How many forces do we know off in physics?

[sebbysteiny]

Acceleration is not the cause of time dilatation, it is simply what discriminates between the younger and the older of the two twins. In the classic illustration, in which for simplicity the accelerations are considered to be during negligibly brief parts of the journey and the rest is at zero acceleration, your interpretaion would imply that the difference in proper time should depend only on those brief intervals. It is instead trivial to show that it accumulates during the two intervals at constant relative velocity. This disproves your conjecture:

 

It does not disprove my conjecture, it just disproves the way I reached it. I will be the first to admit that my proof was not scientifically rigorous. But incase your forgetting, my 'conjecture' was:

 

All objects in a frame accellarated (relative to a lorenzian frame) by a force exhibit slower time. The greater that accellaration, the greater the time dilation.

 

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

 

You are arguing over a definition now and this has no effect on the validity of the argument.

No, not a definition but the very fundamentals of GR.

 

I'm really not going to get into whether basing part of your arguements on misinterpreting a phrase that, when misinterpretted, means something fundamentally differing is a debate over 'fundamentals' or a debate over definitions.

 

The fact that photons are deviated by massive objects is a lot less trivial and certainly the geometric interpretation is the easiest explanation. This doesn't remove the fact that gravitation remains an interaction, geometric interpretation or not.

 

Who cares? Of couse gravity is an 'interaction'. An interaction does not a force make.

 

While your at it, could you also explain why the perihilion of murcury a) exists and :) exists at a higher number than when you include the effects of all the planets? If gravity was a straighforward force between two objects, it should not happen.

 

The fact that electric or other charges are independant of mass is hardly to he point. If they weren't they simply wouldn't be distingushable, it's a basic epistemological matter. There couldn't be more than one charge in exact proportion to mass, if there is one at all it is the only one.

 

I think your not understanding what I was trying to prove. The question is, why is gravity different from all other forces to the point that the geometric interpretation occurs for gravity but does not for the other forces?

 

I have already admitted not being 100% sure of this, but Einstein was. From my memory, I think gravity is different because it is the only one where one can have a lorenzian frame when acting under it. My thought experiment proved that even if every atom in a spaceship was a charged ion, and that ship was in an electric field, the result would not be a Lorenzian frame.

 

And it's because the lorenzian frame exists only when one includes the apparant force of gravity and that without including gravity, no Lorenzian frame exists, Einstein, fresh from producing special relativity, started to see that gravity was not a normal force like all the others.

 

And why does gravity have this property? Because gravity, like accellaration, is entirely dependant on mass so everything moves in the same way under a gravitational field.

 

The fact that gravity is the only mass dependant force is exactly the point.

 

If you think otherwise, perhaps you can explain why general relativity only considers gravity as being interpretted (correctly) geometrically and not the electric, weak or strong?

[Qfwfq]

All objects in a frame accellarated (relative to a lorenzian frame) by a force exhibit slower time. The greater that accellaration, the greater the time dilation.

 

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

I disagree. If you concede that I disproved your way of proving it, you'll have to find another way. Unless you say it in the Strange Claims Forum.

 

I'm really not going to get into whether basing part of your arguements on misinterpreting a phrase that, when misinterpretted, means something fundamentally differing is a debate over 'fundamentals' or a debate over definitions.

I think it's the house that Jack built! :D

 

An interaction does not a force make.

Yet physicists consider them synonyms. In the earthbound observer's coordinates, the falling stone is accelerating, it's energy-momentum is changing...

 

While your at it, could you also explain why the perihilion of murcury a) exists and b) exists at a higher number than when you include the effects of all the planets? If gravity was a straighforward force between two objects, it should not happen.

Supposing you to have meant "precession of" I say:

 

First, I aim not at disproving GR, substantial difference.

 

Second, could it be the deviation from inverse square, according to Schwarzschild?

 

My thought experiment proved that even if every atom in a spaceship was a charged ion, and that ship was in an electric field, the result would not be a Lorenzian frame.

How about if the charge/mass ratio were equal, for all particles?

 

The fact that gravity is the only mass dependant force is exactly the point.

If an elephant is the type of mammal that has a proboscis, can there be a mammal with a proboscis which isn't an elephant?

 

If you think otherwise, perhaps you can explain why general relativity only considers gravity as being interpretted (correctly) geometrically and not the electric, weak or strong?

I already said why! If you suppose there to be two central forces, both concerning the same kind of charge "c" and having forms:

 

[math]f(c_1, c_2, r)[/math]

 

[math]g(c_1, c_2, r)[/math]

 

how would you measure each one separately from the other? It's a fact that there is a force for which c is mass and we call it gravity. It trivially follows that the equivalence principle holds for it and can't hold for forces with another charge. :shrug:

[TheFaithfulStone]

Arguing relativity with Q.

 

Young grasshoppa, you have much to learn.

 

TFS

[HydrogenBond]

Part of the problem with defining the number of forces is philosophical as much as scientific. At one time, the electrostatic and magnetic forces were treated as two separate forces, due to philosophy, and due to the observation that separate equations were needed to describe each. As it turned out, they are part of the same force. The mathematics helped changed the traditional bias and in the process allowed one to address stuff in the no-man's land, between the two equations.

 

The same philosophical considerations applies today. One of the goals of physics is the unified force. The problem is that the math is too complicated to be very useful at an intutive level, thereby perpetuating the bias of separate and distinct forces. Common sense would tell us that this bias will eventually be superseded. But rather than begin thinking in terms of only one force, philosophical bias is perpetuating a dissociated force orientiation that is destined for obsolescence.

 

I suggested in my last post hybrid forces that don't normally go together, such as gravity and EM. They don't go together due to the bias caused by the inability of the math to show this is possible. Conceptually such hybrids should be a logical possibility of unified force. The example that comes to mind is a pulsar. If one assumes a neutron entity, which is charge neutral, it should not emit EM. At the same time, no stable neutron composites without protons, have even be seen in the lab, implying the nuclear forces need both protons and neutrons to tango. The net affect is gravity, without charge, without stable nuclear forces, creating EM output. This is an example of a gravity-EM hybrid force. Without the hybrid force, the conclusions come out differently becuase they need to be adapted to the dissociated force bias, creating a different picture.

[sebbysteiny]

All objects in a frame accellarated (relative to a lorenzian frame) by a force exhibit slower time. The greater that accellaration, the greater the time dilation.

 

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

 

I disagree. If you concede that I disproved your way of proving it, you'll have to find another way. Unless you say it in the Strange Claims Forum.

 

Yeah, go ahead. I'd like to see you put general relativity in the strange claims forum:lol:.

 

While your at it, could you also explain why the perihilion of murcury a) exists and :shrug: exists at a higher number than when you include the effects of all the planets? If gravity was a straighforward force between two objects, it should not happen.

 

First, I aim not at disproving GR, substantial difference.

 

Second, could it be the deviation from inverse square, according to Schwarzschild?

 

That's true. You could consider the Schwarzschild ....... if your are considering the geometric model.

 

You however you are claiming it is a force, so you must use force models to explain. Copy and pasting the geometric explanations do not work I'm afraid.

 

My thought experiment proved that even if every atom in a spaceship was a charged ion, and that ship was in an electric field, the result would not be a Lorenzian frame.

 

How about if the charge/mass ratio were equal, for all particles?

 

Unless you are able to get fractions of electrons, that is physically impossible. How can a body made out of alluminium Oxide ever have an equal charge / mass ratio as a lump of carbon?

 

You would have to play pick and mix so that some atoms are charged whilst leaving others uncharged to make up for the difference. But then each atom will not be experiencing the same charge so on a local level, it cannot be an innertial frame.

 

The fact that gravity is the only mass dependant force is exactly the point.

 

If an elephant is the type of mammal that has a proboscis, can there be a mammal with a proboscis which isn't an elephant?

 

You are trying to suggest that my arguement is based on inductive reasoning. Ie the flaw that if a is a subset of b, anything that is b must be a.

 

But your attack is seriously flawed.

 

The point is that there are only 4 other known forces and none of the rest vary on mass. Nor does it seem likely that any other force will vary on mass or we would have spotted it already.

 

So since we know of all other forces, it is no longer inductive but deductive reasoning.

 

The correct analogy is as follows:

If an elephant is the type of mammal that has a proboscis and if every other mammel has been observed not to, can there be a mammal with a proboscis that isn't an elephant? Your question seems quite stupid when phrased like this since it is obvious, despite your attempted implication to the contrary, that no is the answer.

 

If you think otherwise, perhaps you can explain why general relativity only considers gravity as being interpretted (correctly) geometrically and not the electric, weak or strong?

 

I already said why! If you suppose there to be two central forces, both concerning the same kind of charge "c" and having forms:

 

 

 

 

how would you measure each one separately from the other? It's a fact that there is a force for which c is mass and we call it gravity. It trivially follows that the equivalence principle holds for it and can't hold for forces with another charge.

 

The problem I find with your explanations is that you always seem to hide behind the mathematics and never seem to care to explain what is going on in the real world that make those equations work.

 

Your maths you gave was incomplete in that you missed many steps so I couldn't follow it. And even if I could, it means nothing to me without an explanation of why those numbers work.

[Qfwfq]

Sigh. (Gettin' weary) You don't seem to be following what I say, the math you call incomplete was a formal argument, for generality. If you want to discuss the matter with me, make an attempt to do so in a serious manner, not by distorting what I say. I don't have much time to waste.

 

I did not say I'd put GR in Strange Claims, nor that I would do anything else. I suggested you to find another proof of your unusual claim.

 

That's true. You could consider the Schwarzschild ....... if your are considering the geometric model.

Look up the derivation. It finds the radial form of a potential, given a few requisites. It is not based on differential geometry, the choice is that of ordinary polar coordinates.

 

Unless you are able to get fractions of electrons, that is physically impossible. How can a body made out of alluminium Oxide ever have an equal charge / mass ratio as a lump of carbon?

It was a hypothetical argument, not meant to be feasible but only to show why such a thing would be no different from gravity.

 

You are trying to suggest that my arguement is based on inductive reasoning. Ie the flaw that if a is a subset of b, anything that is b must be a.

No, you are distorting what I said as usual.

 

Your question seems quite stupid when phrased like this since it is obvious, despite your attempted implication to the contrary, that no is the answer.

Now that is absolutely not the way to reply to other members. Be warned

 

The question simply means that if that's what we mean by "elephant" then how could any mammal with a proboscis not be an elephant? The math which you accuse of being imcomplete shows that this holds for gravity (and for the charge beng mass). This is what you need to understand, not "an explanation of why those numbers work". You are trying to escape the inescapable, and even calling it stupid because it is inescapable.

[arkain101]

Since this topic has been discussing some things related to Relavity, I would like to interject something that has been bothering me recently.

 

Starting with a quote from http://www.branam.com/makingsense/emc2/Special_Relativity_kdb-MS_files/frame.htm

 

The time at the front of a speeding frame of reference is behind the time at the rear of the frame of reference (as seen by us at each one moment in our own time). If two events occur simultaneously in their frame of reference and they are uniformly speeding past us, one ahead of the other in space and in the direction of their uniform motion, then we will experience it as being behind the other in time. From our perspective, it is ahead in space but behind in time.

 

With that said, it leads me to the following;

 

-From our perspective, it is ahead in space but behind in time-

 

This is the highlight section I want to consider.

 

If we imagine an object traveling at a high rate of speed, a speed of which is reaching close to C itself to display obvious dialations, the light that is eminated from that object will take an amount of time "t" to reach us, but because the object is moving so quickly it will exceed the posistion the light is displaying where it is. So if we consider the object quite far away, and traveling at .99 the speed of light, the object should be very close ahead of where we see it as is the distance the light has to travel to us -the observer-.

Using that quote again -From our perspective, it is ahead in space but behind in time-. The object will be further ahead in space than we can see it, but what we see will be further back in time than where the object truly lays.

 

Now what effects are produced by this exactly I have not quite thought out, but I would surely like some thoughts by some more experienced persons. What I understand is it sounds very familiar to SR although it plugs in a part of the equation that as far as I understand is not there. The phatom image as it were.

 

I will take a stab at some effects.

 

The image that is displayed at our posistion of observation will be shrunken in the dimension of the direction of travel of the object due to the light being forced to act slower in the direction of travel, because it must obey the constant velocity.

 

Certain angles of light from the object will be unvisible to the human eye due from such drastic changes in wavelength -relativistic doppler effect-.

 

Anyhow I would like to stick to my main point and hear some responses on that.

[CraigD]

I take the approach of saying every non-composite boson – even a controversial one that hasn’t been fit into any well-developed particle physics model, such as the graviton – defines a fundamental force. Taking this approach, I get 2 peculiar counts: 5 or 13

1. 8 gluons of strong nuclear force
   
2. 2 (W & Z) bosons of weak nuclear force
   
3. 1 photon of electromagnetic force
   
4. 1 Higg’s boson of inertia
   
5. 1 graviton of gravitational force (though too little is know about this particle, or even if it exists, to reasonably count or otherwise attribute it)
   

Total bosons: 13. Total “forces”: 5.

 

A count of 5 forces is 1 more than conventional, and due to including inertia as a force. It’s atypical, because it can only exist in opposition to one of the other 4 forces, but “balances” Newton’s old “every force must have an equal and opposite force” law.

 

A brief rundown of what I don’t think are fundamental forces, and why:

• The Casimir effect – It’s due to photons of magnetic force – albeit virtual ones from virtual particles outside and between the 2 dielectric plates.
  
• Van der Waal’s force – It’s due to photons of magnetic force – the ordinary kind.