Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[Ziggurat]

In other words, and on the face of it, the attraction or repulsion of two like charges should depend upon the speed the frame of reference in which they are observed. I don't see how that works - not that I want to make a big deal out of it.

Well, you can think of magnetism as the consequence of sonsidering Coulomb attraction and repulsion plus relativistic length contraction.

So first let's consider two parallel wires, with parallel currents. We can consider each wire as if it were composed of a line of positive charges (the nuclei) and a line of negative charges (the electrons), where the positive charges are stationary relative to the lab and the negative charges are moving relative to the lab. First, let's consider the forces on the positive nuclei in the wires. In the reference frame of the nuclei, there is no net charge on either wire, so there is no net Coulomb force on the nuclei in either wire. There is a magnetic field, but the charges aren't moving, so there is no force from this magnetic field on the nuclei. So nothing should happen to the nuclei.

OK, now what about the electrons? Well, in the lab reference frame, the moving electrons have the same charge density as the nuclei. But they're moving, which means that using relativity, they have been length contracted. So if we switch to the electron's reference frame (where the electrons are stationary and the nuclei are moving), then the charge density of the electrons decreases since they are no longer length contracted. Furthermore, the nuclei now are length contracted, so their charge density increases. Which means that in the electron's reference frame the two wires are not charge neutral. Each wire is positively charged. Which means that the electrons in each wire feel an attraction to the nuclei in the other wire. There is also a magnetic field in this reference frame, but the electrons aren't moving, so in this reference frame there is no magnetic force on the electrons.

So it's possible to figure out the electromagnetic forces in your system by only considering Coulomb interactions, and ignoring magnetic fields. Do do that, we need to switch reference frames so that we examine each charge in a reference frame where it isn't moving, and that change of reference frames causes different length contraction for other charges in the system. So if we have different charges moving differently (as is common), then we need to use multiple reference frames, each of which sees a different charge distribution. But if we're willing to use magnetic fields, then we can get the exact same total forces, all calculated from a single reference frame.

 

[John Hewitt]

Well, I note what you say but I can't pretend I understand - or at least I am rather skeptical. I seem to recall having to calculate the mean speed of electrons in wires and it was actually quite small. That being so, this introduction of relativistic effects goes rather against the grain.
However, this is an area in which I don't really know what I'm talking about, so I shall take your explanation as right.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, I note what you say but I can't pretend I understand - or at least I am rather skeptical. I seem to recall having to calculate the mean speed of electrons in wires and it was actually quite small. That being so, this introduction of relativistic effects goes rather against the grain.
However, this is an area in which I don't really know what I'm talking about, so I shall take your explanation as right.

You are correct that the speeds involved are quite small, and nowhere near the speed of light. But the flip side of that is that the magnetic attraction between two current-carrying wires is nowhere near as big as the Coulomb forces you would get between two line charges if they were only electrons or only nuclei. That force would be absolutely colossal. So in that sense, your intuition is actually correct: just like the velocity is tiny compared to c, the magnetic force is tiny compared to the bare Coulomb force.

But because the Coulomb force provides such a strong attractive force between positive and negative charges, we basically never encounter very large positive and negative charges completely on their own. Even in something like a capacitor, which is designed specifically to hold charges, the fractional charge imbalance (the number of excess positive or negative charges versus the total number of charged particles) is generally quite small. So the Coulomb force is mostly screened by the presence of both charges, and we end up with little intuitive grasp of just how massive those forces actually are for any large bare charge. That's why even a small perturbation compared to the bare Coulomb forces can become a very noticeable effect: the bare Coulomb force has been almost completely screened.

 

[Farsight]

Well, I note what you say but I can't pretend I understand - or at least I am rather skeptical. I seem to recall having to calculate the mean speed of electrons in wires and it was actually quite small. That being so, this introduction of relativistic effects goes rather against the grain. However, this is an area in which I don't really know what I'm talking about, so I shall take your explanation as right.

Don't. It isn't. You're right to be sceptical. For the right explanation, you need to look at Minkowski’s Space and Time paper from 1908. You can find it online here. This is the bit:

"Then in the description of the field produced by the electron we see that the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to the underlying time axis; the most perspicious way of describing the two forces together is on a certain analogy with the wrench in mechanics, though the analogy is not complete".

That's on page 86 of this online verison, which uses the word "force-screw" instead of "wrench". It's nothing to do with length contraction, it's to do with "the time axis". If you're a charged particle and you have no relative motion with respect to an electromagnetic field, you experience linear force only and say "I'm in an electric field". If however the linear forces cancel because you've got electrons and metal ions, and if you do have relative motion with respect to say the electrons, then you experience rotational force and say "I'm in a magnetic field". The wrench goes back to the original Maxwell. See On Physical Lines of Force. On page 53 he says this:

A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw.

He's talking about a screw mechanism, which is what Minkowski's wrench was all about - a wrench turns a bolt, which has a screw thread. The electromagnetic field is a vector field, see images such as this. Try to visualize it as a combination of the radial lines of an "electric field", and the concentric circular lines of a "magnetic field". But always remember that it's the electromagnetic field. It's one field and two forces, just like Minkowski said.

 

[sol invictus]

Well, I've not come across him before and I sort of collect antiestablishment science opinions.

Then you might add Farsight's to your list.

Zig's explanation is correct. (Bear in mind that it was electrodynamics that led Einstein to special relativity - in fact his first paper on the topic is titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".)

And I certainly don't see what its got to do with whether the strong force exists.

You're right, it's got nothing to do with it.

 

[Dr.Sid]

This is not about physics. What we need is a psychiatrist. By explaining things to the guy you just making him more and more cornered and you are actually confirming his ideas. This forum alone has dozens of proves it does not work.

 

[Farsight]

Then you might add Farsight's to your list.
Zig's explanation is correct...

John: don't, because it isn't. Just follow the references I've given. They're all robust.

Sadly there's people on this forum who try to fob you off with claptrap cargo-cult non-answers. They seem to be mathematicians who don't know much physics. When a guy like me points to the original material to put the record straight, they don't say "ah yes OK, but you maybe ought to reword that a little". They say "don't listen to him". There's a hubristic dishonesty to this. Look out for it, and do your own research.

 

[DHamilton]

Well, I've not come across him before and I sort of collect antiestablishment science opinions. I have a couple of questions.
1. Is DHamilton an alias of Charles Cagle and, if so, why would he have used a different name?

Of course DHamiltion and C. Cagle are the same person ... it occurred to me to use a pseudonym 4 years back... because I hoped to avoid the people who misquote me and then attempt to marry me to their misquote. There are more lies about me than people who are telling the Truth.

2. Thinking about the subject, there are elements of his claims that seem a bit puzzling.
Here I am just thinking from a classical point of view, which is all I, a chemist/molecular biologist, can manage. If YOU view two charges that are stationary with respect to one another and to YOU, YOU should see them repelling one another - Coulomb's law.

This may be difficult for you to accept that there isn't a single experiment in the history of the world that demonstrates that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in the same momentum space will behave according to Coulomb's Law. If you wish to argue this point then find the data that supports your belief. I pressed this issue with Ephraim Fischbach at Purdue about 17 years ago and he admitted that he knew of no experimental data reported anywhere that showed that elementary charged particles (protons, electrons) overlapping in the same momentum space actually do behave according to Coulomb's Law. Macro scale objects with excess charge of one kind or the other do... but there's simply nothing but an assumption that we can reverse extrapolate the behavior of charged pith balls or balloons down to descrete quanta. Such problems are put in text books... but no one has ever conducted an experiment to show that discrete elementary charged particles obey Coulomb's Law when they are overlapping in the same momentum space.


On the other hand, I recall that like currents attract. Hence, if I am moving fast with respect to those charges they should behave as like currents and I should see them attract on another.
In other words, and on the face of it, the attraction or repulsion of two like charges should depend upon the speed the frame of reference in which they are observed. I don't see how that works - not that I want to make a big deal out of it.
And I certainly don't see what its got to do with whether the strong force exists.

I can't help you see it either if you won't take time to read the details.

 

[DHamilton]

If you want to understand the physics, I'll help you... but if you are here to spew nasty or pejorative comments... Then no. You can remain in the dark for all I care.

Proving that which is believed to be evidence of a strong force is really entirely electromagnetic in nature and can be predicted from Maxwell's Equations and known experimental data isn't really that difficult. Most advances in science are not made by the acquisition of new data but rather from looking at the data we already have from a new viewpoint. When people start making personal pejorative remarks instead of making an effort to understand something new then you can be assured that they really haven't (at that point) the ability to free their own self from a false paradigm and their hateful comments emerge as evidence of the content of their character at that point in time. I'm not willing to say none of these people can change, but only that I've never seen any of them make any effort to do so. You'll have to decide what it is that you really want. If you want to see a new discovery that suddenly unlocks a number of nature's mysteries all at once then proceed with the attitude that you're here to learn something and show that you have the character to dismiss the hecklers.

 

[Andy_Ross]

See, now you have woken him up!

 

[DC]

I suppose that if you only took the time to figure out why the 'strong force' was invented... you might change your mind. It was not found but made of the same cloth as the Emperor's New Clothes... and you and hundreds of thousands of others have not the moral integrity to stand up and declare that the emperor is naked. These things always seem to degenerate into personal attacks ...when it is really all about finding the Truth. What is it to you? You don't care about the Truth...so why become engaged in a thread that is disclosing some Truth?

So, no... I don't want to replace the 'Strong Force'.. I want to show you the Truth about what you and a million other people have been taught about the 'Strong Force'. That the force that binds particles together in the nucleus is not gravity as you suppose but only that gravity provides the conditions (time dilation) that allows protons to overlap in the same momentum space so that the intersection of the vector fields from n-1 frames can produce a very deep negentropic point or low energy state location towards which the protons must move... as they obey the prime axiom that all quanta obtain to the lowest energy state available.

DHamilton

interesting to see that you are the one that started with it..... very telling

 

[DC]

If you want to understand the physics, I'll help you... but if you are here to spew nasty or pejorative comments... Then no. You can remain in the dark for all I care.

Proving that which is believed to be evidence of a strong force is really entirely electromagnetic in nature and can be predicted from Maxwell's Equations and known experimental data isn't really that difficult. Most advances in science are not made by the acquisition of new data but rather from looking at the data we already have from a new viewpoint. When people start making personal pejorative remarks instead of making an effort to understand something new then you can be assured that they really haven't (at that point) the ability to free their own self from a false paradigm and their hateful comments emerge as evidence of the content of their character at that point in time. I'm not willing to say none of these people can change, but only that I've never seen any of them make any effort to do so. You'll have to decide what it is that you really want. If you want to see a new discovery that suddenly unlocks a number of nature's mysteries all at once then proceed with the attitude that you're here to learn something and show that you have the character to dismiss the hecklers.

oh yes pls do so, give me some links to your peer reviewed papers in respected scientific journals.

 

[paiute]

The unification of gravity with EM is not so difficult....

These guys always remind me of this passage from

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A-Novel-and-Efficient-Synthesis-of-Cadaverine

Oh, sweet Jesus, Mary and Joseph, thought Bleem. He's got his *********** theory on him. For Jack had slid his right hand inside his coat and brought out a long, slightly bulbous envelope. Drew it out like a magician's deception, smoothly, without looking at it, and laid it flat on the desk in front of him. Then slid it three inches towards Bleem in between the massive plane and a neat stack of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences so that it was exactly hidden from the open doorway.
The visit had suddenly and unexpectedly turned on Bleem. He had such astonishing faith in Mrs. Ramamurthy that he was amazed by this breach, but he had to admit that the theorists had the best chance of bamboozling even her sensory array, for they could not be caught in a lie. Many exuded a smooth confidence in their imminent elevation to some scientific sainthood which would rapidly follow just as soon as their theory was revealed to the astonished, deeply appreciative world. Bleem wondered how the popular image of kooks represented them inevitably as unshaven, mumbling, pasty-skinned, and cadaverously-thin. Those adjectives were really more descriptive of his graduate students and postdocs. If you wanted to cast for a professor, even an emeritus, you could do far worse than the average kook possessed of a theory.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I can't help you see it either if you won't take time to read the details.

There are two things that bother me.

1) People who confuse failure to agree with failure to understand,

2) People who are proud of the fact that they cannot make themselves understood, as if this is due to the brilliance of their ideas rather than their poor communications skills.

I'm not saying this applies to you. I just thought I'd mention it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Proving that which is believed to be evidence of a strong force is really entirely electromagnetic in nature and can be predicted from Maxwell's Equations and known experimental data isn't really that difficult.

I can vouch for that. It really isn't that difficult at all to make mathematical errors in physics calculations.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

So have and and and and and and . Well, OK, that last one is more recent, but it's largely just a replacement for the earlier ones. Do you believe every account you read?

That made me

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't. It isn't. You're right to be sceptical. For the right explanation, you need to look at Minkowski’s Space and Time paper from 1908. You can find it online here. This is the bit:

"Then in the description of the field produced by the electron we see that the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to the underlying time axis; the most perspicious way of describing the two forces together is on a certain analogy with the wrench in mechanics, though the analogy is not complete".

First off, nothing in your link contradicts what I wrote. Second, this was written for professional physicists of the time, it's not a great way to teach relativistic effects of electrodynamics to a modern layman. And third, your excerpt actually does nothing to explain what he asked about. It is essentially meaningless outside of the larger context of the paper in which it appeared, and serves to confuse more than illuminate when presented here, especially when you falsely claim that it refutes what I wrote. It does not. What I wrote is standard textbook electrodynamics, and it is completely in agreement with Einstein's original paper on special relativity.

 

[Almo]

So has this been resurrected to replace the Mozina thread as our place to argue about crackpot physics?

 

[ben m]

Maybe we can consolidate all of Farsight's ideas into one thread. They're all of a similar form, anyway:

a) Make some statement, without caveats, but which happens to contradict mainstream physics.
b) Quote an isolated line or two of text from a century-old paper.
c) Insult the intelligence, education, etc., of anyone who disagrees.
d) Extend (c) to the entire 20th century, possibly including the author of (b).

Here we have (a) weird-electromagnetism, a quote from (b) Minkowski 1908, and insults to (c) Zig.

In the black-holes thread we have (a) weird GR, a quote or two from (b) Einstein 1916 or before, and insults to (c) everyone, including (d) actual Einstein quotes.

In this thread he got started on (a) "all charge is topological", supported by (b) a Wikipedia article on the Einstein-de Haas effect, and (c) you get the idea.

 

[gnome]

If you can't make a mathematical model and predict something experimentally, of what significance is the idea?

If you can, why haven't you? Experiments speak louder than words.