# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Forces of nature and acceleration.  (Read 7542 times)

#### another_someone

• Guest
##### Forces of nature and acceleration.
« on: 09/07/2006 15:37:24 »

#### Forces of nature and acceleration.

Force is regarded in Newtonian mechanics (with a few adjustments to the maths, also in relativistic mechanics) as closely intertwined with inertia and mass (i.e. force = mass x acceleration).

The relationship between gravity and inertial mass is clearly shown on a theoretical basis in general relativity, and clearly shown by experiment.

The relationship between inertial force and the force of electric charge is demonstrated by experiment.

Given the very short range of the strong and weak nuclear forces, has anyone actually shown a correlation between these forces and inertial acceleration?

George
« Last Edit: 09/07/2006 15:46:26 by another_someone »

#### thebrain13

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 442
##### Re: Forces of nature and acceleration.
« Reply #1 on: 09/07/2006 17:08:05 »
I think there would have to be a correlation, other wise when you think about it, length contraction couldn't be observed. Because the nuclear strong force wouldn't allow individual atoms to come any nearer.

#### another_someone

• Guest
##### Re: Forces of nature and acceleration.
« Reply #2 on: 09/07/2006 17:45:31 »
Since the range of a strong force is about 1.3E-15 metres, so I would ask whether anyone has actually observed such 'length contraction' at such small distances.

The only justification I can see for arguing that it is a force at all is that it has to overcome the electrical charge force of the proton.  In other words, the strong force seems to have been invoked to overcome an anomaly in the electric force at very close range for some particles.

The problem is, any acceleration that would be observed would have to be at a scale of less that 10^-15 metres, and as such, cannot in fact be observed with any current technology.

It may in fact be that we are using the word force to mean two distinct things – the Newtonian idea of force, and simple as a measure of binding energy that has no concept of acceleration associated with it (at least, not in any linear sense of the word).

In particular, force normally relates to acceleration through the notion of inertial mass.  Does the notion of inertial mass have any meaning when associated with the strong and weak forces, and is the mass of an object when perceived by these forces the same as the mass of the object perceived by the long range forces?

George

#### thebrain13

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 442
##### Re: Forces of nature and acceleration.
« Reply #3 on: 13/07/2006 16:36:12 »
In a uniform gravitational field, no effects are seen contrary, to if you were in a weaker or stronger field. No force is less or more dominant, which would have to include the nuclear strong force. All forces are curbed relative to the curving of time, space, and mass, in equal proportions. So all curving of mass, space and time, are seen in the other guys frame of reference, not your own. So if the nuclear strong force did not change with the other contractions, we would be able to measure an absolute frame of reference, and we know that can't happen.

#### heikki

• Full Member
• Posts: 56
##### Re: Forces of nature and acceleration.
« Reply #4 on: 13/07/2006 17:07:46 »
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone

#### Forces of nature and acceleration.

Force is regarded in Newtonian mechanics (with a few adjustments to the maths, also in relativistic mechanics) as closely intertwined with inertia and mass (i.e. force = mass x acceleration).

The relationship between gravity and inertial mass is clearly shown on a theoretical basis in general relativity, and clearly shown by experiment.

The relationship between inertial force and the force of electric charge is demonstrated by experiment.

Given the very short range of the strong and weak nuclear forces, has anyone actually shown a correlation between these forces and inertial acceleration?

George

F=ma,
m=F/a
a=F/m.

F=force which can be if m=matterball exist and is on motion=a.

If m=matterball motion=a is 0 then F=force is 0.

But, still m=matterball is, exist.

I dont know what this meaning, but, matter-ball can exist same kind without motion and with motion?

But, what kind of physics or mathematical terms are "strong" and "weak" .... force? I dont understand that "strong" or "weak" terms on this issue?

Like electric current. I dont understand that electric current deviding plus and minus parts, because my opinion is that question is only one type electric-matter flowing process.
DC it goes forward one direction and AC it goes forward wave-vibration but still one direction.(Dc battery---dc/ac transformer---load, and when load is being on some time then battery comes empty, depend of what is the AH of battery, means electric charge.)

#### another_someone

• Guest
##### Re: Forces of nature and acceleration.
« Reply #5 on: 13/07/2006 19:32:57 »
quote:
Originally posted by heikki
But, what kind of physics or mathematical terms are "strong" and "weak" .... force? I dont understand that "strong" or "weak" terms on this issue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_force
quote:

The strong interaction or strong force is today understood to represent the interactions between quarks and gluons as detailed by the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The strong force is the fundamental force mediated by gluons, acting upon quarks, antiquarks, and the gluons themselves.
Although the strong force only acts upon elementary particles directly, the force is only observed interacting with hadrons as the nuclear force. As has been shown by many failed free quark searches, the elementary particles affected are unobservable directly. This phenomenon is called confinement, a theory which allows only hadrons to be seen.

#### History

Before the 1970s, when protons and neutrons were thought to be fundamental particles, the phrase "strong force" was what is today known as the nuclear force or the residual strong force. What were being observed were the "residual" effects of the strong force, which act on hadrons, both baryons and mesons. This force was postulated to overcome the electric repulsion between protons in the nucleus, and for its strength (at short distances) it was dubbed the "strong force". After the discovery of quarks, scientists realized that the force was actually acting upon the quarks and gluons making up the protons, not the protons themselves. For some time after this realization, the older notion was referred to as the residual strong force, and the "new" strong interaction was called colour force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force
quote:

The weak interaction (sometimes called the weak nuclear force) is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature. In the Standard Model of particle physics, it is due to the exchange of the heavy W and Z bosons. Its most familiar effect is beta decay (of neutrons in atomic nuclei) and the associated radioactivity. The predicate "weak" derives from the fact that the field strength is some 1013 times less than that of the nuclear force.

#### Properties

The weak interaction affects all left-handed leptons and quarks. It is the only force affecting neutrinos (except for gravitation, which is negligible on laboratory scales). The weak interaction is unique in a number of respects:
1.It is the only interaction capable of changing flavour.
2.It is the only interaction which violates parity symmetry P (because it only acts on left-handed particles). It is also the only one which violates CP.
3.It is mediated by heavy gauge bosons. This unusual feature is explained in the Standard Model by the Higgs mechanism.
Due to the large mass of the weak interaction's carrier particles (about 90 GeV/c2), their mean life is limited to about 3×10#8722;25 seconds by the uncertainty principle. Even at the speed of light this effectively limits the range of the weak interaction to 10#8722;18 meters, about 1000 times smaller than the diameter of an atomic nucleus.

George
« Last Edit: 13/07/2006 19:33:30 by another_someone »

#### heikki

• Full Member
• Posts: 56
##### Re: Forces of nature and acceleration.
« Reply #6 on: 15/07/2006 11:33:01 »
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone

quote:
Originally posted by heikki
But, what kind of physics or mathematical terms are "strong" and "weak" .... force? I dont understand that "strong" or "weak" terms on this issue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_force
quote:

The strong interaction or strong force is today understood to represent the interactions between quarks and gluons as detailed by the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The strong force is the fundamental force mediated by gluons, acting upon quarks, antiquarks, and the gluons themselves.
Although the strong force only acts upon elementary particles directly, the force is only observed interacting with hadrons as the nuclear force. As has been shown by many failed free quark searches, the elementary particles affected are unobservable directly. This phenomenon is called confinement, a theory which allows only hadrons to be seen.

#### History

Before the 1970s, when protons and neutrons were thought to be fundamental particles, the phrase "strong force" was what is today known as the nuclear force or the residual strong force. What were being observed were the "residual" effects of the strong force, which act on hadrons, both baryons and mesons. This force was postulated to overcome the electric repulsion between protons in the nucleus, and for its strength (at short distances) it was dubbed the "strong force". After the discovery of quarks, scientists realized that the force was actually acting upon the quarks and gluons making up the protons, not the protons themselves. For some time after this realization, the older notion was referred to as the residual strong force, and the "new" strong interaction was called colour force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force
quote:

The weak interaction (sometimes called the weak nuclear force) is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature. In the Standard Model of particle physics, it is due to the exchange of the heavy W and Z bosons. Its most familiar effect is beta decay (of neutrons in atomic nuclei) and the associated radioactivity. The predicate "weak" derives from the fact that the field strength is some 1013 times less than that of the nuclear force.

#### Properties

The weak interaction affects all left-handed leptons and quarks. It is the only force affecting neutrinos (except for gravitation, which is negligible on laboratory scales). The weak interaction is unique in a number of respects:
1.It is the only interaction capable of changing flavour.
2.It is the only interaction which violates parity symmetry P (because it only acts on left-handed particles). It is also the only one which violates CP.
3.It is mediated by heavy gauge bosons. This unusual feature is explained in the Standard Model by the Higgs mechanism.
Due to the large mass of the weak interaction's carrier particles (about 90 GeV/c2), their mean life is limited to about 3×10#8722;25 seconds by the uncertainty principle. Even at the speed of light this effectively limits the range of the weak interaction to 10#8722;18 meters, about 1000 times smaller than the diameter of an atomic nucleus.

George

Wikipedia keep inside also data which is not scientifical information.

My thought is that terms "strong" and "weak" is not scientifical information and therefore these terms is like "long" and "short" or etc.

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: Forces of nature and acceleration.
« Reply #7 on: 17/08/2006 01:17:53 »
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
The only justification I can see for arguing that it is a force at all is that it has to overcome the electrical charge force of the proton.  In other words, the strong force seems to have been invoked to overcome an anomaly in the electric force at very close range for some particles.
So, neutron stars are only speculative objects?

#### another_someone

• Guest
##### Re: Forces of nature and acceleration.
« Reply #8 on: 17/08/2006 02:09:12 »
quote:
Originally posted by lightarrow
So, neutron stars are only speculative objects?

Pulsars are not speculative, they are observed; but neutron stars are speculative.  We know that whatever powers a pulsar must be compact, but since we cannot directly prove what that compact source is, it must be regarded as speculative.

But, in any case, I was not questioning the existence of neutrons, or that neutrons can bind together into a structure (and thus, potentially that neutrons can form massive stellar objects).  All I was asking was, given the very short range of the supposed force that binds neutrons into a structure , and the inability to measure that force directly; I merely asked whether the force had ever been shown to obey the Newtonian formula F=MA?

F=MA is demonstrated to be true (at low speeds) for the two primary long range force, gravity and electromagnetism.  The question is whether it has ever been shown also to be true for the short range forces.

George

#### Mjhavok

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 468
##### Re: Forces of nature and acceleration.
« Reply #9 on: 17/08/2006 05:33:10 »
Pulsars are a cosmic source of rapid and regular bursts of radio waves. The time betweeen the successive radio pulses ranges between a few thousandths of a second for the so-called 'millisecond pulsars' to over 4 seconds for the slowest pulsars. Pulsars are collapsed neutron stars, having a mass similar to the Sun, but a diameter only 10km/6 mi or so. Over 1000 are known.

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: Forces of nature and acceleration.
« Reply #10 on: 17/08/2006 14:34:11 »
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
F=MA is demonstrated to be true (at low speeds) for the two primary long range force, gravity and electromagnetism.  The question is whether it has ever been shown also to be true for the short range forces.

Sincerely, I don't know the answer; before you put this question, I have always believed that from traiectories analysis of particle scattering, i.e. proton-proton, it was possible to compute accelerations and hence forces, quite precisely, but maybe I'm wrong.

#### Soul Surfer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3345
• keep banging the rocks together
##### Re: Forces of nature and acceleration.
« Reply #11 on: 19/08/2006 11:21:03 »
To go back to the original question.  You are visualising force as an electrical or magnetic inverse square type force.  The strong force is more like glue  sticky on contact.  hence the name "gluons" for the the particles that transmit it.  The weak force is different again this is more like a low probability alternative to what normally happens like droping a ball at random on a plate with holes just bigger than the ball most of the time the ball bounces back but just sometimes it goes straight through  alhough in thid cast in mostly goes straight through and just occasionally bouces off in a different direction when the interaction happens.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Forces of nature and acceleration.
« Reply #11 on: 19/08/2006 11:21:03 »