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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #407464 > unrolled thread

"the weakest force"

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  "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

#407464 — "the weakest force"

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#407465

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407472

RichD wrote:
>
> Something irks me about pop physics journalism:  
> "gravity is the weakest of the 4 known forces"

Four "kmown" forces?

No. The postulated Nuclear Forces are postulates,
not knowledge.

----snup----

Ned

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407480

Dear RichD:

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 9:21:10 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
...
> Isn't it comparing chalk to cheese?  Is there
> any sense in this so-called "weakest force" riddle?

Worse than chalk to cheese, more like "Rube Goldberg contraptions" (EM and nuclear forces) to "the National debt" (Relativity).  (No insults intended to any particular discipline...)

It is showing the indoctrination of Newtonian gravity, is coloring the discourse.  Which can only serve to limit approaches to unification, and blind those that accidentally hit on the glimmer of a good idea.

I just wish we'd do a better job of teaching children that these are just models, just guesses, and that the security blanket of "gravity is a force, so might need a force carrier" is something they have to discard later in life, if they enjoy physics and/or the study of Nature.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00012

David A. Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407500

On January 31, RichD wrote:
> Something irks me about pop physics journalism:  
> "gravity is the weakest of the 4 known forces"
> 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.

In the same vein, I heard a seminar speaker discussing 
research into fundamental physics, and he mentioned 
"the strong CP problem"; it's another of those questions 
that's more metaphysics than physics.

What the heck is that?

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407501

On 2/1/2017 12:29 PM, RichD wrote:
> On January 31, RichD wrote:
>> Something irks me about pop physics journalism:
>> "gravity is the weakest of the 4 known forces"
>> 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.
>
> In the same vein, I heard a seminar speaker discussing
> research into fundamental physics, and he mentioned
> "the strong CP problem"; it's another of those questions
> that's more metaphysics than physics.
>
> What the heck is that?
>
> --
> Rich
>

Google "CPT Theorem" and "CP violation".

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web