how do forces work? we know an electron and a proton attract each other but how does work exactly? what is transmitting that force exactly?
>>8098756
geometry of a field.
>>8098760
Elaborate please
elementary particle is a toroidal vortex of aether. electrons not exists as particles. the electron shell is the outer vortex
>>8098863
Nice!
>>8098756
OP, we have mathematical models that predict the movement and behavior of charged particles, but beyond that you cross over into the realm of philosophy at this point in trying to understand forces. We don't understand the root cause of forces. No one has explained how gravity works - or if they have it has not been widely accepted.
>>8098863
This is actually one idea - although you won't find it in textbooks as the concept of an aether has for some reason become taboo.
For gravity, there are various mechanical explanations:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation
Again, you won't learn about these in textbooks but I think they are at least fun to ponder.
>>8098756
>how do forces work?
the work is relative to the observer but the way 'forces work' is simply by acting on a moving mass.
work = force X displacement
>>8098756
In case of the EM Force the force is transmitted by photons which change the momentum
In case of gravity it's that masses curve space time, since objects take straight in space time they will then follow a curve in just space
>>8098756
Photon exchange. The photon is the carrier of the EM force.
the answer OP is looking for is gauge bosons ya dinguses
>>8098756
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
>>8099010
>standard model
>unable to explain gravity
dismissed.
>>8098943
>In case of gravity it's that masses curve space time, since objects take straight in space time they will then follow a curve in just space
Curved space time is a fun model but it explains absolutely nothing. Yes, there is a gradient around massive objects but that doesn't explain what is actually causing the "pull."
>>8099064
there is no pull.
just geodesics.
I think ITT stoned people.
>>8099064
Example: Explaining a wind turbine.
>1) Air-space-time (a made up concept) curves around the wind turbine blades and the blades follow the path of this curve.
This explains nothing.
>2) Air is actually made up of particles of nitrogen and oxygen. These particles are given velocity via heating by solar radiation. When these particles impact the blade of a wind turbine, they transfer some of their momentum to the blade (causing the particles to slow down) and this causes the blade to speed up and rotate around the fixed axis of the turbine.
This IS an explanation.
>>8099064
>Curved space time is a fun model but it explains absolutely nothing. Yes, there is a gradient around massive objects but that doesn't explain what is actually causing the "pull."
Actually, yes it does.
An object will, in the absence of force, travel in a straight line through space-time forever. (This is equivalent to saying it's moving at a constant velocity.) Newton's first law.
If space-time is curved, then this does not change; the object will still move straight forwards. However, the equivalent of a "straight line" on a curved surface - a geodesic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic) - is also curved. So an object in curved space-time will follow a curved path through space-time; this is equivalent to the object accelerating over time.
>>8099359
Incidentally, this is what the bowling-ball-on-a-rubber-sheet analogy is *actually* attempting to demonstrate; it's very confusing because people often come away from that analogy rather frustrated because "Okay, but what pulls stuff down the rubber sheet? Gravity? That doesn't answer my question!"
It would actually be a lot less confusing if you did it in orbit, so analogy-gravity wasn't getting mixed up with actual-gravity; the important point is that stuff rolling along that curved sheet is trying to follow geodesics along that surface, just because that's what inertia *is*, and so its path ends up bending.
>>8099372
that explains how moving objects are displaced, but not how something starting from a stopped position relative to the center of gravity would experience gravity.
>>8099736
Actually, yes it does.
It's not just space that's bent - it's space-[math]time[/math]. An object that is standing still (not moving through space) in any given reference frame is nonetheless moving through time*.
Imagine it like cars, moving at the same velocity along initially parallel roads that bend towards each other - initially, their relative velocity is zero, but as the roads bend towards each other the cars accelerate towards each other.
*It is, literally, moving at one second per second. Or, to be more precise, it has a four-velocity of <1, 0, 0, 0>.
>>8099775
(Note: In this analogy, forwards along the road is time, perpendicular to the road is space, and the motion of the cars is just a way of visualizing their worldline. I realize this is confusing in the same way as the bowling-ball-rubber-sheet model; i'm trying to explain a situation involving space-time but have accidentally included non-analogy time.)
>>8099775
>treating time as a dimension
get out
>>8098760
ding ding dint! First answer, correct answer.
>>8098806
the "electromagnetic field" is actually a misnomer when describing the electromagnetic force. The actual field is the photon field. The field values and such are solutions to a particular differential equation. Electrically charged fields act as a source for the photon field, changing its local properties.
The curvature (geometric property) of the photon field is an anti-symmetric tensor whose components are the electric and magnetic fields. These components are called fields but they are not fields in the same way that the photon is. It's just nomenclature.
So electrically charged particles change the local values of the photon field, altering its curvature and producing electromagnetic forces that act on other electrically charged particles.
>>8099062
yea we're working on that thanks
>>8098893
>This is actually one idea - although you won't find it in textbooks as the concept of an aether has for some reason become taboo.
It's not a taboo. Aether is old model that has been disproved. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
![deal-with-it-freddy-krueger[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/7RHYaCq.gif "deal-with-it-freddy-krueger[1].gif")
>>8100679
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[9]
consciousness explains the force between electrons and protons. consciousness transmits this force. emotional energy binds all things in the meta universe.
>>8100714
That's fair, but the relativistic ether also lacks extremely important properties intuitively implied by the idea of a special substance or medium pervading all of space, and which were critical parts of non-relativistic ether models. Space in general relativity could indeed be called an ether; but by the same definition, so could the electromagnetic field in Maxwell's laws.
>>8099079
>Takes the time to crappily explain how a turbine works to use as demonstration for his point.
>>8100719
wrong. qualia is experienced in the astral plane. it is only in astral-physical plane that our consciousness exists
>>8100679
>Aether is old model that has been disproved
lol no
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
>>8099062
The strings of the gravitons are not bound to the fabric of space time like the strings of electromagnetic force, strong force and weak force are. This allows gravitons to escape off into other dimensions, explaining why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces.
>>8102313
faulty experiment and has nothing to do with aether lol
>>8102357
>faulty experiment
if you say so..........
>>8098756
Quantum electrodynamics: photons are exchanged between particles creating the coulomb force.
Quantum flavordynamics: pions are exchanged between particles within a close proximity of each other creating the weak interaction.
Quantum chromodynamics: quarks experience color Change do to the exchange of gluons thus creating the strong interaction.
It's up to you wether you take this as fact or not as quantum mechanics is very controversial between physicists.
>>8104088
>God do that
that's shorter and has the same zero meaning
>>8098756
They don't
>>8104088
Last time i heard about it the guy was talking about that shit as something proven. Was it proven? And if it was, why the fuck there is something controversial?
Are forces sweet.
>>8104116
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
>>8098756
I can offer an explanation for your questions, but my explanation will still be prone to questions like "ok, but how does that work?".
Eventually, the answer to this question is simply going to be
>I don't know how or why it works that way. I just know that it works that way, because that's what the evidence says.
Such is the nature of reductionistic explanations.
Quantum field theory. Ignoring some of relativity for the moment, as best as we can determine, reality is made up of a small number of quantum fields. Reminder: A field is simply a thing that exists in every location in space and that has a value (possibly real number values, or vector values, etc.). There is an equation that governs the evolution of these fields over time. The fields interact with each other according to this equation.
A "particle" is simply a vibration, a wave, in the field. An electron is simply a wave in the electron field.
Forces between two normal particles, like a proton and an electron, can instead be thought of as lots of interactions via "force-carrying" particles in another quantum field.
>>8104088
>It's up to you wether you take this as fact or not as quantum mechanics is very controversial between physicists.
lol
