Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #407465

Re: "the weakest force"

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/02/2017 3:21 PM, RichD wrote:
> Something irks me about pop physics journalism:
> "gravity is the weakest of the 4 known forces"
>
> Well OK, if we assume Newton's model.  But in GR,
> gravity is geometry, blah blah, there are no force
> carriers, so how can it be compared to boson type
> interactions?
>
> But attend some professional colloquia, you still
> hear physicists speaking about this riddle, usually
> in the context of the 'fine-tuning' enigma.  As if
> they're comparable questions.
>
>
> Isn't it comparing chalk to cheese?  Is there any sense
> in this so-called "weakest force" riddle?
>
> --
> Rich
>

It takes a hell of a lot of mass to produce the same level of force as, 
say, can be produced electromagnetically. This is the sense in which it 
is the weakest force.

Sylvia.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

"the weakest force" RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-31 20:21 -0800
  Re: "the weakest force" Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-01 15:44 +1100
  Re: "the weakest force" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-01 07:52 +0000
  Re: "the weakest force" dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2017-02-01 05:50 -0800
  Re: "the weakest force" RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-01 10:29 -0800
    Re: "the weakest force" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 12:30 -0600

csiph-web