have different force fields different scales of influence?

[dapifo]

Have the different force fields different ranges of influence?

- Strong Field only govern in very small scales (aprox. 10 exp -18 to 10 exp -14)

- Weak Field only govern in small scales (aprox. 10 exp -14 to 10 exp -10)

- Gravity Field only govern in large scales (aprox. 10 exp -10 to 10 exp +30)

- EM Field could govern all scales (?)

And do they follow an Gaussian function (possible asymmetric)?

[tusenfem]

Yes, they ahve different ranges of influence as you write yourself already.
BUT:
What do you mean with "follow a Gaussian function"?
And if it is "asymmetric" is it still a Gaussian function?
Gravity goes as 1/r^2 so that's no Gaussian.

You will have to explain yourself a lot better if you want to get answers.

[dapifo]

No, I donīt refers to the distance from the object that follows an exponential law (F=M/r^2)

I am refering to the influence of one field forces/waves (strong, weak, gravity, EM,...) within a scale range.

For example, strong force/strength field acts / govern mainly within the nucleus of the atom (aprox. 10 exp -16 to 10 exp -14 meters), and in less influence on major (atoms and molecule: aprox. 10 exp -13 to 10 exp -10 meters) and minor (Quarks and electron :aprox. 10 exp -20 to 10 exp -17 meters) ranges.

And this influence messure decrease "following a Gaussian function" , althogh it could be asymmetric from the axis of symmetry (possibly 10 exp -15 meters).

[korjik]

as far as I know, none are gaussian. As a matter of fact, Strong and Weak cant be, cause a gaussian has an infinite range, and EM and gravity arent cause they are 1/r² not e^{-x^2}.

You already have the ranges.

[Shaula]

The forces have different coupling constants and different potentials. They also have differing amounts of charge neutralisation. The apparent ranges are a function of these factors, not something independent.

[Cougar]

- Gravity Field only govern in large scales (aprox. 10 exp -10 to 10 exp +30)

The effect of gravity drops off exponentially, but AFAIK, it never drops to zero.

As to its effect at ultra-small scales? This is an open question and an area of active research, "quantum gravity" currently being something like the holy grail.

[Hornblower]

Gaussian functions are useful statistically for analyzing any of these forces when we take measurements that have some inherent uncertainty. They enable us to calculate probabilities and error bars when deriving a force/distance function from the measurements.

[dapifo]

OK...thanks to the ... Order of Kilopi....for your answers.

So I can understand that yes...that the different force fields have different ranges of influence for different scales...

So for possibles scales very smalls (less than 10 exp -30 meters) and very larges (more than 10 exp +30 meters) could exist another type of force fields that we donīt know nowadays ?

[Shaula]

So for possibles scales very smalls (less than 10 exp -30 meters) and very larges (more than 10 exp +30 meters) could exist another type of force fields that we donīt know nowadays ?

You are still missing the point: Forces do now have inherent scales which they only operate over. There are some characteristic scales at which forces dominate for some cases but the scales are not important.

What I think you are asking is: Is it possible that there are some forces for which the coupling constant is so small that we cannot measure them locally? Is it possible that there are some forces that have such a sharply truncated potential that they are not measurable at laboratory scales? Again yes. But there should be some behaviours from which we can deduce that they are there. Look at MOND for example. Or fifth force solutions to the dark matter question. All of these theories are very, very tightly constrained by observations.

The next questions would be: What do these forces couple to? There would be a lot of quesions raised in the Standard model if they coupled to existing quantities. For example take the EM force. The symmetry that the EM field in invariant under the addition of the gradient of a scalar field leads directly to charge conservation. So any force coupling to charge must somehow preserve this symmetry or break charge conservation. Same applies to all the fields. So you new forces need to couple to something else. What? QFT is full of very delicate second and third order effects that have been tested and tested. So we end up constraining the types of boson allowed, what they couple to etc etc.

You really need a strong (stronger than mine) background in the basics of guage thery and QFT before you can meaninfully start to postulate extra forces.

[dapifo]

Thanks Shaula... MOND and QFT concepts are new for me...and agree that my knowledge is not at this level....

What I am trying to say that for every scale range could be differents forces fields and waves.... and physics laws would change...

We, as humans, only know a range of the spectrum...since 10 exp - 30 to 10 exp +30...and the forces fields and waves.... and physics laws that govern there....but further we will expand the spectrum farthest bounds ... discovering new...forces fields and waves.... and physics laws.

[Shaula]

If the laws of physics and so on change at those scales then you have a problem. It means that scale invariance is no longer a symmetry, that some of the dualities in String theory break... Basically your idea has a LOT of consequences and you really need to get a better handle on them to be able to work on this idea in acything like scientific way. The only way you have to avoid the consequences is to basically postulate that all physics is totally different at those scales and that all of the rules change and decouple from the rules we have now in a horribly contrived way. This makes your idea totally untestable (since any tests we could make would break the deep symmetries of QFT). Or, to take a simpler option, it makes your ideas as stated wrong or unscientific.

[dapifo]

Íīll give to you some examples:

- before 500 years ago we didnīt kow any force field
- 300 year ago we only know gravity force field.
- 200 years ago we know gravity and EM forces field.
- Just 100 years ago we knew the strong and weak force fields.

Do you think that these four forces fields are the only one?

[Hornblower]

Íīll give to you some examples:

- before 500 years ago we didnīt kow any force field
- 300 year ago we only know gravity force field.
- 200 years ago we know gravity and EM forces field.
- Just 100 years ago we knew the strong and weak force fields.

Do you think that these four forces fields are the only one?

Can you name any observations that might be evidence of any others?

[korjik]

Íīll give to you some examples:

- before 500 years ago we didnīt kow any force field
- 300 year ago we only know gravity force field.
- 200 years ago we know gravity and EM forces field.
- Just 100 years ago we knew the strong and weak force fields.

Do you think that these four forces fields are the only one?

Believe it or not, but generally scientists use science to figure out what is out there, not weak, irrelevant, semi-historical argumements.

The small end of things is quite well constrained. Even better now that they have some evidence of the Higgs. The large end of things is less well constrained, but even then it would require alot of error to show up in GR to get another force looked at. As a side note, dark energy dosent count. Einstein had it in the original theory.

[Shaula]

Íīll give to you some examples:

- before 500 years ago we didnīt kow any force field
- 300 year ago we only know gravity force field.
- 200 years ago we know gravity and EM forces field.
- Just 100 years ago we knew the strong and weak force fields.

Do you think that these four forces fields are the only one?

I'm going to enjoy this...

2000 years ago 2 forces were known (electric and magnetic)
1000 years ago 3 were known (electric, magnetic, gravity)
200 years ago 2 were known (Electric and magnetic were unified into EM, gravity)
80 years ago 3 were known (EM, weak, gravity)
50 years ago 4 were known (EM, weak, residual strong force, gravity)
40 years ago 4 were known but they were a different 4 (EM, weak, strong, gravity)
20 years ago 3 were known (Electroweak, strong, gravity)
15 years ago 2 were known (Electroweak/Strong, gravity)

I'm sorry, your point was?

[dapifo]

The point is that....

Do you think that these four (two?) forces fields are the only four (two?)?
Do you really think that the small end of things is quite well constrained?
Do you really think that the large end of universe, is what we see now?
Do you really think that we know mainly every thing about our Universe?

So ... then is better stop already researching ... and dedicate our time and money on other things!!

[caveman1917]

So ... then is better stop already researching ... and dedicate our time and money on other things!!

I think you're missing the point a bit. Nobody is saying to stop researching, but if you want to say there are other forces you'll have to come up with better evidence than "i think so".

Besides, the fact that we don't know everything about the universe does not in any way support the contention that there are other force fields. Whichever things that we may uncover in the future may not be related to a concept of force fields. For example GR has already stepped away from framing gravity as a force, and as for the others, i'm not sure how well you can put virtual particle interactions as being force fields.

[grapes]

The point is that....

Do you think that these four (two?) forces fields are the only four (two?)?K
Do you really think that the small end of things is quite well constrained?
Do you really think that the large end of universe, is what we see now?
Do you really think that we know mainly every thing about our Universe?

So ... then is better stop already researching ... and dedicate our time and money on other things!!

Point taken. Although I think it could have been made more directly. :)

However, we still have a few loose ends to tie up, so the funding is not going to disappear overnight. :)

[caveman1917]

However, we still have a few loose ends to tie up

Oh no, that's what we said at the end of the 19th century, and see what a mess that got us into :)

[Shaula]

Do you think that these four (two?) forces fields are the only four (two?)?

I think that there is no strong evidence for any more as of yet. I see no reason that there cannot be more provided they are consistent with current observations. These constrain pretty strongly the strengths of any undiscovered forces.

Do you really think that the small end of things is quite well constrained?

I do believe that any new physics that manifests at small scales (high energies) must approximate current physics in the low energy limit. That acts as a powerful constraint on smallest scale physics.

Do you really think that the large end of universe, is what we see now?

What do you mean by that? If you mean "Do you think that at the lasrgest scales current physics is still relevant" then the answer is yes. If you mean "Do you think the universe is larger than the observable universe" again, yes.

Do you really think that we know mainly every thing about our Universe?

Nope. But I do believe that current physics has set some powerful constraints that argue against your idea of everything being magically totally different when yopu change scale. Gauge theories twitch at that, we run into trouble with things like renormalisation and symmetries. I do not believe you have done enough background reading to appreciate this.

So ... then is better stop already researching ... and dedicate our time and money on other things!!

Nope, no idea where you got that idea from. I think there is a lot left to discover. I just don't like your rainbow idea. I think that there is good evidence against it and short of a rewrite of most of modern quantum field theory I don't see any reason to waste time on it.

[dapifo]

"your idea of everything being magically totally different when yopu change scale. "

I never said this...To be different doesnīt mind that they are independent (!!!)....they could be different but dependent, and based on the same principles and roles.

"I just don't like your rainbow idea"

OK...I accept your opinion...but then ... which is your idea about very large scales?

I see that you believe that Planck dimension is the smaler possible...and this is an scale "end limit" of Our Universe.

But you accept the posibility that could be very larger scales...Do you think that same fields (forces) and laws will be enough there?...there will be other scale "end limit" there?

[Shaula]

I see that you believe that Planck dimension is the smaler possible...and this is an scale "end limit" of Our Universe.

No, I don't actually.

[dapifo]

OK..so you believe that we have to enlarge more the boundaries of Our Universe in both ways : smaller and larger scales?

Then...Do you think that same fields (forces) and laws of Our Universe will be enough there?...

[dapifo]

Can you name any observations that might be evidence of any others?

I donīt understand what do you mean....

Oh no, that's what we said at the end of the 19th century, and see what a mess that got us into :)

You see?....some times I have the same feeling you ... the people are very resistant to change and progress ... as 1000 years ago as the nineteenth century ... and, oddly enough, it is now.

I was hoping that these previous experiences have served to people of science were more receptive and open. But apparently not, and that this attribute of human beings is not cultural but genetic.

[Strange]

I was hoping that these previous experiences have served to people of science were more receptive and open.

People are receptive and open to new ideas. As long as there is some reason to listen to and accept the new ideas. There is no point being open to every idea anyone can make up. An important part of scientific training is learning how to test ideas. Yours are not even testable.

[Hornblower]

I donīt understand what do you mean....



You see?....some times I have the same feeling you ... the people are very resistant to change and progress ... as 1000 years ago as the nineteenth century ... and, oddly enough, it is now.

I was hoping that these previous experiences have served to people of science were more receptive and open. But apparently not, and that this attribute of human beings is not cultural but genetic.

My bold. Can you show us any convincing evidence of a genetic component?

Many people are hidebound, but luminaries such as Newton and Einstein were not. They were able to venture with open minds into creating idealized thought exercises in what at the time was against-the-mainstream or outside-the-mainstream territory, and develop theories that accurately predicted observations that were not yet doable but subsequently were enabled by improved technology. These theories were embraced by the scientific mainstream because their creators did good, methodical work in developing and presenting. They were not shot-in-the-dark speculation. A certain amount of speculation is fine in thinking up possibilities, but lots of work is needed to narrow down and test them.

The burden is on you to show us a thought exercise in which a hypothetical force that is significant only on scales larger than the observable universe could help in solving some of the mysteries of what we can observe.

[dapifo]

Shaula, Thanks a lot for your answers that are very interesting and useful for me. They give to me a better knowing and knowlege of the "State of the Art" of physics.

But I wish, not forgetting this knowledge, that you do the effort to ask yourself what would happen if a renowned scientist will propose this idea to you.

And he will propose you to do an exercise of imagination to understand the Global Universe as infinite from the point of view of the scales. Both to big or to small.

Do not be aware that is what's stopping you, but as it should reconsider the current knowledge to this was so. Sure you'd be able to visualize approach.

I mean...if you have as an unquestionable concept that hearth is flat... there are problems and fallacies, which disappear when you see that

Then it is clear that we must show that really is spherical

I do believe that current physics has set some powerful constraints that argue against your idea of everything being magically totally different when yopu change scale. Gauge theories twitch at that, we run into trouble with things like renormalisation and symmetries. I do not believe you have done enough background reading to appreciate this.

I think that there is good evidence against it and short of a rewrite of most of modern quantum field theory I don't see any reason to waste time on it.

I do not think my approach would oblige to rethink current physical laws, rather the contrary.

When I imagined this proposal about the scales, I never thought that no one had raised before. I searched the internet about it ... but my except Telmark levels.

I saw it so obvious...that I never could imagine that people objected.

I could understand they told me that there was no evidence, but that the idea already raised as one possible within the physical landscape.

[Shaula]

But I wish, not forgetting this knowledge, that you do the effort to ask yourself what would happen if a renowned scientist will propose this idea to you.

I would tell them that their ideas were wrong. Just like I would you. Argument by authority has no place in my world. But a scientist would not come to me with ideas in this form - they would have testable predictions and would have worked through the implications of their ideas.

I do not think my approach would oblige to rethink current physical laws, rather the contrary.

You are wrong. You do not understand the mainstream well enough to justify having that opinion. I have given you lots of reasons that it would cause problems, lots of things that would have to be tested.

Then...Do you think that same fields (forces) and laws of Our Universe will be enough there?...

I would stop trying to work out what I believe. You won't get it right and your questions will only mislead you. I am not going to tell you which bits of speculative mainstream I favour because it would do no good. You would take any response as more support for your idea. I can pick bits of the mainstream extended models that I like or dislike and favour them where there is no evidence to tell them apart. But I have to be flexible enough to accept that they may very well be wrong. You seem to have a belief, you are holding to it and refusing to accept anything that disagrees with it. I am not going to provide you with ammunition in the form of misunderstandable snippets of my personal opinions. This is Q&A. You ask a question, you get mainstream answers. You accept them or move to ATM to argue your ideas.

[dapifo]

My bold. Can you show us any convincing evidence of a genetic component?

Many people are hidebound, but luminaries such as Newton and Einstein were not. They were able to venture with open minds into creating idealized thought exercises in what at the time was against-the-mainstream or outside-the-mainstream territory, and develop theories that accurately predicted observations that were not yet doable but subsequently were enabled by improved technology. These theories were embraced by the scientific mainstream because their creators did good, methodical work in developing and presenting. They were not shot-in-the-dark speculation. A certain amount of speculation is fine in thinking up possibilities, but lots of work is needed to narrow down and test them.

The burden is on you to show us a thought exercise in which a hypothetical force that is significant only on scales larger than the observable universe could help in solving some of the mysteries of what we can observe.

It is clear that I am not Einstein or Newton ... until now (!?) ... I hope that when my theory about the 3D RAINBOW being accepted, they remember me at this level (!?)

I'm just using common sense!. Although I must admit that my common sense usually goes far beyond what people can understand.

It's hard to explain typing. I guess it would be easier talking and a with blackboard with colored markers.

But ... you now? ... Now I think my major problem is: Do not understand or visualize where you see so many problems with this simple and easy proposal (!!!)

Gives the feeling that I am revolutionizing all physical theories (!?) ...When it is only a proposal that expands the possibilities for them.

Could you tell me where do you see the big problem or obstacle?

[dapifo]

I would tell them that their ideas were wrong. Just like I would you. Argument by authority has no place in my world. But a scientist would not come to me with ideas in this form - they would have testable predictions and would have worked through the implications of their ideas. .

I agree with you, but I donīt have time and money to do it (!!)...If I had I will be not here....I would write an article...and now I would be famous...

You are wrong. You do not understand the mainstream well enough to justify having that opinion. I have given you lots of reasons that it would cause problems, lots of things that would have to be tested..

You are right...thanks !!!

I would stop trying to work out what I believe. You won't get it right and your questions will only mislead you. I am not going to tell you which bits of speculative mainstream I favour because it would do no good. You would take any response as more support for your idea. I can pick bits of the mainstream extended models that I like or dislike and favour them where there is no evidence to tell them apart. But I have to be flexible enough to accept that they may very well be wrong. You seem to have a belief, you are holding to it and refusing to accept anything that disagrees with it. I am not going to provide you with ammunition in the form of misunderstandable snippets of my personal opinions. This is Q&A. You ask a question, you get mainstream answers. You accept them or move to ATM to argue your ideas.

What is ATM ?