Do you have (or have you heard) a hypothesis regarding the fundamental why behind the repulsion of like charges and attraction of opposite charges?

I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject.

This is a philosophy question rather than a physics question. There are two types of charge in the universe and that's how they behave. Nobody knows why.

There is no mechanism demonstrated in reality to suggest "attraction" can happen.

All objects must be pushed to move, even electrodynamic forces work this way via pressure.

"Pull" is a misnomer, and only should be used when dealing with human understanding..

Note, study pulling with a hand to an object, it really is a push from some point, same goes for why two smooth plates pushed together stay together, .etc.

:)

I am not quite grasping this...

So, when a + and a - charge are attraced to eachother, what is pushing them together?

Can you elaborate a bit?

one_raven,
If you're after acceptable science, be careful of advice received in public discussion forums. Some of us are considered to be crackpots.

Originally posted by Pete
one_raven,
If you're after acceptable science, be careful of advice received in public discussion forums. Some of us are considered to be crackpots.

Beleieve me.
I take everything with a grain of salt, and always look for supporting experimental evidence that supports the assertions and determine for myself if I agree with their interpretations.

Even what "real scientists" say. :)
Thank you for the warning, though.

push in magnetic electric forces.... see "pinch effect".

It is a pressure/density thing... all interpretable via push.

Philosophically and practically PULL can not happen.

:)

Originally posted by Zarkov
push in magnetic electric forces.... see "pinch effect".

Pinch Effect
self-constriction of a cylinder of an electrically conducting plasma. When an electric current is passed through a gaseous plasma, a magnetic field is set up that tends to force the current-carrying particles together.

So, are you saying that you believe that attraction of opposite charges is caused by the pinch effect due to fields created in an electric aether acting as a plasma? :confused:

If not, then I still don't get you.
If so, how would that explain repulsion of like charges?

Originally posted by Zarkov
Philosophically and practically PULL can not happen.

What brings you to that conclusion?
Care to elaborate?

Zarkov,

This is a warning.

Future posts from you which express opinions unsupported by any science (except perhaps Zarkovian physics) and given with no actual arguments in support of them will be deleted from this forum without further comment.

If you hold a non-conventional view, you will need to point to at least a minimal amount of evidence in support of that view.

Zarkov, I thought I saw what you were saying until the pinch effect.

Future posts from you which express opinions unsupported by any science (except perhaps Zarkovian physics) and given with no actual arguments in support of them will be deleted from this forum without further comment.

If you hold a non-conventional view, you will need to point to at least a minimal amount of evidence in support of that view.Hmm... I don't like deletion. Censorship by any other name still stinks.

What if you pop in an edit along the lines of "Zarkov's views hold no relationship to conventional science?"
What if Zarkov included a disclaimer along the lines of "My views are not accepted by mainstream science, because all scientist except me are Einstein-worshipping goat lovers. Trust me!"

Originally posted by one_raven
Do you have (or have you heard) a hypothesis regarding the fundamental why behind the repulsion of like charges and attraction of opposite charges?

I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject.


Magnetically, think of a solenoid. Consider the direction of mangetic field lines. That is the direction of magnetic field lines in a magnet. Those lines go from one end to the other. From the direction of those lines it is lucid why like charges attract and unlike charges repulse each other.

From the field lines, like charges repel because their magnetic field lines flow against each other. Also, opposite charges attract because their field lines complement each other. Furthermore, a magnet flips to align magnetically with another magnet because its field lines roll it into agreement with the other magnet's field lines.

JMG.

PS: We should start a FAQ for elementary queries in physics and math.

All forces are transmitted by force-carrying particles of varying mass and its the mass which determines how far a distance the force acts over. For example gravity acts over huge distances so gravitons have little or no mass like photons. I suppose u can think of these particles interacting with 'real' particles and transferring energy + momentum to them causing the real particles to be pushed apart but I still see no way that particles can be drawn together (as in gravity) without a pulling force too?!

Originally posted by GodLied
Magnetically, think of a solenoid. Consider the direction of mangetic field lines. That is the direction of magnetic field lines in a magnet. Those lines go from one end to the other. From the direction of those lines it is lucid why like charges attract and unlike charges repulse each other.

From the field lines, like charges repel because their magnetic field lines flow against each other. Also, opposite charges attract because their field lines complement each other. Furthermore, a magnet flips to align magnetically with another magnet because its field lines roll it into agreement with the other magnet's field lines.

JMG.

PS: We should start a FAQ for elementary queries in physics and math.

In addition to that, we use direction of magnetic field lines to explain the direction a conductor moves between two parallel electrodes when current runs through it from one electrode to the other.

It is too bad the moderator thought the original physics query was a philosophical one. Such a moderator can learn from posts like this but will have difficulty in correcting others. Hmm.

I agree with Pete that scientific notions, real or imaginary, theoretic or proven, should not be censored because the moderator does not agree with the scientific perspective of the poster. If all such posts lacking supportive scientific consideration were censored, some of my posts would be omitted without ever entering the fray of debatability. How boring a forum would be where opinions will not be exchanged.

JMG.

"It is too bad the moderator thought the original physics query was a philosophical one. Such a moderator can learn from posts like this but will have difficulty in correcting others. Hmm."

It is too bad that some people do not know the difference between philosophy and science.

Bye!

Crisp

>> It is too bad that some people do not know the difference between philosophy and science.

The concepts regarding the mechanism of force action, is well and truely in the realms of PHYSICS.

This is a physics question.

IMO, THERE is no way a force can act on another by pull, attraction etc.......

:)


James R is creating a smoke screen to hide his fascism and prejudice, and IMO therefore shameful conduct.

In the Newtonian framework, forces are postulates, defined through the second law (anything that accelerates a mass is a force). The exact form of the gravitational interaction or the Coulomb interactions are postulates (even though they are highly supported by experimental evidence).

Hence, as you are going deeper than this level, you are going to a level where no physicist has ever dared to wander. Simply because there is no scientific answer. Why is a force attractive or repulsive ? Well, the easy answer is: by definition.

Especially the electromagnetic interaction has little or no physical explanations today, as charge is - up till now - considered to be a fundamental property of particles. Why gravity is attractive has a more or less better answer (in general relativity) even though you can keep on asking questions regarding the "how" and the "why". You'll always end up to some point where physics has nothing to say about it anymore, and from that point onward you are in the world of philosophy.

Bye!

Crisp

There is no such thing as a "fundamental why".

No matter what explanations you find, you can always ask "But why is it that way?"

There is always another 'why'.


(Feel free to quote me - I always wanted to be in a .sig :cool: )

SO, The argument for push and pull is traditional, some pyhsists agree that there is only push to transfer a force.

Certainly in the physical touching world pull can not be productive.

Fields are theory, however in my understanding push is still the only mode of action.

Even Newton though "pull" was not a viable concept. The "spooky action at a distance" concept.

:)

Whether or not there is a "fundamental why" may very well be philosophy.
Whether or not we should take a reductionist approach to science and find our way to the most fundamental truth we can is the philosophy of science.
If you DO agree with the reductionist philosophy, then discussing how deeply we can ask and answer why would be science.

Originally posted by Zarkov
SO, The argument for push and pull is traditional, some pyhsists agree that there is only push to transfer a force.

Certainly in the physical touching world pull can not be productive.

I would still like you to explain your reasoning behind that.
You just keep repeating it, and that does not help me to understand your position.

Originally posted by Zarkov
Even Newton though "pull" was not a viable concept. The "spooky action at a distance" concept.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it Einstein that coined that phrase? Not newton?

Yes, Einstein used the phrase "spooky action at a distance" to
describe quantum entanglement.

>> I would still like you to explain your reasoning behind that.

How about your logic pro push/pull !

Einstein and Newton was uncomfortable with attraction,

IMO

:)

I undertood it was Newton, although I don't know which words he used.

I'm with James on this, it is a philosophical question. I also feel that he was right to remind us to distinguish opinions from orthodoxies. It's easy to forget to do this when you're buried in your own paradigm (and I should know!).

What I don't understand is why philosophical questions have to be kept seperate from science. Bring back natural philosphy is what I say. That would bring a bit of metaphysical rigour back into the proceedings.

As to why opposites attract I couldn't comment. What does seem true is that a necessay condition for a thing to exist is that its opposite exists. Perhaps attraction is connected with a natural propensity for things to seek their state of maximum rest. This seems to be the outcome of all the pulling and pushing anyway.

"What I don't understand is why philosophical questions have to be kept seperate from science. Bring back natural philosphy is what I say. That would bring a bit of metaphysical rigour back into the proceedings."

That would be very interesting, but unfortunately some people will abuse that as an excuse to keep on talking about their own theories. It used to be different here, but ok, what's gone is gone.

Bye!

Crisp

Hi,

I read most of the items concerning the attractive/repulsive force.

I liked the part of Zarkov that there is no attractive force but only a repulsive. If you look at particles as mediating marbles throwing Bosons to each other, than the mediated force must be repulsive.
So the question still remains: How can a force be attractive?

I once read that the answer can be found in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Can someone please explain if this is the case and who it works?

Thanks,

See ya,

Paulus

Originally posted by Crisp
"What I don't understand is why philosophical questions have to be kept seperate from science. Bring back natural philosphy is what I say. That would bring a bit of metaphysical rigour back into the proceedings."

That would be very interesting, but unfortunately some people will abuse that as an excuse to keep on talking about their own theories. It used to be different here, but ok, what's gone is gone.

Bye!

Crisp
Hmm. I'll stick to my opinion but I take your point.

Originally posted by Crisp
"It is too bad the moderator thought the original physics query was a philosophical one. Such a moderator can learn from posts like this but will have difficulty in correcting others. Hmm."

It is too bad that some people do not know the difference between philosophy and science.

Bye!

Crisp

Philosophy is a word of several definitions. Phylosophy can be a basis for a particular activity, thought, individual or group. An individual thoroughly versed in a particular philosophy can become known as a doctor of that philosophy. Examples are doctors of philosophy in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and education.

Physics has its own philosophy. To state a query about physics should be answered by a philosopher instead of a physicist, is to say that the philosophy of physics is incomplete. My post from which you quoted me showed the fundamental answer to the original physics question that began this thread. Because of that, the answer to this thread's original question is in the scope of the philosophy of physics. It did not need the input of a philosopher not exposed to the philosophy of physics to render new philosophies to be incorporated into the philosophy of physics.

GodLied.

Originally posted by Pete
There is no such thing as a "fundamental why".

No matter what explanations you find, you can always ask "But why is it that way?"

There is always another 'why'.


(Feel free to quote me - I always wanted to be in a .sig :cool: )

Sometimes the details are not necessary.

GodLied.

Originally posted by James R
This is a philosophy question rather than a physics question. There are two types of charge in the universe and that's how they behave. Nobody knows why.

that s what chroot used to say all the time too. "science does not address 'why?' questions". the fact is science addresses any questions that are experimentally testable and falsifiable.

'why do rivers always flow towards the ocean?'
'why doesn t the moon fall onto the earth?'
'why do humans have appendices?'


etc etc.

these are all good 'why?' questions that have answers that lead to scientific theories.




2) why are there 3 generations of particles?
3) why do the fermions come in two types: quarks and leptons?
4) why is the symmetry group at low energies SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1)?
5) why is there a Higgs of exactly the sort needed to break this down to SU(3) x U(1)?

Only your first question here is legitimate, since, as is well known, science does not address ' why' questions. ; - )


I disagree. Science certainly does address "why" questions. The
answers it gives are rarely if ever final: typically each answer
raises further questions. So we shouldn't expect science to tell
us the *ultimate* reason why something happens. However, it often
gives an explanation that makes a mysterious fact about the world
less mysterious. We then feel we know more about "why" this fact
is true. In the process new mysteries are revealed, but this is
considered progress.

For example, in the late 1800s a high school teacher named Balmer
found an intriguing pattern in the spectral lines of hydrogen: the
frequency of the light emitted was always some constant times
(1/n^2 - 1/m^2) for some integers n and m. I think that any scientist
with an ounce of curiosity would, upon hearing about this, ask why
it is true. Of course there is no guarantee that such a question
will have an answer - but this shouldn't stop one from asking.

Eventually Schroedinger came up with an answer: he invented an equation
that describes the behavior of electrons, and when you solve this equation
to see what an electron does near a proton, you find the only allowed
energies are equal to a constant times 1/n^2 for some integer n > 0.
Light is emitted as the electron goes from one such energy level to
another.

When people learned this, they felt that Balmer's formula was no longer
mysterious. They felt they knew why it was true. Of course, they now
wanted to know why Schroedinger's equation was true! The answer to one
"why" always leads to another, deeper "why". But that's okay.

Eventually, continuing down this trail of questions, people were led
to the Standard Model. The Standard Model explained very nicely why
there are so many mesons and hadrons and why they decay the way they
do and so on.... but it raises a bunch of new questions. I listed
a few of the most obvious ones above. I hope we discover a deeper
theory that answers these. We may not, but we should certainly try.

baez on spr

now, on to the question at hand:
Originally posted by one_raven
Do you have (or have you heard) a hypothesis regarding the fundamental why behind the repulsion of like charges and attraction of opposite charges?

I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject.
charge is one type of property a particle can have. the nature of this property implies that there must be a corresponding gauge field, that obeys maxwells equations. maxwell s equations, in turn, say that like charges repel, and opposite charges attract.

charge is not the only property that particles have. they also have mass, spin, color, and flavor. these properties yield different laws for their interactions. like charges repelling and opposites attracting is only one among several.

of course, as Baez points out, answering one 'why?' question often leads to another, more fundamental one. like 'why do particles have the properties they do?'

that one is still being investigated.

Originally posted by Zarkov
How about your logic pro push/pull !

What keeps the moon in orbit? What is "pushing" it toward the earth?
Why, when you hang two magnets from a string with N facing S they will be drawn to each other? What is pushing them from behind?
When I grab a rope attached to a cart and draw my hands toward my chest, what is pushing the cart?

All three scenarios seem like pull to me.
Explain to me why they aren't.

lethe:

The issue of "why" and "how" questions in physics is a semantic one. I agree with what you have said. What I meant in my initial response was that physics cannot (at least at present) answer certain types of "why" questions.

One of those is why there is two types of charge. You might say Maxwell's equations require it, but that just pushes the question back a step. Why is electromagnetism governed by Maxwell's equations rather than some other equations which allow for, say, three types of charge? Nobody knows. That's just the way things are.

Originally posted by James R
lethe:

The issue of "why" and "how" questions in physics is a semantic one. I agree with what you have said. What I meant in my initial response was that physics cannot (at least at present) answer certain types of "why" questions.


just because physics, at present, cannot answer a question, does not make the question itself philosophical. there may one day be a physical answer to this question. it will probably raise more questions than it answers, but no matter.

Originally posted by James R
One of those is why there is two types of charge.

But my question wasn't about why there are two different types of charges, it was about what might be what causes the two types of charges to interract the way they do.

How is that really any different than pondering why water flows downhill, other than it is at a deeper level.

Which is really the root of the reductionist approach to science, each level of understanding brings us to the next level deeper.
What governs each aspect of a phenomena is always one level deeper than that phenomena.

First level: Why does water flow downhill? Water flows downhill due to gravity.
Next level: What is gravity? Gravity is the attraction of massive bodies.
Next level: Why are massive bodies attracted to each other?

Originally posted by one_raven
But my question wasn't about why there are two different types of charges, it was about what might be what causes the two types of charges to interract the way they do.


well, i don t know how trained you are in physics, but the question of why charges interact the way they do is well understood. i just finished explaining it in the higgs field thread. if you have some physics training, you might want to take a look.

The word "fundamental" is the key.

Yes, science addresses question of 'why', but only in terms of moving to lower levels. There are always more 'why's, potentially more undiscovered levels.

Any question of a fundamental "why" is not science.

Originally posted by lethe
well, i don t know how trained you are in physics, but the question of why charges interact the way they do is well understood. i just finished explaining it in the higgs field thread. if you have some physics training, you might want to take a look.
I am not formally trained in physics at all.
Just what I have read here and other sources.
I will check out thw Higgs Field thread.
Thank you.


Originally posted by Pete
The word "fundamental" is the key.

Yes, science addresses question of 'why', but only in terms of moving to lower levels. There are always more 'why's, potentially more undiscovered levels.

Any question of a fundamental "why" is not science.

But the goal of science, as I understand it, it to drill down deeper and deeper.
Perhaps the fundamental levels are simply as deep as it is possible to understand.
How deep it is possible to go would be a philosophical question, yes, but how deep we are, and what your view on what the next level of understanding is, would be speculative theoretical science.
No?

>> When I grab a rope attached to a cart and draw my hands toward my chest, what is pushing the cart?

Answer the simple everyday one first..

You beliece it or not are PUSHING the cart.

Your hands have a grip on the rope, you are pushing the rope towards you. the fibres of the rope are intertwined and push each other, the rope on the cart is attached to something and it is pushing from behind.

There is only one way to "pull" and that is "attraction", the spooky action at a distance..... and IMO this has no mechanism in the real world.

:)

Originally posted by one_raven
I am not formally trained in physics at all.
Just what I have read here and other sources.
I will check out thw Higgs Field thread.
Thank you.
i fear that without some training, most of the thread won t be meaningful to you. don t let that stop you from taking a look and asking questions though!


But the goal of science, as I understand it, it to drill down deeper and deeper.
Perhaps the fundamental levels are simply as deep as it is possible to understand.
How deep it is possible to go would be a philosophical question, yes, but how deep we are, and what your view on what the next level of understanding is, would be speculative theoretical science.
No?
i agree with this sentiment.

But the goal of science, as I understand it, it to drill down deeper and deeper.
Perhaps the fundamental levels are simply as deep as it is possible to understand.
How deep it is possible to go would be a philosophical question, yes, but how deep we are, and what your view on what the next level of understanding is, would be speculative theoretical science.
No?

That's right.
"Science" can never answer the question "What's the fundamental 'why' of X"

The best answer "Science" can give is "Here's what we know. We don't know why it's that way. We have some ideas, but we don't know why any of them would be that way. We don't know if there are any underlying reasons for all this, or if that's just the way it is."

Is that the sort of answer you were seeking in your original post?

(edited to add context-providing quote)

Originally posted by Pete
That's right.
"Science" can never answer the question "What's the fundamental 'why' of X"

The best answer "Science" can give is "Here's what we know. We don't know why it's that way. We have some ideas, but we don't know why any of them would be that way. We don't know if there are any underlying reasons for all this, or if that's just the way it is."


there was a time when the pion, neutron, etc. were "fundamental" particles. we asked "why are there so many of them?" "why do they have the properties they do?"

those questions now have answers. science can answer "What's the fundamental 'why' of X", simply by providing a more fundamental theory. it will, of course, have its own 'why's. but that doesn t mean you can t ask the question, nor does it mean that science cannot answer the question.

perhaps you mean that someday there will be a theory viewed as "absolutely fundamental" for which there will never be a more fundamental theory. if that happens, then i suppose the "why"s that come with this theory will be scientifically unanswerable, but since that has not happened, all questions are still valid ones.

It's either fundamental or it's not - if an underlying reason is discovered, then the first reason wasn't fundamental, was it?

If there are underlying reasons (discovered or not), then it's not fundamental.

If a reason has it's own "why's", then it doesn't answer a fundamental "why".

In this context, is there a difference between "why" and "how"?

Originally posted by Pete

If there are underlying reasons (discovered or not), then it's not fundamental.


science is a human institution. a theory is fundamental if it is the most basic, most widely applicable theory we have constructed to date. there is really no way to know whether a fundamental theory is truly fundamental, in some ill-defined "god given" "theory of everything" sense (although you can know a theory is not fundamental, you can never know if your theory really describes everything.) there are an infinitude of phenomena. at any time, a new one can show up, and invalidate your "fundamental" theory.

so fundamental is really just a relative term.

Hi lethe,
The only thing I'd quibble with you about is the meaning of the word "fundamental", but that's not important. :)
Conceptually, I fully agree.

Originally posted by Pete
Hi lethe,
The only thing I'd quibble with you about is the meaning of the word "fundamental", but that's not important. :)
Conceptually, I fully agree.

i guess i know what you mean when you say fundamental. but my point is that at present, there is no theory which could really be called fundamental. i actually have serious doubts as to whether such a theory is, even in principle, possible (Gödel incompleteness and all that).

for that reason, i don t really think it makes sense to say "It's either fundamental or it's not - if an underlying reason is discovered, then the first reason wasn't fundamental, was it?". i guess if we knew an ultimate fundamental theory, or at least had reason to believe that such a theory is possible, then we could agree that that theory would be the one that provides "fundamental" explanations, beyond which further "why" questions are philisophical. but since i don t believe that such a theory exists, and we certainly don t have one on hand, then i have to differ.

according to your usage of the word fundamental, i would have to say that such a notion does not exist in reality.

Originally posted by Pete
In this context, is there a difference between "why" and "how"?

i would say that a "why" question should be answered by stating the foundations of a theory, whereas a "how" question should be answered with the dynamical details of a theory. but you can t answer a "how" question without knowing the "why". so if they are not the same, they are at least interrelated.

according to your usage of the word fundamental, i would have to say that such a notion does not exist in reality.

I think it's a valid, but unanswerable, philosophical question.
My arguments could have been worded better. I too doubt that any theory can be absolutely fundamental; and if such a theory was possible the fact of its fundamentalness could never be known.

Originally posted by Pete
I think it's a valid, but unanswerable, philosophical question.
My arguments could have been worded better. I too doubt that any theory can be absolutely fundamental; and if such a theory was possible the fact of its fundamentalness could never be known.

agreed

What do people think of the idea that maybe these fundamental things are the way they are because they were designed that way? That is, the notion of a "god" or something supernatural being the cause.

I think that God is irrelevant.
A "God" of some sort may have been the initial cause of matter and energy coming into existence and the laws that dictate their behavior (the initial cause), but whether or not he is the initial cause things are the way they are now, and the existence or non-existence of a "God" will not change that.

if you guys are going to start talking about god, i m leaving.

Originally posted by lethe
if you guys are going to start talking about god, i m leaving.

ok geez, sorry. I was just wondering what people thought of that as an "explanation". I take it you dont support that idea in any way, shape or form.

Fair enough.

A real question now. What would occur if the forces of charge were switched? What if opposite charges repelled each other, and like charges "attracted"? Would that cause a total break down of electircal force? I would think nothing could work the way it does if charge worked like that...

Another thing, since we are on the topic of charge. I never did like that electrons were given a negative charge. I always thought it made more sense to say they had positive charge. Cause if you take away electrons from the valence shell of an atom it had a postive charge. I would think of that as negative since it had less charge from the electrons. But oh well...

Originally posted by cephas1012

A real question now. What would occur if the forces of charge were switched? What if opposite charges repelled each other, and like charges "attracted"? Would that cause a total break down of electircal force? I would think nothing could work the way it does if charge worked like that...

Another thing, since we are on the topic of charge. I never did like that electrons were given a negative charge. I always thought it made more sense to say they had positive charge. Cause if you take away electrons from the valence shell of an atom it had a postive charge. I would think of that as negative since it had less charge from the electrons. But oh well...

ahhh....

well now cephas, you re talking. you have struck right at the heart of gauge invariance. ben franklin made the mistake of labeling electrons as negative, and protons as positive, because he didn t know about the nuclear model. he got it wrong, the natural choice is for electrons to be positive and the nucleus to be negative.

however, which one you call negative and which one you call positive is purely a matter of convention. it is as arbitrary as which axis you call x, y, and z. the laws of nature are invariant under the reversal of negative-positive reversal. this is what is known as gauge invariance, and this simple principle implies all of electrodynamics. it is what implies that positives and positives repel, while positives and negatives attract.

I was just wondering what people thought of that as an "explanation".
Well, it's a bit unsatisfying, don't you think? It answers every question equally well, which is to say it doesn't give an explanation at all - it simply states that that's the way they are. It stifles the drive to look for deeper physical explanations.

Originally posted by lethe
ahhh....

well now cephas, you re talking. you have struck right at the heart of gauge invariance. ben franklin made the mistake of labeling electrons as negative, and protons as positive, because he didn t know about the nuclear model. he got it wrong, the natural choice is for electrons to be positive and the nucleus to be negative.

however, which one you call negative and which one you call positive is purely a matter of convention. it is as arbitrary as which axis you call x, y, and z. the laws of nature are invariant under the reversal of negative-positive reversal. this is what is known as gauge invariance, and this simple principle implies all of electrodynamics. it is what implies that positives and positives repel, while positives and negatives attract.

This makes sense. I read what you said about this sort of thing in the higgs field thread. That is about all I understood from that thread, heh. I will have to try harder later.

What i dont get is how the guage invariance implies "that positives and positives repel, while positives and negatives attract." I asked the question what would occur if positives and positives attracted, and positives and negatives repelled. I don't see any symmetry there. I would think you would get very different results, as oppose to if you just switched all the charged particles around and made positives negatvies, and negatives positives.

Originally posted by Pete
Well, it's a bit unsatisfying, don't you think? It answers every question equally well, which is to say it doesn't give an explanation at all - it simply states that that's the way they are. It stifles the drive to look for deeper physical explanations.

Hmmmm, ya, I see what you mean by that. Well when you get to the point that a question is truly fundamental and science can shed no further light upon the subject, you have two choices really. One is to say that is just the way our universe is. The other is to say something else caused this, that we cannot understand with science. So both ways offer the same result "- it simply states that that's the way they are." There is no way to prove either case, which is why when you get to this point it is no longer science. But in the mean time, you keep pushing to get to that point. There are still questions that science can answer, just because one says in the end it was made to be that way by "something" or "someone" does not mean you cannot keep searching. I guess that is all I have to say on this, and I will not say more, because some people dont seem to like discussion going this way, at least not on the physics and math section which I respect.

Originally posted by cephas1012
This makes sense. I read what you said about this sort of thing in the higgs field thread. That is about all I understood from that thread, heh. I will have to try harder later.

What i dont get is how the guage invariance implies "that positives and positives repel, while positives and negatives attract." I asked the question what would occur if positives and positives attracted, and positives and negatives repelled. I don't see any symmetry there. I would think you would get very different results, as oppose to if you just switched all the charged particles around and made positives negatvies, and negatives positives.

i won t lie to you, the stuff in that thread is kind of advanced so it might take you a lot of study to understand. so let me sort of sum up the results, thus far:

nature is symmetric under exchange of positives with negatives. antimatter with matter. therefore it is completely arbitrary which particle we call the electron, and which one we call the positron. you might just as well say that we are made of antimatter as matter.

since distant galaxies are not causally connected to us (i.e. in places are so far away that it would take light-years for any signal to reach us, nothing that happens "right now" can have any meaning for us. in fact, the notion of "right now" is ill defined for distant galaxies). therefore we might make one choice and call electrons negative, while another galaxy will call their electrons positive.

allow the choice between positive and negative to happen in a local, continuous manner, and you are led to maxwell s equations and the lorentz force law. which include the statement "like charges repel".

so to answer your question, "could you have a universe where like charges attract and opposite charges repel?" the answer is no. the matter antimatter symmetry gives you only one choice.