# Thread: Is the Uncertainty Principle only an scale problem?

1. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,059
We accept that forces behave differently over different distances. No one is arguing that. What we are pointing out that this is in no way evidence for anything other than the force being associated with a potential. You seem to be trying to spin this into some incredibly significant aspect of the way the universe works.

Plus at tiny scales gravity can become important. It depends on the mass in that tiny area. That is the whole problem we hit trying to push the big bang cosmology backwards in time - at some point gravity has to be taken into account at the smallest scales. And we don't know how to do that. So your second point about gravity is patently false if you consider the history of the cosmos and not just what you can look at now.

2. Originally Posted by Shaula
We accept that forces behave differently over different distances. No one is arguing that. What we are pointing out that this is in no way evidence for anything other than the force being associated with a potential. You seem to be trying to spin this into some incredibly significant aspect of the way the universe works.
Here you have another example were there are an confusing between distance and scale:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...16#post2043416

And your first explanation is a clear confusing in the same way: "We accept that forces behave differently over different distances. No one is arguing that. What we are pointing out that this is in no way evidence for anything other than the force being associated with a potential"...Here you make the same mistake.

Originally Posted by Shaula
Plus at tiny scales gravity can become important. It depends on the mass in that tiny area. That is the whole problem we hit trying to push the big bang cosmology backwards in time - at some point gravity has to be taken into account at the smallest scales. And we don't know how to do that. So your second point about gravity is patently false if you consider the history of the cosmos and not just what you can look at now.
But if we see the cosmos just what you can look at now...Which influence has the gravity within a molecule or an atom? (SCALE 10^ī10)....And Which influence has the weak and strong between two stars? (ESCALE 10^+10).

I understand that is difficult to become accustomed to think in this way...it needs just a change of mind.

Please, if you have any graph soft tool...make the following graph over a 2D coordinate axis:

X = coodinate: UNIVERSE SCALES in a logarithmic scale (10^EXP)....Were in the origin is the 10^0 and EXP negatives goes to left and EXP positives to right.

Y = FIELS (Gravity, weak, strong and EM) INFLUENCE: I donīt have clear how to represent it???... What magnitude? ...Will be somethig like Force between bodies and distances of different magnitudes (??).

I see something like:

EM is a horizontal line (constant)
Weak and Strong will be something like an non symetric gaussian law with the middle on the aprox. 10^-14 meters.
Gravity like and exponential line Y= K (10 ^ EXP) ^ 2
Last edited by dapifo; 2012-Aug-05 at 11:25 AM.

3. Originally Posted by dapifo
OK...just an example...http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...40#post2049840

But do you agree with me that?:

- The influence of weak or strong fields for scales of 10^+20 meters is very few and almost nule ....isnīt it?
- And that the influence of Gravity field for scales of 10^-20 meters is also very few and almost nule ....isnīt it?

It seems that you donīt want to accept what is an evidence !!!
Can you tell us, in appropriate technical detail, what sort of evidence you think we are rejecting? I don't think anyone denies that gravity is vanishingly weak compared with nuclear forces at extremely short distances, or that the nuclear forces are vanishingly weak compared to gravity at large distances.

4. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,059
I am perfectly aware of the difference between distance and scale and am not mixing the two up. You are pointedly ignoring the problems with positing change in rules over different scales as has been pointed out over and over again to you. You also seem to be mixing up the ideas of coupling constants and the strength of a force. And ignoring unification theories. EM and weak forces are the same force, for example. Which rather damages your ideas about them being examples of scale dependent forces.

You are also ignoring evidence yourself. We have plenty of evidence for the big bang cosmology and plenty of evidence from it that over small scales gravity can be important. But you dismiss this. Why? Because it doesn't fit into your ideas?

You tell me to plot a graph and then cannot even tell me what to plot? Really? Suggest you go firm up your ideas before suggesting nugatory work.

I understand that is difficult to become accustomed to think in this way...it needs just a change of mind.
Yes, it would require me to ignore and forget what I know about physics, adopt a handwaving approach to physical modelling and ignore about fifteen years of experience. Not sure I want to do that just to see the universe as a rainbow, thanks.

5. Originally Posted by Hornblower
Can you tell us, in appropriate technical detail, what sort of evidence you think we are rejecting?
Just the following sentence you say latter:

Originally Posted by Hornblower
I don't think anyone denies that gravity is vanishingly weak compared with nuclear forces at extremely short distances, or that the nuclear forces are vanishingly weak compared to gravity at large distances.
It is the first time that I read this from somebody in this forum.....till now no body accepted this !!!

With the only difference that when you say distances...I say scales...that is very different !!!...you agree with this change?

Originally Posted by Shaula
I am perfectly aware of the difference between distance and scale and am not mixing the two up.
Then...do you agree with the above sentence?: "gravity is vanishingly weak compared with nuclear forces at extremely short scales, or that the nuclear forces are vanishingly weak compared to gravity at large scales."

Originally Posted by Shaula
You are pointedly ignoring the problems with positing change in rules over different scales as has been pointed out over and over again to you.
I donīt understand what do you mean....

Originally Posted by Shaula
You also seem to be mixing up the ideas of coupling constants and the strength of a force.
No...I donīt

Originally Posted by Shaula
And ignoring unification theories. EM and weak forces are the same force, for example.
Yes...that is new for me!!!....Is it true that EM farce (field) is the same than weak force (field)???... or unification theories only define a unifyed model to join both forces (fields)???

Originally Posted by Shaula
Which rather damages your ideas about them being examples of scale dependent forces.
I donīt understand what do you mean....

Originally Posted by Shaula
You are also ignoring evidence yourself. We have plenty of evidence for the big bang cosmology and plenty of evidence from it that over small scales gravity can be important. But you dismiss this. Why? Because it doesn't fit into your ideas?
I never said this!!!...I only said: "gravity is vanishingly weak compared with nuclear forces at extremely short scales[/B], or that the [B]nuclear forces are vanishingly weak compared to gravity at large scales."

Originally Posted by Shaula
You tell me to plot a graph and then cannot even tell me what to plot? Really? Suggest you go firm up your ideas before suggesting nugatory work.
I will try to do by my self....I was just was trying that you think about this... and that you understand what I tryed to say to you.

Originally Posted by Shaula
Yes, it would require me to ignore and forget what I know about physics, adopt a handwaving approach to physical modelling and ignore about fifteen years of experience. Not sure I want to do that just to see the universe as a rainbow, thanks.
Shaula...I thanks to you very much for your very good explanations...I said to you several times that I learned a lot with them...But only there are some misunderstandings with you, possible due to my poor English and my low level of of academic physics....and its state of the art....but what I am saying is not anything strange...possible we donīt understand one to the other !!!

6. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,059
.Is it true that EM farce (field) is the same than weak force (field)???
Yes. They are both part of an underlying electroweak force. This is very important to modern physics because the Higgs mechanism was first proposed to explain why the vector bosons of the weak field are massive while the photon is massless. So when you say "weak forces are small scale forces and "gravity is a large scale force" you are hitting issues in that above certain energy scales they are the same force with the same coupling constants.

gravity is vanishingly weak compared with nuclear forces at extremely short scales
And I am saying to you that the scale is irrelevant. If I jam a few solar masses of material into something the size of an atom then gravity is important. As I said, there is a potential which defines an effective range for a force and associated charges. The interplay between the two defines the effective strength/range of a force.

And as was pointed out elsewhere the concept of symmetry and gauge invariance are very important to modern field theories. With appropriate transformations forces have to be scale independent in order to satisfy the conditions for some of their conservation laws. Changing the rules at different scales makes these symmetries approximate and would have observable effects on things like energy conservation.

7. OK...So now we can say that there are tree fields; Gravity, Strong ans...electroweak !!!

For me weak was the field who mantain the electrons arround the nucleus... and EM the magnetic field and EM waves and photons.....then weak field (force) is an EM field ?!!!

OK I agree that if you jam a few solar masses of material into something the size of an atom then gravity is important..at nuclear size...BUT... IS IT POSSIBLE?

And OK, I Know that the concept of symmetry and gauge invariance are very important to be space (location) independent... but I didnīt that also to be scale independet !!!... You told me it somewere...but I thought you confunde scale and space.... But are you sure that reffers to scale???

8. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
Originally Posted by dapifo
Shaula...I thanks to you very much for your very good explanations...I said to you several times that I learned a lot with them...But only there are some misunderstandings with you, possible due to my poor English and my low level of of academic physics....and its state of the art....but what I am saying is not anything strange...possible we donīt understand one to the other !!!

This is an interesting thread. I applaud the CQuestians who have tried so hard to explain various aspects of modern physics with just words and no reference to underlying mathematics.

I have a question for you, dapifo, if I may: given that you yourself acknowledge a (very?) limited understanding of modern physics, why is it that you think* you can grasp the key concepts folk such as Shaula refer to?

To use my own experience as an example: after I grasped (albeit only vaguely) the intimate relationship between conservation laws (in physics) and symmetries, I gained an appreciation of just how wide and deep the concepts of 'force laws' is, at least as applied to the electro-weak and strong forces. For gravity, my 'aha moment' came when I realised just how radically different General Relativity is, as a description of gravity, from the other forces (or, more accurately, the theories of those forces); just five words can capture such profound insights: 'background dependent vs background independent'. I would say, based on my own experience, that when you can grasp what those five words mean (in this context), you will be able to answer nearly all the questions you have asked in this thread, for yourself.

On the other hand, I feel that as long as you continue to struggle with these deep concepts, without the benefit of a decent physics education, you will continue to fail to grasp the core essentials.

* I should add "apparently", as in apparently think

9. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
Originally Posted by dapifo
OK...So now we can say that there are tree fields; Gravity, Strong ans...electroweak !!!

For me weak was the field who mantain the electrons arround the nucleus... and EM the magnetic field and EM waves and photons.....then weak field (force) is an EM field ?!!!
I think this post of yours, dapifo, neatly illustrates what I mentioned in my last post.

The electroweak force is one force ... but at the low energies we encounter, here and now, it manifests itself as two difference forces (i.e. the weak, and electromagnetism). But how is that possible?!? Cue 'symmetry breaking' ...

OK I agree that if you jam a few solar masses of material into something the size of an atom then gravity is important..at nuclear size...BUT... IS IT POSSIBLE?
As a Gedankenexperiment, yes, of course it's possible.

Does the universe seem to do something like this? Yes, frequently (cue a discussion of 'black holes').

And OK, I Know that the concept of symmetry and gauge invariance are very important to be space (location) independent... but I didnīt that also to be scale independet !!!... You told me it somewere...but I thought you confunde scale and space.... But are you sure that reffers to scale???
Other CQuestians may have a different opinion, but I think you have no hope of being able to understand - really understand - the distinction here (as it applies to the force laws of modern physics) unless and until you have a certain minimal facility in certain areas of mathematics. And that leads me to this question: are you prepared to put the time and effort in to acquire that minimal capability?

10. Originally Posted by dapifo
Parallel Worlds (Michio Kaku 2004)
Is there anyone else out there bothered by Michio Kaku? I see him everywhere but I have yet to hear anything from him that is anything more than tortured metaphor and poppycock.

Anywhich way, as a layman reading through various papers on QM research and theory, the less I'm convinced that there at the quantum level that there are particles and more that the particles we ascribe to our observations is more quanta of energy being absorbed and exciting atoms. The more you try to say that what we are observing are particles, the more I think it is poppycock.

But then again, I'm only a layman.

I won't enter the whole determinism debate or any of the philosophical woo.

11. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,059
For me weak was the field who mantain the electrons arround the nucleus... and EM the magnetic field and EM waves and photons.....then weak field (force) is an EM field ?!!!
No no no no no. The weak field is the one responsible for stuff like beta decay. The EM force is responsible for the attraction between the nucleus and electronics. The weak field is NOT an EM field. This is really critical. The weak field and the EM field are both low energy manifestations of a fundamental underlying force, the electroweak force. The weak and EM field are equal in the relationship, the weak field is not an EM field, the EM field is not a weak field.

OK I agree that if you jam a few solar masses of material into something the size of an atom then gravity is important..at nuclear size...BUT... IS IT POSSIBLE?
Yes. As I have said before, look at the big bang cosmology. To the best of our knowledge it happened. And our inability to unify gravity with the other forces is intimiately linked to why we don't have a model that goes back further than our current ones do.

And OK, I Know that the concept of symmetry and gauge invariance are very important to be space (location) independent... but I didnīt that also to be scale independet !!!... You told me it somewere...but I thought you confunde scale and space.... But are you sure that reffers to scale???
In String theory the scale factor is critically important. One of the core dualities is related to the scale transforms of one theory being analogous to coupling constant transforms of another.

OK...So now we can say that there are tree fields; Gravity, Strong ans...electroweak !!!
Go back further and it is pretty well established that there are probably only 2. Further back it is thought that there is only 1.

12. Originally Posted by dapifo
With the only difference that when you say distances...I say scales...that is very different !!!...you agree with this change?
No. As already stated above, scale and distance are not the same thing. You also need to define what you mean by "scale" because it isn't entirely clear.

Then...do you agree with the above sentence?: "gravity is vanishingly weak compared with nuclear forces at extremely short scales, or that the nuclear forces are vanishingly weak compared to gravity at large scales."
Only if you define "scale" to mean "distance".

13. What do you mean with 'background dependent vs background independent'....

Wel...Iīll try to introduce you my self...I am Industrial Engineer with a large experience in management of multidisciplinary technological and industrial projects.

My background is not the more basic and academic physics...and also the last state of the art of it.

My knowledge and xperience is more focussed to "practical" physics and technology (within Euclid Space andNewton and Maxwell Physics)...but also I know roughly about more complex physics from my University years and reading about it.

But never I had the possibility of eschanging opinions and ideas with Academic and Experts Physics with a deeper knowledge of these concepts.

So...it is not true that I donīt have the enough background and education to understand high maths and physics concepts...I just only need to refresh and update myself about them.

It is possible that the way to do it has been fortuitous ...just trying to contrast with experts an old idea that was in my head...Idea, that I think, it is not so crasy and fetched as you say...but possible it needs some academic physics and maths contents...

14. Originally Posted by Nereid
Other CQuestians may have a different opinion, but I think you have no hope of being able to understand - really understand - the distinction here (as it applies to the force laws of modern physics) unless and until you have a certain minimal facility in certain areas of mathematics. And that leads me to this question: are you prepared to put the time and effort in to acquire that minimal capability?
Yes..sure I do !!!...but only in a general way...Main ideas...I am not able now to go deeper in very complex maths and physics details !!!

15. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,059
Then I would suggest you start with quantum mechanics. Go from there to quantum field theory. Then you can delve into the symmetry groups that are key to a lot of these arguments. You have an idea but to be honest you are simply not able to make statements like:
Idea, that I think, it is not so crasy and fetched as you say...but possible it needs some academic physics and maths contents...
Until you understand the arguments being put to you.

I am a physicist, although my theoretical stuff is rusty. I would not say to you "I have an idea for a way to better run your production lines and design teams. Never really done it before, don't have any evidence, but I don't think your arguments are good enough to dismiss my idea".

16. Originally Posted by Shaula
No no no no no. The weak field is the one responsible for stuff like beta decay. The EM force is responsible for the attraction between the nucleus and electronics. The weak field is NOT an EM field. This is really critical. The weak field and the EM field are both low energy manifestations of a fundamental underlying force, the electroweak force. The weak and EM field are equal in the relationship, the weak field is not an EM field, the EM field is not a weak field.
OK..I see...I was wrong...

What do you mean with : the weak field is not an EM field, the EM field is not a weak field...That there are only an electroweak field?

Originally Posted by Shaula
Yes. As I have said before, look at the big bang cosmology. To the best of our knowledge it happened. And our inability to unify gravity with the other forces is intimiately linked to why we don't have a model that goes back further than our current ones do.
I donīt understand what means with: "why we don't have a model that goes back further than our current ones do"

Originally Posted by Shaula
In String theory the scale factor is critically important. One of the core dualities is related to the scale transforms of one theory being analogous to coupling constant transforms of another.
These concepts are out of my knowledge....

Originally Posted by Shaula
Go back further and it is pretty well established that there are probably only 2. Further back it is thought that there is only 1.
Do you mean that if we are able to unify forces theories... then we are also unifying the fields?

17. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
OK, thanks for the responses, dapifo. Though I must say I'm rather puzzled; with your background (per your post), I can't see why you have - apparently - so badly confused 'scale' and 'distance'.

Take this part of your post, for example: "Then...do you agree with the above sentence?: "gravity is vanishingly weak compared with nuclear forces at extremely short scales, or that the nuclear forces are vanishingly weak compared to gravity at large scales."" As Strange already pointed out, it seems that you are using 'scale' as a synonym for 'distance' here; are you?

Here's one take on what you seem to be interested in: the three 'force laws' of modern physics - electroweak, strong, and gravity - seem to be able to describe (or account for, or explain) every reliable, relevant experimental result and every astronomical observation so far. So, we can say that he universe seems to behave exactly as these three force laws describe, to the limits of our powers of experiment and observation.

If you accept that, then answer to your original question - "Is the Uncertainty Principle only an scale problem?" - is no. As has been pointed out, by many others, earlier in this thread.

If you do not accept that, well, a new thread in the ATM section beckons ...

But, and this is a very big "but", the very foundations of the "gravity force law" and of the "electroweak and strong force laws" are mutually inconsistent, or incompatible! Which is an astonishing and wonderful thing. And a powerful motivation to physicists to develop better theories, ones which 'reduce to' the three force laws of modern physics, 'in the appropriate limit', and which do not contain fundamental inconsistencies.

Sadly, there seems no way to be able to reliably test any such better theories, if only because the physical regimes in which the mutual incompatibility of the two types of force laws become manifest are far, far, far, far, far beyond anything we can hope to create in any lab, and likely far, far beyond any astronomical observations we can hope to make (at least in the lifetime of anyone reading this post in 2012).

18. Originally Posted by Strange
No. As already stated above, scale and distance are not the same thing. You also need to define what you mean by "scale" because it isn't entirely clear.
It is clear...SCALE of dimension...size....

Originally Posted by Strange
Only if you define "scale" to mean "distance".
No..that is different !!!

One atom has an scale (dimension, size) of aprox 10^-13 meters...The Earth ..10^+7 meters...and galaxy 10^+20 meters

But the distance between them could be very different....it depends on X1-Y1-Z1 vs X2-Y2-Z2 positions

19. Originally Posted by Shaula
Then I would suggest you start with quantum mechanics. Go from there to quantum field theory. Then you can delve into the symmetry groups that are key to a lot of these arguments.
OK...Iīll try...but only in a general way...

I will try to know more about "symetry groups"....

Originally Posted by Shaula
You have an idea but to be honest you are simply not able to make statements like:

Until you understand the arguments being put to you.
I agree with you...but what I donīt see so strange...(??)

What I donīt like to believe is that the Universe (physics laws,...) we know are all that exist....I am sure that it only is a very small part of it...and that if we see it in this way...then we could understand it better.

20. Originally Posted by dapifo
One atom has an scale (dimension, size) of aprox 10^-13 meters...The Earth ..10^+7 meters...and galaxy 10^+20 meters

But the distance between them could be very different....it depends on X1-Y1-Z1 vs X2-Y2-Z2 positions
Which is why the important factor is distance not size (scale).

Two protons in the nucleus are bound by the strong nuclear force because they are close together. There is also a gravitational force between them but it is much, much smaller and can be ignored.

Two protons on opposite sides of the galaxy are "bound" by gravity (of each other and all the other mass in the galaxy). The strong force between them is non-existent.

See, distance not scale.

21. Originally Posted by dapifo
What do you mean with : the weak field is not an EM field, the EM field is not a weak field...That there are only an electroweak field?
The electromagnetic force (field/interaction) is different from the weak force (field/interaction). But they can be unified at sufficiently high energy to a single electroweak force (field/interaction).

I donīt understand what means with: "why we don't have a model that goes back further than our current ones do"
Back in time, earlier in the history of the universe.

Do you mean that if we are able to unify forces theories... then we are also unifying the fields?
Forces/fields - different aspects of the same thing.

22. Originally Posted by dapifo
OK...Iīll try...but only in a general way...
I don't think it is possible to understand symmetry groups in a "general way"; it certainly isn't useful.

What I donīt like to believe is that the Universe (physics laws,...) we know are all that exist
All scientists are quite certain the the physics we currently know is all that exists. There are all sorts of areas of research going on the extend the boundaries of what we know.

if we see it in this way...then we could understand it better
What you are doing is equivalent to someone coming to your production line and say, "you could improve that by using a frobulator." You say, "what's a frobulator?" and he says, "I don't know, I'm not the expert - you work it out."

[As English is not your native language I should, perhaps, point out that frobulator is a meaningless word I made up for this example]

23. Originally Posted by Nereid
OK, thanks for the responses, dapifo. Though I must say I'm rather puzzled; with your background (per your post), I can't see why you have - apparently - so badly confused 'scale' and 'distance'.
No...I think is the contrary...see the previous thread:

One atom has an scale (dimension, size) of aprox 10^-13 meters...The Earth ..10^+7 meters...and galaxy 10^+20 meters

But the distance between them could be very different....it depends on X1-Y1-Z1 vs X2-Y2-Z2 positions

Originally Posted by Nereid
Take this part of your post, for example: "Then...do you agree with the above sentence?: "gravity is vanishingly weak compared with nuclear forces at extremely short scales, or that the nuclear forces are vanishingly weak compared to gravity at large scales."" As Strange already pointed out, it seems that you are using 'scale' as a synonym for 'distance' here; are you?
No...here I mean scale..and this sentence is not mine...is from Hornblower, just changin distance by scale !!!

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...76#post2051076

Originally Posted by Nereid
If you accept that, then answer to your original question - "Is the Uncertainty Principle only an scale problem?" - is no. As has been pointed out, by many others, earlier in this thread.
No....I agree...It seems to be an basic principle...but I donīt like that "God plays dice"....

24. Originally Posted by dapifo
No...here I mean scale..and this sentence is not mine...is from Hornblower, just changin distance by scale !!!
But you have just been arguing that they are different, so why are you arbitrarily changing one to the other?

No....I agree...It seems to be an basic principle...but I donīt like that "God plays dice"....
Well, it seems that not only does the universe play dice but it doesn't care what you think about it

25. Originally Posted by Strange
But you have just been arguing that they are different, so why are you arbitrarily changing one to the other?
If you read this post...you will understand:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...30#post2051230

Originally Posted by Strange
Well, it seems that not only does the universe play dice but it doesn't care what you think about it
Still I have to speak seriously with him !!!!

26. Originally Posted by Shaula
Then I would suggest you start with quantum mechanics. Go from there to quantum field theory. Then you can delve into the symmetry groups that are key to a lot of these arguments.
Well...I can try to understand routhly the QM: forces, particles,...

But I have to admit that will be impossible to understand "symmetry groups": Lagrangian mechanics, Gauge theory,...

If it is necessary to know them to understand roughly physics....then I have to to resign !!!!

27. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
946
I think the term "uncertainty" is a bit misleading, because it implies that there is something that is the case but that we just can't be certain exactly what it is. For example if we say that if we know the position of a particle then we can't know the momentum with certainty; but this is the misleading part: If we can't know the momentum with certainty this means there exists in reality a momentum that we are uncertain of. My understanding is that if we measure the position exactly it makes no sense to make a simultaneous exact measurement of momentum. This is because the experimental setups for measuring these variables are fundamentally mutually exclusive (complimentary).

28. Originally Posted by dapifo
If you read this post...you will understand:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...30#post2051230
That is the post where you decided to replace "distance" with "scale".

On the one hand you say they are different and shouldn't be confused, but then you decide to switch them about. Why is that?

29. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,059
If it is necessary to know them to understand roughly physics....then I have to to resign !!!!
Then you will have to resign. To do what you are trying to do requires more than just rough physics. It requires some quite indepth study. If you are not going to do that then you will always be relying on someone else to do that hard work for you. And since people are generally not willing to spend all their time working out the details of someone else's vague ideas you are not going to get very far.

What do you mean with : the weak field is not an EM field, the EM field is not a weak field...That there are only an electroweak field?
Strange covered this pretty well. There is only one underlying field but at low energies it manifests as two forces due to an underlying symmetry breaking (which coincidentally gives mass to the vector bosons and gives us some very important insights into the universe)

I donīt understand what means with: "why we don't have a model that goes back further than our current ones do"
As Strange said, our models break down in the very early universe at the point when gravity becomes equal in strength (roughly) to the other forces due to the extreme conditions. Since QM And GR are so far highly resistant to unification we cannot model what is happening at this point in time or any moments in time preceding this point.

These concepts are out of my knowledge....
They are highly relevant to what you are talking about. Suggest you read someone like Brian Greene who has written some very accessible String Theory books. While it may not be the theory we are looking for the underlying maths and concepts are valuable things to study.

Do you mean that if we are able to unify forces theories... then we are also unifying the fields?
This is highly related to symmetry groups. This page gives you some idea what you need to study to understand unification of forces more completely. I am rusty on the underlying theory, but the essence is that each of the force is associated with a symmetry group (a set of transformations under which it is invariant). These symmetry groups are in turn part of larger groups and by finding groups that contain all the observed symmetries we can unify the forces into one description. It is easier to do this at higher energy scales because the coupling constants for all the forces are affected by energy scale. At higher energy scales the forces behave more like each other and can be described as one force when their coupling constants run together. The structure of the symmetry groups are critical to understanding how this happens. This page gives a description of how the groups SU(2) and U(1) are unified as electroweak force. The U(1) part eventually relates (in a non-trivial way) to the EM part of the theory while the SU(2) and a component of the U(1) field (strictly this is only true thanks to the Higgs mechanism, the basic weak field is described by SU(2) but the Z boson has a relationship to the U(1) group thanks to it being a mixed state of the W and B bosons) show up in the weak force.

I hope I have not made any glaring errors in this. Physics is not easy when you are getting into this level of detail and I am trying to remember stuff I studied fifteen years ago and have only read stuff on since. If you want to develop a TOE then you need to understand this far better than I do.

30. Originally Posted by Strange
That is the post where you decided to replace "distance" with "scale".

On the one hand you say they are different and shouldn't be confused, but then you decide to switch them about. Why is that?
If you see ,,,in the thread Iīm asking if the change is accepted.

From my poin of view the sentence of Hornblower is incorrect....but if we change distance by scale...for me is correct !!!

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•