The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Four Forces  (Read 4739 times)

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
The Four Forces
« on: 11/07/2005 06:37:12 »
I'm wondering if my analogy here is an appropriate one. You know how the electromagnetic force operates, right? It's probably the best understood of the four forces. If my understanding of it is correct, then:

-A stationary charge produces an electric field.
-A moving charge produces a magnetic field.
-An accelerating charge produces electromagnetic waves.

There have been parallels drawn between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force. Hence, we might make a similar analogy with gravity:

-A stationary mass produces a gravitational field.
-A moving mass produces a gravitomagnetic field (aka frame-dragging).
-An accelerating mass produces gravitational waves (uncomfirmed).

Although both gravitational and gravitomagnetic fields have been confirmed, gravitational waves have not yet been detected. They are predicted, however. (PS: I don't particularly like calling it the 'gravitomagnetic' field because it sounds like some kind of unification between gravity and magnetism, which it isn't).

What about the other two forces, the strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces? Can't similar mechanisms exist for them? For the strong nuclear force:

-A stationary hypercharge produces a strong nuclear field.
-A moving hypercharge produces a strong "nucleomagnetic" field.
-An accelerating hypercharge produces strong nuclear waves.

Weak nuclear force:

-A stationary weak hypercharge produces a weak nuclear field.
-A moving weak hypercharge produces a weak "nucleomagnetic" field.
-An accelerating weak hypercharge produces weak nuclear waves.

I do believe that "hypercharge" and "weak hypercharge" are the appropriate terms here. So, taking from this, shouldn't a moving proton generate a kind of strong "nucleomagnetic" field, and an accelerating proton generate strong nuclear waves? Shouldn't the same be true for a moving/accelerating electron and its weak nuclear force?

I realize that both the strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces act on very tiny scales, and that their field analogues of magnetism would probably have a similarly short range. So how might we detect such fields? Could we infer them from anomalous particle behavior? For strong nuclear and weak nuclear waves, might we be able to detect them now?

Another question: Is the weak nuclear force attractive, repulsive or both? The other 3 forces possess a kind of attraction and/or repulsion, so shouldn't the weak nuclear force be the same?

Any opinions are welcome.


 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: The Four Forces
« Reply #1 on: 11/07/2005 15:37:29 »
I can partially respond. The gravitational/electromagnetic analogies were used by A. E., so they have good heritage. The frame dragging effect was predicted from these analogies in GR. Gravity waves require a quadrupole, however, unlike EM, which requires only a dipole moment for radiation. The analogy breaks down because there are two kinds of charge, and only one kind of mass.

The colour force analogies are more difficult, since there are three colours, and the coulour force is confined to combinations producing white. To add to the complexity, I am not an expert on the colour force. I hope an expert can respond.

I'm even weaker in the weak force, than the strong;), and there are two kinds of weak interractions, those with charge using the W bosons, and those without using the Z. A weak force expert needs to respond.
 

Offline Pablo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: The Four Forces
« Reply #2 on: 12/07/2005 05:36:18 »
Your analogies are very interesting. How would you describe the Higgs field?
a stationary Higgs boson produces a Higgs field?
a moving Higgs boson produces mass?
an accelerating Higgs boson produces mass waves?[?]

Pablo Gonzalez
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: The Four Forces
« Reply #3 on: 16/07/2005 04:34:29 »
gsmollin, you say that an electromagnetic dipole is required to produce electromagnetic waves. How can this be applied in the case of Cerenkov radiation? If a single charged particle, such as an electron, is sped up faster than light in a particular medium, it will release electromagnetic waves. Since the electron has a single charge, it acts as an electric monopole, and yet produces waves. Were you refering to a magnetic dipole instead of an electric one (electrons have a magnetic dipole)? This stuff is relatively new to me.

Wait a second. Could another gravitational analogy be pulled off with Cerenkov radiation? If an object with mass is sped up past light speed, might it emit gravitational waves, like a charged particle emits EM waves?
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: The Four Forces
« Reply #4 on: 18/07/2005 04:39:03 »
An electric dipole can be produced by a single electronic charge if it is accelerated. In the classic dipole, the electronic charge accelerates in a sinusoidal fashion.

Cherenkov radiation is a very special case, and I am not an expert in this case. The acceleration is probably bremstrahlung, or braking radiation, as the electron is slowed in the dense medium it is traveling through, typically water.
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: The Four Forces
« Reply #5 on: 18/07/2005 04:41:02 »
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo

Your analogies are very interesting. How would you describe the Higgs field?
a stationary Higgs boson produces a Higgs field?
a moving Higgs boson produces mass?
an accelerating Higgs boson produces mass waves?[?]

Pablo Gonzalez



The Higgs field is a scalar field, very unlike the EM field. I would not extend the EM analogy to the Higgs field.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: The Four Forces
« Reply #5 on: 18/07/2005 04:41:02 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums