The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Gravity and Strong Force  (Read 10087 times)

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Gravity and Strong Force
« Reply #25 on: 16/12/2010 06:56:46 »
Fractional charges do not surprise me. It is strictly a matter of definition. It suggests that when we defined the elementary charge of an electron we were not aware of the fact that the real primary charge is 1/3e and that an electron actually carries a charge of three (3) primary charges. This would give the D-quark a charge of -1pe and the U-quark a charge of +2pe. An Up-quark fusing with an electron would still produce a D-quark and change a proton to a neutron.
I consider it quite possible that a positive charge is just a relative matter of missing negative charge. That would allow us to move the neutral point to 0 and eliminate positive charges. Anything with a positive charge is then simply a particle with less negative charge than our Earth Average.

Speaking of Strong Force; Do not confuse electrostatic attraction with electromagnetic fields and their dynamic causes and effects. They are, for now, two very different things. Strong Force is caused by a multitude of electrostatic, attractive (and repulsive) force vectors holding together for example one Proton and one Neutron, or 2N or 2P. How is this possible when two Protons should repel each other? Because when they get close enough together the overall charge does not matter. The clover leaves of different charges attract each other, couple up and bind the two together. See my "you know what" ....
Bengt   
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Gravity and Strong Force
« Reply #26 on: 16/12/2010 13:23:08 »
They surprise me Bengt :)

And the question seems to be how do you define a 'whole charge'
And why do we do it if it is wrong?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Gravity and Strong Force
« Reply #27 on: 16/12/2010 13:43:21 »
Also it seems to suggest that this 'charge' then might consist of even more 'parts' possibly? We might be in the same situation as those once deciding that a charge only come in 'whole numbers'?

Could it have to do with the idea that 'condensed state' uses, wherein the 'thingies' removed also decide the overall behavior of a 'particle' or 'quasi particle'?

It's too phreakin complicated. First of all it seems not to smart to differ between those two 'states', at least defining them as something 'different'? We don't know what a 'particle' is, do we? So why split the concept? Why not add to it instead?

It's like looking at a car in the darkness and then define the wheels as the 'whole thing' just to find that there are more to it later. and instead of adding to the idea of a 'car' I now start to split it into 'car meeting ground' aka wheels etc. :)
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Gravity and Strong Force
« Reply #28 on: 16/12/2010 16:11:09 »
At the present time our observational resolution of seemingly physical objects reaches down to Photons, Electrons and Quarks. We do not know how any of these are constructed. In addition we have the intellectual concepts of charge and mass. We do not know how well these fit the real world. Every time our observational resolution improves, our intellectual resolution seems to be able to catch up, at some point. There are, however, many experiments in physics which have produced results that do not support our present standard of understanding. When such a new piece of information does not readily resonate with contemporary understanding we ignore or reject it. We are so sensitive to disturbing claims that we used to burn the claimant publicly as a warning to others.

A weak spot in our intellectual appetite is our lack of discipline. If we can not solve a problem we smile and move on to a more fun one. We gladly take on the task of exploring the origin of the universe before we understand what keeps our atoms together or what keeps us on earth. We simply invent excuses like gluons and gravitons, contrary to our own observations, and keep on going.

The weakest link in human understanding of the world is, however, our imagination. The problem is not a lack of imagination, but rather that it does not seem to sense the structure of the universe. And worse, we do not seem to have the ability to differentiate between what we know and what we believe. We readily invent gods and space-time-warps to comfort ourselves and sooth our incomplete understanding of the world. And if we happen to be regarded as an authority, our detours become gospel for generations to come.

However, once our observational resolution takes another step forward, our faulty concepts, speculations and disagreements tend to vanish, making room for a more enlightened world.

Bengt

 





 
« Last Edit: 16/12/2010 16:12:56 by Bengt »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Gravity and Strong Force
« Reply #29 on: 17/12/2010 00:00:34 »
You've seen this one too of course :)
It's interesting.
Mass Medium.

I remember reading about it, but it was some time ago. I haven't heard anything about it recently? Maybe I should check up on that?
==

This one maybe? Matter and mass.
Can't seem to find anything relevant after that on the EM universe from him, it's mostly about zero energy aka vacuum-fluctuations?
« Last Edit: 17/12/2010 00:12:29 by yor_on »
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Gravity and Strong Force
« Reply #30 on: 17/12/2010 13:11:57 »
Quote from: yor_on
[url=http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html
Mass Medium.[/url]
Matter and mass.
Thanks. There's some good stuff there. Especially Haisch and Rueda's description:
Quote
Which conjectures that the change of refractive index caused by the presence of matter has exactly the same effect on the paths of light rays as the questionable warpage of space which in Einstein's theory is caused by the presence of matter. In this way, the tested mathematics of general relativity remains intact since space-time, though un-warped, looks exactly as if it is warped!

In my own words: If you are a ray of light with a self-imposed right of way, space looks warped. However, when I observe your path I can see that my definition of space and time remains straight while your path is not.

The mathematics of relativity has obviously been made to match our observations of the world while the claim about a warped Space-Time-fabric can only come from an overly self-centered ray of light.

On a more philosophical side I find it fascinating how, out of fear for our self-imposed gods and their followers, we still bow to one god while we quietly sacrifice to another.
I am referring to Haisch and Rueda's polite references to both Einstein and Higgs while in essence denying them both.
Well done; he who dares not speak the truth shall never find it.
I also find it fascinating that we still wrap our physics mysteries in little secret packages and insist on calling them particles. As if we didn't long since realize that there are neither Gravitons nor Gluons. Yet we think that we are now looking for yet another imaginary particle, the Higgs. Isn't it obvious by now that we need to get inside the photon, the electron and the three leaf quark clover and construct humanly comprehensible models of EM radiation, photons, ES charge, energy and GandI mass as well as the transitions between them. 

If Haisch and Rueda would replace their quantum vacuum aether babble with a closer look at a universe buzzing with high speed photons they would probably be able to take another step in the right direction.

Bengt
   
« Last Edit: 17/12/2010 13:22:30 by Bengt »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Gravity and Strong Force
« Reply #31 on: 17/12/2010 20:30:51 »
I got to admit that I have had some problems with the Higgs particles myself. It's a fascinating idea and make more sense to me than gravitons though. As I understands it 'gravitons' are needed for a TOE as a 'exchange particle' for 'gravity', like a gluon is seen as a exchange particle for the 'strong nuclear force', and so act on all 'particles existing'? Whilst the Higgs particle acts specifically on the 'inertial mass' of a object, untouched by change in position or motion? Leaving the idea of momentum and relative mass free from its 'interference'?

But I'm not sure if I got that right? :)
==

Dam* that spelling. I keep mixing 'are' with 'is'. In Swedish we have only one word for that and that is 'är' which you can use in a singular and plural both. and 'är' sounds almost as 'are' I guess :)

Why can't you people learn a proper language? The language of the brawling Vikings for example, to drunk to fight to sober to stop :) But you have one invention though. Single malt, the best invention since the wheel ..

« Last Edit: 17/12/2010 20:42:50 by yor_on »
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Gravity and Strong Force
« Reply #32 on: 17/12/2010 23:42:30 »
When a physicist proposes a new particle, tongue in cheek, it's hard to tell how serious he is. Higgs said in a fairly recent interview something like; had he known that he was going to be taken seriously ... he might not have proposed the Higgs particle.
The same might just be true about the graviton and the gluon. I see them as placeholders and symbolic packaging of functionalities that we can not yet explain.
I think the explanations we are looking for are to be found in the understanding of charge, energy and mass inside the "particles" that we already know.

God Jul och Gott Nytt År. Klä på dig ordentligt, det ska bli kallare i Sverige till Jul.

Bengt

 
 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Gravity and Strong Force
« Reply #33 on: 18/12/2010 17:11:24 »
Det samma Bengt :)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Gravity and Strong Force
« Reply #33 on: 18/12/2010 17:11:24 »

 

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