Why do scientist ponder over Strong Nuclear Forces??

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Why do scientist ponder over Strong Nuclear Forces??

 

Would this help in any way shape or form in the evolution of mankind as a whole?

 

What would this new discover do??

 

 

Perhaps maybe understanding strong nuclear forces could advanced our methods of finding cures such as cancers and other health concerns that the world can benefit from.

 

Or maybe we could develop easier methods for precise accuracy versus averages?

I think that this discovery would infact allow us to create space vessels for inter galactic travel!

 

I think all the possibilities from this and somehow look forward for the future.

 

But how far away are we from understanding the full potential of QM?

I have always regraded the h constant as the strong nuclear force, but perhaps this is not the case..

 

I think that as long as QM still remains unclear, our pondering and wanting to understand strong nuclear forces is light years away, however is this the case in our modern day and age?

Edited August 6, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[ajb]

Why do scientist ponder over Strong Nuclear Forces??

Scientists ponder of things that they do not understand well. That is just the nature of scientists.

 

Why the strong force? Well it is one of the fundamental forces of nature and has much interesting phenomenology.

 

Perhaps maybe understanding strong nuclear forces could advanced our methods of finding cures such as cancers and other health concerns that the world can benefit from.

I would say that this is not what many actual scientists are thinking of. However, we know that the advanced technology used in experimental particle physics has had many spin-offs. For example, nuclear medicine clearly has its origins in particle and nuclear physics.

 

Have a look at Particle Physics- it matters by the IOP.

 

I think that this discovery would infact allow us to create space vessels for inter galactic travel!

Maybe so. Understanding fundamental physics does lead to new engineering.

 

But how far away are we from understanding the full potential of QM?

No idea. We do exploit quantum mechanics today in our semiconductor devices, for example.

 

 

I have always regraded the h constant as the strong nuclear force, but perhaps this is not the case..

Planck's constant gives us a scale at which quantum effects must be taken into account. So it is more general then just for the strong force and appears everyehere one is dealing with quantum theory.

 

 

I think that as long as QM still remains unclear, our pondering and wanting to understand strong nuclear forces is light years away, however is this the case in our modern day and age?

What about quantum mechanics is unclear?

 

The mathematical formulation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics is well founded. All the strange predictions seem to be realised in nature. It may be counterintuative and there are many philosophical issues, as well subtelties that need checking but I would not say that it is unclear.

 

For relativistic quantum field theory the mathematical framework is much less well founded, but so far we have seen no deviations from the standard model of particle physics. So, we know that the standard model cannot be the last word on nature, but we do expect quantum theory to be essential in any refinement.

Edited August 7, 2013 by ajb

[swansont]

Why do scientist ponder over Strong Nuclear Forces??

 

Would this help in any way shape or form in the evolution of mankind as a whole?

 

What would this new discover do??

It's basic research. You don't know what you will find, so you can't be sure what a new discovery will do.

 

Perhaps maybe understanding strong nuclear forces could advanced our methods of finding cures such as cancers and other health concerns that the world can benefit from.

Not all research is targeted in this way, nor should it be. Applied research can only proceed if there is basic research to provide us with a starting point.

[michel123456]

Why do scientist ponder over Strong Nuclear Forces??

 

Would this help in any way shape or form in the evolution of mankind as a whole?

 

What would this new discover do??

 

 

Perhaps maybe understanding strong nuclear forces could advanced our methods of finding cures such as cancers and other health concerns that the world can benefit from.

 

Or maybe we could develop easier methods for precise accuracy versus averages?

I think that this discovery would infact allow us to create space vessels for inter galactic travel!

 

I think all the possibilities from this and somehow look forward for the future.

 

But how far away are we from understanding the full potential of QM?

I have always regraded the h constant as the strong nuclear force, but perhaps this is not the case..

 

I think that as long as QM still remains unclear, our pondering and wanting to understand strong nuclear forces is light years away, however is this the case in our modern day and age?

 

 

(emphasis mine)

that is good for a Nobel Prize, since in his will, Nobel states that:

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.

 

from here.

Edited August 6, 2013 by michel123456

[Enthalpy]

What about quantum mechanics is unclear?

That sounds like a provocation...

 

My impression is that intrication is unclear enough even to QM specialists. When they publish some hermetic experiment, other specialists stare at it bluffed . Though, an intuitive understanding of intrication - or call it a good mental image, or whatever you want - would help thaaaat much in developing quantum computers, which are a hot research topic, and are possibly some sort of technological future (or not).

 

Than you could spend a compassionate thought at all poor guys who would desperately need a clear and intuitive (hence creative) understanding of QM to apply it, despite being specialists for other topics: chemists, semiconductor engineers... Such people can cite a few aspects less than perfectly clear , at least for them.

 

And what about progress in some aspects of QM we still lack today? Say, solutions for THREE particles instead of two, that come from something more usable than a computer simulation? In fact, we would need a proper quantum description of a system of 10²³ electrons in a metal, and then maybe we'd have a good theory of superconductors.

 

Other QM topics are perfectible. Generally, books excel in formal representations and transformation, and in reproducing ONE result obtained by one genius a century ago (say, the spectrum of a neutral isolated hydrogen atom, in case someone meets one some day) but fail over any useful question, like the spectrum of a hydrogen molecule to begin with, or the life expectancy of an excited state, or a prediction of Van der Waals' forces, or or... For all these questions, we may perhaps get a questionable result from simulation software, but maybe not, and generally rely on case-by-case experiments. Developments of QM that would produce simple applicable methods would be welcome.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Enthalpy

[Strange]

My impression is that intrication is unclear enough even to QM specialists.

 

"Entaglement" in English.

 

I don't think anything about it is unclear. Every experiment done to test some aspect of it has behaved exactly as predicted by theory. It may be counter-intuiitive, but so are many things in science (even Newton's laws of motion would have been counter-intuitive to the anceient Greeks).

[Enthalpy]

Why do scientist ponder over Strong Nuclear Forces?

Presently the force between neutrons, between protons, between protons and neutrons is little understood nor modelled - far less complete nuclei.

 

With a proper understanding of it, we might for instance fuse deuterium with deuterium (without demanding tritium that ruins the hope of clean fusion energy), possibly even in machines more reasonable than the thingies Mankind tries to develop now (15G€ for Iter). That wouldn't be bad.

 

Even a better understanding of the seemingly simpler weak force would be nice. Imagine if we could provoke at will the desintegration of ⁴⁰K: we have plenty of it, reasonably easy to isolate, clean products.

 

Or producing some radio-isotopes without the need of a special nuclear reactor would ease medicine. What we do presently is so primary and brutal! Use a huge neutron flux, expose a material, and from the resulting incredible dirt, try to extract the useful result, bring it within two days to the hospital on a different continent. Finding efficient, targeted and clean synthesis ways would be nice - but how, without understanding nuclear forces to develop different machines?

 

"Entanglement" in English.

Thanks!

 

 

Every experiment done to test some aspect of [entanglement] has behaved exactly as predicted by theory.

As predicted by one of the competing sub-theories or interpretations... The one that is taught subsequently.

 

Think a bit backwards, entanglement itself was questioned by brilliant people. So was the minimum delay or comparison possibility between remote detections of entangled particles: experiment decided, not theory, and theory was oriented in one direction after that. The same happens presently with erasers and with partial detection.

 

But if you prefer to call it "our imperfect understanding or interpretation of the perfect theory", which supposes that a theory exists outside our understanding, I won't question it - that's philosophy.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Scientists ponder of things that they do not understand well. That is just the nature of scientists.

 

Why the strong force? Well it is one of the fundamental forces of nature and has much interesting phenomenology.

 

 

I would say that this is not what many actual scientists are thinking of. However, we know that the advanced technology used in experimental particle physics has had many spin-offs. For example, nuclear medicine clearly has its origins in particle and nuclear physics.

 

Have a look at Particle Physics- it matters by the IOP.

 

 

Maybe so. Understanding fundamental physics does lead to new engineering.

 

 

No idea. We do exploit quantum mechanics today in our semiconductor devices, for example.

 

 

 

Planck's constant gives us a scale at which quantum effects must be taken into account. So it is more general then just for the string force and appears everyehere one is dealing with quantum theory.

 

 

 

What about quantum mechanics is unclear?

 

The mathematical formulation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics is well founded. All the strange predictions seem to be realised in nature. It may be counterintuative and there are many philosophical issues, as well subtelties that need checking but I would not say that it is unclear.

 

For relativistic quantum field theory the mathematical framework is much less well founded, but so far we have seen no deviations from the standard model of particle physics. So, we know that the standard model cannot be the last word on nature, but we do expect quantum theory to be essential in any refinement.

WOW! very informative thank you very much! I read the link on the collider, very expensive to test, I hope we do find this someday!

It's basic research. You don't know what you will find, so you can't be sure what a new discovery will do.

 

 

Not all research is targeted in this way, nor should it be. Applied research can only proceed if there is basic research to provide us with a starting point.

Very well understood thanks for your reply

That sounds like a provocation...

 

My impression is that intrication is unclear enough even to QM specialists. When they publish some hermetic experiment, other specialists stare at it bluffed . Though, an intuitive understanding of intrication - or call it a good mental image, or whatever you want - would help thaaaat much in developing quantum computers, which are a hot research topic, and are possibly some sort of technological future (or not).

 

Than you could spend a compassionate thought at all poor guys who would desperately need a clear and intuitive (hence creative) understanding of QM to apply it, despite being specialists for other topics: chemists, semiconductor engineers... Such people can cite a few aspects less than perfectly clear , at least for them.

 

And what about progress in some aspects of QM we still lack today? Say, solutions for THREE particles instead of two, that come from something more usable than a computer simulation? In fact, we would need a proper quantum description of a system of 10²³ electrons in a metal, and then maybe we'd have a good theory of superconductors.

 

Other QM topics are perfectible. Generally, books excel in formal representations and transformation, and in reproducing ONE result obtained by one genius a century ago (say, the spectrum of a neutral isolated hydrogen atom, in case someone meets one some day) but fail over any useful question, like the spectrum of a hydrogen molecule to begin with, or the life expectancy of an excited state, or a prediction of Van der Waals' forces, or or... For all these questions, we may perhaps get a questionable result from simulation software, but maybe not, and generally rely on case-by-case experiments. Developments of QM that would produce simple applicable methods would be welcome.

why do you say

--->we would need a proper quantum description of a system of 10²³ electrons in a metal, and then maybe we'd have a good theory of superconductors.

 

Is the h constant not enough to handle this??

[ajb]

My impression is that intrication is unclear enough even to QM specialists.

For the most part it is not unclear, just that some of the results of the experiemnts seem to go against "common sense", but agree very well with standard quantum mechanics.

 

Say, solutions for THREE particles instead of two, that come from something more usable than a computer simulation? In fact, we would need a proper quantum description of a system of 10²³ electrons in a metal, and then maybe we'd have a good theory of superconductors.

Three body problems are very difficult to handle in generality in both classical and quantum theory. There are simplifications that can be made and various approximations, but overall this is a hard question.

 

So for a very large number of particles other methods need to be developed and that is the scheme of statistical physics.

Is the h constant not enough to handle this??

In full generallity we have a huge number of individual particles all interacting with each other. There is no way we can keep track of all that at a fundamental level, either classically or quantum mechanically. So we don't and use statistical methods which loosley allow us to relate the average of the microcopic degrees of freedom with macroscopic or bulk properties.

[John Cuthber]

Isn't the answer to "Why do scientist ponder over Strong Nuclear Forces?"

because the people who wonder about things like the strong nuclear force are called scientists.

[Enthalpy]

For the most part [entanglement] is not unclear, just that some of the results of the experiments seem to go against "common sense", but agree very well with standard quantum mechanics.

I wouldn't say that there is one standard quantum mechanics. It's still evolving, and under the constraint of experiments, not as a logic consequence of its consistency.

 

Look at the uncertainty relations between entangled particles: some time ago the entanglement could have been considered perfect, and experimenters checked the bounds of the uncertainty relations in entanglement.

 

So you may wish to say "QM is unique and standard", but then it's our interpretation of it that is multiple and evolving...

 

Experimental results are puzzling: we shall agree.

[Strange]

I wouldn't say that there is one standard quantum mechanics. It's still evolving, and under the constraint of experiments, not as a logic consequence of its consistency.

 

You said this before ("As predicted by one of the competing sub-theories ..."). Can you explain what you mean.

 

As far as I am aware, there is only one standard theory. It is confirmed with depressing regularity - it would be much more exciting if someone found a big hole. (Which is not to say that there are not still some questions and unknown - neutrino mass, for example - but when it comes to basic things like entanglement or the uncertainty principle, I am not aware of any conflict.)

 

But, obviously, like any scientific theory, it will be adjusted (or even replaced) as new evidence comes to light. But you seem to imply that it is in more of a state of flux than it appears to me.

 

 

Experimental results are puzzling: we shall agree.

 

I don't agree. I haven't yet seen an experimental result that contradicts theory.

[Enthalpy]

Think back to the proposal of hidden variables.

 

It was consistent with the rest of the theory then. Only experiments proved it false.

 

What we may call "one standard QM" was not standard then, but only one possible interpretation, and wasn't a logical necessity.

[Strange]

Think back to the proposal of hidden variables.

 

It was consistent with the rest of the theory then. Only experiments proved it false.

 

What we may call "one standard QM" was not standard then, but only one possible interpretation, and wasn't a logical necessity.

 

I assume you are referring to EPR; an attempt to show that the theory was inconsistent and therefore wrong? The idea of hidden variables was never consistent with theory. This was proved by Bell. And this was later confirmed by experiment.

[ajb]

I wouldn't say that there is one standard quantum mechanics. It's still evolving, and under the constraint of experiments, not as a logic consequence of its consistency.

 

 

So you may wish to say "QM is unique and standard", but then it's our interpretation of it that is multiple and evolving...

 

 

There are several equivalent formulations of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, but at some level they really all boil down to the same thing, representations of the canonical commutation relations (CCR).

 

I would say that nonrelativistic quantum mechanics as a mathematical framework for describing physics at the molecular and atomic level is now established. Just as say Newton's laws are for classical mechanics.

 

Applications and detailed calculations are a seperate issue. Today there is much interest in (approximate) quantum copying, teleportation, quantum information theory and so on. Many of these applications have a lot to do with entanglement, however just about all of these works will be set-up within a standard description of quantum mechanics.

[Enthalpy]

The idea of hidden variables was never consistent with theory. This was proved by Bell. And this was later confirmed by experiment.

Hidden variables were a consistent interpretation of QM, in competition with Conpenhagen's interpretation. Bell showed how experiments would choose between both interpretations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory#Bell.27s_theorem

and according to the experiments only, the Copenhagen interpretation won and is considered standard QM.

 

This is exactly one case where several sub-theories, or interpretations, were logically possible and where experiments told which one was better.

[Strange]

There is a difference between interpretations and theories. There are many different interpretations of quantum theory (Copenhagen, Many Worlds, etc) but they are just different ways of describing the same theory. Therefore there is (as far as I know) no experiment that could distinguish them. If it could, they wouldn't be interpretations but different theories.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Isn't the answer to "Why do scientist ponder over Strong Nuclear Forces?"

because the people who wonder about things like the strong nuclear force are called scientists.

Not all are scientist, everyday people think about this all the time, but their methods are not as complex nor technical

 

I would say to ponder about something either understood or not, would perhaps reveal the " why of things"

 

Strong Nuclear forces is an attempt to understand creation and how I see this to be, how can anyone be trusted with such unfathomable knowledge???????????????

Hidden variables were a consistent interpretation of QM, in competition with Conpenhagen's interpretation. Bell showed how experiments would choose between both interpretations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory#Bell.27s_theorem

and according to the experiments only, the Copenhagen interpretation won and is considered standard QM.

 

This is exactly one case where several sub-theories, or interpretations, were logically possible and where experiments told which one was better.

I am so glad others know about this

[ajb]

Strong Nuclear forces is an attempt to understand creation and how I see this to be, how can anyone be trusted with such unfathomable knowledge???????????????

We have a good theory of the strong interaction and this can be tested in collider experiments.

 

The the theory called quantum chromodynamics is technically quite challanging. The main trouble is that the theory is not well suited to perturbation theory at low energy. This means that predictions are harder to make.

 

Anyway, we have lots of experimental evidence to back up QCD, especially at high energies where the theory is interacting weakly due to the asymptotic freedom.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

We have a good theory of the strong interaction and this can be tested in collider experiments.

 

The the theory called quantum chromodynamics is technically quite challanging. The main trouble is that the theory is not well suited to perturbation theory at low energy. This means that predictions are harder to make.

 

Anyway, we have lots of experimental evidence to back up QCD, especially at high energies where the theory is interacting weakly due to the asymptotic freedom

 

Why on earth is pi ratio used?????????????

asymptotic expansions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_series

 

 

What defines 1 with the:

 

Asymptotic expansion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_series

 

Is 1 set by scientist??

 

Also what role does the fine structure constant " dimensionless" have in all this ?

 

Thanks for all the replies ajb very informative stuff WHEYYY need to blow my brains off HA!

Edited August 11, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[ajb]

The series used in quantum field theory is really the Taylor series for the exponential function. You then have to do some mathematical tricks to write this in a useful form. This leads us to Feynman diagrams and all that.

 

The fine structure constant gives a measure of the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. For the strong force there is a similar constant [math]\alpha_{s}[/math].

 

You should be aware that the coupling constants in gauge theoreis are "running" meaning that they change depending on the energy. This is encoded in the beta function.

 

For QED the theory becomes strongly coupled as the energy increases.

 

For QCD the theory becomes weakly coupled as the energy increases.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

The series used in quantum field theory is really the Taylor series for the exponential function. You then have to do some mathematical tricks to write this in a useful form. This leads us to Feynman diagrams and all that.

 

The fine structure constant gives a measure of the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. For the strong force there is a similar constant [math]\alpha_{s}[/math].

 

You should be aware that the coupling constants in gauge theoreis are "running" meaning that they change depending on the energy. This is encoded in the beta function.

 

For QED the theory becomes strongly coupled as the energy increases.

 

For QCD the theory becomes weakly coupled as the energy increases.

Very well stated I will look more into this thanks