Your ideas on attraction and repulsion?

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

>> 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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"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

 

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

 

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.

 

Sometimes the details are not necessary.

GodLied.

 

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.

baez on spr

now, on to the question at hand:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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!

i agree with this sentiment.

 

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)

 

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.