saying , I believe, on many occasions, That : the models and laws are just tools to predict the operation of " whatever" not the actual mechanism or happening itself.

 

I still want to have some insight, however as to what is really going on , down there , up there or wherever. When string theory first became widespread in 1980's , I avidly read up on it, and thought this is the fundamental bedrock. ( In terms of Topological surface , dictating the vibration of ultra minute strings. But it all seems to have gone oblivion.

 

As Regards the QSA Comment and reference sites I have not read it all yet but it sounds like a lot of it is all about 1000's of virtual photons all over the place doing a lot of " Coal Face " activity with a whole new set of laws, and whole new way of going on ?.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[michel123456]

A lot of the activity of fundamental particles relies on degrees of attraction or repulsion by such things as + & - ELECTRIC CHARGE or MAGNETIC attraction or repulsion. At the 'Rock Face' , what is actually going on to cause a going towards , or a going away pressure.? This can include other forces such as GRAVITY. Etc

Yes that's puzzling.

 

One can figure that some fundamental "force carrier"(1) is like a bullet that transmits a push from a massive thing to another. That would be a repulsive interaction. When it comes to attraction, the bullet analogy fails pathetically(2). That's where theorists come in.

 

(1) to 'carry" something you need a force, so a "force carrier" is a force that carries a force, which is a dubious explanation of what a force is.

 

(2) AFAIK the only (debunked) theory is the Le Sage Theory of gravity, based on the repulsive bullet analogy.

Edited January 26, 2013 by michel123456

[qsa]

In reality, nobody. Philosophers, theologians and crackpots pretend to know, however. In physics, the issue is that you can't find a way to test models' mechanisms at the fundamental level, only that the models work to give you the right result.

 

 

 

I can understand the sentiment. Since you have a lot of

speculative people you want to knock some reality into them. But as I quoted

ZEE the discovery of the origin of the 1/r is considered as peeling one thick

layer to get at the fundamentals. You are reducing physics to just a first year

graduate level, that is certainly not true.

 

As a matter of fact

the real physics is not applied physics of condensed matter and such but really

to dig as deep as possible to find the fundamentals, and that is typically the

job of the brightest people in the business in the most prestigious schools.

And there physics is taken to different level with an array of varied ideas;

some are very far away from standard physics. Take for example LQG (loop quantum

gravity), here space-time is considered to have structure, and very complicated

at the smallest grain. If that is not trying to find what elementary is then I

don’t know what elementary is. Even in standard physics there are controversies

of many types which indicate that much more work is needed to do than just

“model”, the most famous is the virtual particle (is it real or not).

 

I can cite thousands of examples. Take Wen’s fundamental entities

as an example. Even Wheeler worked on a fundamental particle called Geon. Not

to mention Wolfram and others. So even famous people dig into these off the

beaten track ideas but nobody consider them CRACKPOTS.

 

From wiki definition of pseudoscience

 

“The boundary lines between the science and pseudoscience

are disputed and difficult to determine analytically, even after more than a

century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in varied

fields, and despite some basic agreements on the fundaments of scientific

methodology.”

 

Sure, there are a lot of ideas also by nonprofessionals that

is natural for them to have very low probability of having some truth in them.

But you do also get some very good ideas nevertheless.

 

In my opinion the often stated case for physics as modeling

has perpetuated misunderstanding by the general public (you can see Mike’s

confusion is his last post as an example) that led to crazy ideas. Like reality

is some weird mystical I don’t know what or QM is a mind thing and that sort of

nonsense. No, reality is knowable, and our present science is almost on the

verge of cracking the problem wide open. AND, THERE ARE NO DEEP OTHER THINGS

than the ones we are investigating. And that is very clear for anybody who has done enough serious physics.

 

One more thing. What about Tegmark? he has conjectured the origin of reality, that is a fundamental as it can get. Is he a crackpot, certainly all the science and non-science magazines that covered his idea did not think so.

 

My theory supports his conjecture. whether the evidence in my theory is good enough is totally a different story.

Edited January 26, 2013 by qsa

[swansont]

I can understand the sentiment. Since you have a lot of

speculative people you want to knock some reality into them. But as I quoted

ZEE the discovery of the origin of the 1/r is considered as peeling one thick

layer to get at the fundamentals. You are reducing physics to just a first year

graduate level, that is certainly not true.

 

 

As a matter of fact

the real physics is not applied physics of condensed matter and such but really

to dig as deep as possible to find the fundamentals, and that is typically the

job of the brightest people in the business in the most prestigious schools.

And there physics is taken to different level with an array of varied ideas;

some are very far away from standard physics. Take for example LQG (loop quantum

gravity), here space-time is considered to have structure, and very complicated

at the smallest grain. If that is not trying to find what elementary is then I

don’t know what elementary is. Even in standard physics there are controversies

of many types which indicate that much more work is needed to do than just

“model”, the most famous is the virtual particle (is it real or not).

 

 

I can cite thousands of examples. Take Wen’s fundamental entities

as an example. Even Wheeler worked on a fundamental particle called Geon. Not

to mention Wolfram and others. So even famous people dig into these off the

beaten track ideas but nobody consider them CRACKPOTS.

 

I didn't call them crackpots, either. But, if LQG were verified, or the Geon were shown to exist, there would be questions of how it really works, that could not be answered in a scientific fashion (as in, we have tested and verified this). There always will be, even if you are able to peel back a layer of what we understand and get to the next level.

 

 

[qsa]

I didn't call them crackpots, either. But, if LQG were verified, or the Geon were shown to exist, there would be questions of how it really works, that could not be answered in a scientific fashion (as in, we have tested and verified this). There always will be, even if you are able to peel back a layer of what we understand and get to the next level.

My point is that scientists do go for the peeling process because they believe they WILL get to the final center. Otherwise, why try if it was "fruitless".

[michel123456]

In the meanwhile:
What Actually causes Attraction & Repulsion at the fundamental level ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

In reality, nobody. the issue is that you can't find a way to test models' mechanisms at the fundamental level,

 

Does that necessarily have to be so. : for example if somebody in a stroke of genius said (and they just happened to be right say ) that the electron is not a fundamental particle, but is made up of two particles held together by some clever means or other But Only ever would slit apart if resonated exactly at 50 megahertz and accelerated against a similar particle Only at 2 Kiloelectron volts each , then the would pop apart for a microsecond and then recombine. Surely that could be tested very easily. If it came out as true surely a fundamental working would have been tested as correct.

 

I am not for one moment suggesting this as a correct speculation ( unless I just had a moment of miraculous inspiration ) However I was trying to suggest underlying fundamentals should be continued to be sought , and not neglected. Like the Higgs for instance, who I understood Peter Higgs thought about it one day walking across the Moors ! ( I think !)

 

Or have I got hold of, the wrong end of stick ?

 

SORRY I wrote this post before I read QSA's last 3 comments, who is in fact saying similar things

Edited January 26, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Does that necessarily have to be so. : for example if somebody in a stroke of genius said (and they just happened to be right say ) that the electron is not a fundamental particle, but is made up of two particles held together by some clever means or other But Only ever would slit apart if resonated exactly at 50 megahertz and accelerated against a similar particle Only at 2 Kiloelectron volts each , then the would pop apart for a microsecond and then recombine. Surely that could be tested very easily. If it came out as true surely a fundamental working would have been tested as correct.

 

OK, let's say this happened. Now you'd have to ask why this is the case, what is the nature of the interaction, and what these new particles are, among others. You've just moved everything one level down, but the same issues are present.

 

My point is that scientists do go for the peeling process because they believe they WILL get to the final center. Otherwise, why try if it was "fruitless".

 

I disagree. There's fairly wide acceptance of "shut and calculate" to the question of understanding quantum mechanics. Most scientists aren't involved in research into fundamental issues anyway.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

OK, let's say this happened. Now you'd have to ask why this is the case, what is the nature of the interaction, and what these new particles are, among others. You've just moved everything one level down, but the same issues are present.

 

 

I disagree. There's fairly wide acceptance of "shut up and calculate" to the question of understanding quantum mechanics. Most scientists aren't involved in research into fundamental issues anyway.

 

 

This is all a bit sad.

 

Obviously its good that a lot of scientists are carefully rounding out the current theories. But equally, space must be left for "blue sky" research, which includes the 'Dreamers'. After all it appears indemic in our nature as humans to dream, and as I understand it, at night our brain detaches itself from the more mundane logical day to day problems and issues involving the strong neural links , and explores some of the less used, neural pathways. This is no doubt why we dream sometimes crazy dreams! Sir Bernard Lovell of Godrel Bank Radio telescope fame, once said, "If we do not as a society continue to fund Blue Sky research we will bankrupt our future."

 

So I am very much interested in seeing the peeling the skins or layers. Who knows that 2 layers down might lurk a big truth which can unlock some of today's problems or scientific queries.

 

Stephen Hawkins once related how at a conference some Indian lady was supposed to have asked ...." yes Mr Hawkins, but in our culture, the earth and universe is riding on the back of a Turtle ! ". He said , "yes but what is the turtle riding on ? " The Indian lady replied

" Well sir of course .. IT's turtles all the way down !"

 

From the science perspective, I would still be interested in the ultimate BED ROCK ? or at least a layer or two

 

 

There is a certain Professor of Physics, 'in your neck of the woods' whose quantum statements do suggest One Single , if not THE One single Quantum principle that all the rest of the Universe as we know it depends on .....for its existence ....And at face value its not deep maths..

..........could this be nearing..... .................... .... BED ROCK.

 

.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

From the science perspective, I would still be interested in the ultimate BED ROCK ?

 

 

There is a certain Professor of Physics, 'in your neck of the woods' whose quantum statements do suggest One Single , if not THE One single Quantum principle that all the rest of the Universe as we know it depends on .....for its existence ....And at face value its not deep maths..

..........could this be nearing..... .................... .... BED ROCK.

 

.The Prof. I refer to here is :- Professor Richard Wolfson Michigan, Dartmouth, Research widely published, Contributes to Scientific American. Also Book Einstein Demystified. Says in a Series of lectures on Einstein 's Relativity and The Quantum Revolution

 

Says in so many words :

 

That Planks Constant as a proportional ratio to frequency in the smallest possible ENERGY QUANTA and if it were not for this, there would be :

 

No individual matter,

No individual anything ( thus no maths to deal with number of things and all those mathematicians who came afterwards )

No atomic structure

No atomic particles

No Photons

No electron orbitals

No De Broglie Wave

No Bhor orbits

No ..etc etc

No and on and on and on

 

 

 

So there you have it :-

-Bingo Bedrock -

 

Or at least one or two layers up.

 

Down two layers

 

Who or what put in the original chunk to be split up or quantum- ised ?

Who or what set the amount as a Quanta namely Planks Constant h

 

. h = 6.62606957(29) x 10(to the minus 34) or h bar =1.054571726(47) x (10 to the -34) ?

 

Good Question

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote :

 

Plank said :

 

Energy = h x f ( where E is Energy in Joules , h is planks constant in joule.seconds , f= frequency cycles/sec)

 

From which DeBroglie got wavelength from Einstein E=mc squared , and equation above . and so it went on to Bhor, Pauli, Schroeniger Dirac etc etc

Edited January 31, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

. QUANTA

 

. BY Max PLANK .

 

 

. a Quantum of Energy is E ( Joules ) = h ( Planks constant joules-seconds) x f (frequency cycles /Second )

 

 

 

. Quantum Chunks of Energy

 

.

 

 

 

. But how do the quantum chunks make the effect of Attraction & repulsion ?

 

 

.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Moontanman]

A lot of the activity of fundamental particles relies on degrees of attraction or repulsion by such things as + & - ELECTRIC CHARGE or MAGNETIC attraction or repulsion. At the 'Rock Face' , what is actually going on to cause a going towards , or a going away pressure.? This can include other forces such as GRAVITY. Etc

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean here, I do know they have gravity detectors or meters that can sense the gravitational pull of a human walking by (I saw it on myth busters) If you talking about gravity then yes if you are climbing up or down a rock fact the gravity of that rock face is detectable by very sensitive equipment but beyond that I am not sure what you are asking...

 

When I read this thread for some reason none of the other replies showed up, sorry if my reply was obtuse...

[swansont]

.

 

. But how do the quantum chunks make the effect of Attraction & repulsion ?

 

 

.

 

I don't think it's been established that the effect is a result of the systems being quantum.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I don't think it's been established that the effect is a result of the systems being quantum.

 

I genuinely do not understand what is going on, at these interfaces between + and - and N & S, Gravity ( plus and minus), strong force. etc

 

Is it some form of field gradient, if so what is the mechanism of force generation.

 

I keep hearing of Photon exchange If so,this I presume will be Quantum ( maybe not ) as these are virtual photons are they not ? Anyway I can't say I understand this anyway ? What actually happens ?

[swansont]

What actually happens ?

 

The problem is that science is not geared toward answering this question, at the basic level. Science tells you what the result will be.