Tutorial: Shaping the Universe, Gravity and the four forces of nature;.

[paddoboy]

The universe is held together by four known forces...the strong nuclear force, Electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force and gravity.
The strong nuclear force is responsible for the formation of protons and neutrons with quark combinations, and also the combining of protons and neutrons in atomic nuclear. It has limited range.

The electromagnetic force, is that force associated with electricity and magnetism, and is a result of the exchange of photons, [the electromagnetic field quanta] It can be either attractive or repulsive. The most common example is Sunlight. It is also responsible for the orbits of electrons [negative charge] around atomic nuclei [positive charge]. It has infinite range

The weak nuclear force is that force responsible for radioactivity, and the decay of unstable subatomic particles. It has limited range.

Gravity is that force which shapes the universe. It is the attraction between all masses, no matter how big or how small. Gravity only ever is attractive and is infinite in its range. Our best model of gravity is GR, and entails the warping, curving and twisting of spacetime in the presence of mass. Gravity is spacetime geometry and spacetime is the universe framework. In essence then gravity within GR is not really a force per se. While the weakest of the four forces speaking comparitively, it is also accumalitive. Gravity at its most accumalitive power is shown with Black Holes...regions of curved spacetime where matter has collapsed to beyond its Schwarzchild radius, and so that the escape velocity exceeds "c"

Here are two illustrative links that will help to explain....
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.html

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/05/22/why-is-gravity-the-strongest-force/
Other associated threads can be found at....
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-are-things-in-space-the-shape-that-they-are.163155/
and
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-early-universe.163207/
and
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/flashback-einstein-was-right-space-and-time-bend.163108/
The above narrative by me is pretty basic and any errors, alterations and/or corrections are welcome. Including of course any elaboration that may help
The main reason I saw the necessity of posting this, is because we have the continued nonsense and ignorance being portrayed in the fringes by river.

 

[paddoboy]

Our best estimates and data, shows the evolution of the universe/space/time from the Planck/quantum era at 10-43 seconds......

 

[paddoboy]

• The following link gives a rundown on why we believe the Planck era consisted of the four forces united as one "Superforce"
• https://home.cern/science/physics/unified-forces
  Unified forces
  Will we see a unification of forces at the high energies of the Large Hadron Collider?

Will we see a unification of forces at the high energies of the Large Hadron Collider?

In the 1860s, James Clerk Maxwell recognized the similarities between electricity and magnetism and developed his theory of a single electromagnetic force. A similar discovery came a century later, when theorists began to develop links between electromagnetism, with its obvious effects in everyday life, and the weak force, which normally hides within the atomic nucleus.

Support for these ideas came first from the Gargamelle experiment at CERN – when physicists found the first direct evidence of the weak neutral current, which required the existence of a neutral particle to carry the weak fundamental force. Further support came from the Nobel-prize-winning discovery of the W and Z particles, which carry the electroweak force.

But it is only at the higher energies explored in particle collisions at CERN and other laboratories that the electromagnetic and weak forces begin to act on equal terms. Will the unification of other forces emerge at even higher energies? Experiments already show that the effect of the strong force becomes weaker as energies increase. This is a good indication that at incredibly high energies, the strengths of the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are probably the same. The energies involved are at least a thousand million times greater than particle accelerators can reach, but such conditions would have existed in the early universe, almost immediately (10-34 seconds) after the big bang.

Pushing the concept a step further, theorists even contemplate the possibility of including gravity at still higher energies, thereby unifying all of the fundamental forces into one. This "unified force" would have ruled in the first instants of the universe, before its different components separated out as the universe cooled. Although at present we cannot recreate conditions with energy high enough to test these ideas directly, we can look for the consequences of "grand unification" at lower energies, for instance at the Large Hadron Collider. A very popular idea suggested by such a unification is called supersymmetry.

 

[paddoboy]

https://home.cern/science/accelerators/large-hadron-collider

Another nice rundown
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_part5.html

What about the very earliest moments of the Universe—those times well less than the first second of existence when all the forces of Nature are thought to have been merged into a single, grand-unified force that controlled everything? Going back even closer to the origin of all things, our quest to unify all the known forces combines aspects of very big scales and the small scales—the subjects of cosmology and particle physics. These efforts—including some of the most exotic work at the frontiers of science—have led to tentative advances toward a controversial “theory of everything.”

What follows in this section is informed speculation, based on extensions of much better known phenomena on intermediate scales, akin to what we routinely witness in space, time, and energy. The closest time to the big bang that astronomers can observationally study physical phenomena directly is ~300,000 years after the bang; this again is when the cosmic background radiation was launched and it does contain hints and clues regarding events in the earlier Universe. And the closest that physicists can experimentally study those earlier events is about 10-10 second after the bang; these are laboratory simulations, done in quick bursts at the big accelerators, that approximate the violence of the very young Universe impressively close in time to the bang, but currently no closer. Scientific descriptions of events earlier than a trillionth of the first second of time are only reverse extrapolations—regarded by scientists as better than religious dogma, philosophical musing, or science fiction, but how much better is frankly unknown.

Force Unification During the last quarter of the twentieth century, the electromagnetic force binding atoms and molecules and the weak nuclear force governing the decay of radioactive matter were merged into a single theory asserting them to be different manifestations of one and the same force—the "electroweak" force. As implied by Figure 1.22, crucial parts of this theory have been confirmed at the world's most powerful accelerators at CERN and Fermi Lab, and concerted efforts are now under way to extend this unified theory to include the strong nuclear force that binds elementary particles within nuclei. Furthermore, although scientists are unsure at this time how, in turn, to incorporate into this comprehensive theory the fourth known force (gravity), we have reason to suspect that Einstein's dream is nearing—to understand all the forces of Nature as different aspects of a single, fundamental force.

FIGURE 1.22 – This computer simulation shows a typical event thought to have occurred about a trillionth of a second (~10-12 s) after the beginning of time. Two fast-moving protons collide head-on (at center), producing a multitude of new elementary particles depicted by the yellow curves (charged particles twisting in magnetic fields) throughout the debris field that includes much scattered energy (red and blue). (CERN)
The intellectual synthesis of the macrodomain of cosmology (for gravity is a demonstrably long-range force) and the microdomain of particle physics (pertaining to the tiniest scales) is but a small part of the grand scenario of cosmic evolution. Yet it’s an important part, for the newly emerging interdisciplinary specialty of "particle cosmology" could well provide great insight into a much earlier period of the Universe, namely, the time interval often colloquially labeled chaos—a temporal domain resembling the terra incognita parts bordering old maps of antiquity.

In brief, descriptive terms, this is the way the newly understood electroweak force operates. In submicroscopic (quantum) physics, forces between two elementary particles are exerted, or mediated, by the exchange of a generic particle, called a boson; in effect, the two particles can be imagined to be playing a rapid game of catch using a boson as a ball. In ordinary electromagnetism familiar to us on Earth, the boson is the usual photon, and for the strong nuclear force that boson is a gluon; both types of bosons always travel at the velocity of light. The new electroweak theory includes four such bosons: the photon as well as three other subatomic particles having the innocuous names W+, W-, and Z0. At temperatures less than ~1015 K—the thermal range of all events on Earth and in the stars today—these four bosons split into two families: the photon that expresses the usual electromagnetic force and the other three that carry the weak force. But at temperatures greater than ~1015 K, these bosons work together in such a way as to make indistinguishable the weak and electromagnetic forces.

Thus, by experimentally probing the behavior of this new force, we gain insight into not only the essence of Nature's building blocks but also some of the earliest periods of the Universe, especially the hadron period around 10-10 second after the bang. Paralleling the well-known phrase, "observing out in space is equivalent to probing back in time," that we must always keep in mind macroscopically, we now have another, equally important phrase that pertains microscopically: "the higher the temperature, the better the probe of the early Universe."

This is where (or when) the experimental confirmations of theoretical ideas currently end, for humankind has not been able to build large enough accelerators capable of generating even higher energies typifying greater densities and temperatures prevalent at times closer to the big bang than 10-10 second. Even so, it’s remarkable that science can manage to do as well as it does—to take that last demanding step in the scientific method and to test events that might have occurred ideas much less than the first second of absolute existence.

 

[paddoboy]

https://www.sciencealert.com/black-hole-magnetic-field-weaker-than-expected-v404-cygni

New Study on Black Hole Magnetic Fields Has Thrown a Huge Surprise at Astronomers:

For the first time, scientists have studied the magnetic field of a black hole inside the Milky Way in multiple wavelengths - and found that it doesn't conform to what we previously thought.
According to researchers at the University of Florida and the University of Texas at San Antonio, the black hole called V404 Cygni's magnetic field is much weaker than expected - a discovery that means we may have to rework our current models for black hole jets.

V404 Cygni, located around 7,800 light-years away in the constellation of Cygnus, is a binary microquasar system consisting of a black hole about 9 times the mass of the Sun, and its companion star, an early red giant slightly smaller than the Sun.

In 2015, the system flared into life, and, over the course of about a week, periodically flashed with activity as the black hole devoured material from its companion star
more at link......................

extract:
As they consume matter, black holes expel powerful jets of plasma at near light-speed from the coronae - regions of hot, swirling gas above and below the accretion disc.

Previous research has shown that these coronae and the jets are controlled by powerful magnetic fields - and the stronger the magnetic fields close to the black hole's event horizon, the brighter its jets.

This is because the magnetic fields are thought to act like a synchrotron, accelerating the particles that travel through it.

Black holes themselves don't have magnetic poles, and therefore don't generate magnetic fields. This means that the accretion disc corona magnetic fields are somehow generated by the space around a black hole - a process that is not well understood at this point.

This result doesn't mean that previous findings showing strong magnetic fields are incorrect, but it does suggest that the dynamics may be a little more complicated than previously thought.

 

[paddoboy]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/magnetic-fields-may-be-the-key-to-black-hole-activity

 

[paddoboy]

The twistng of spacetime has been evidenced many times, particularly and accurately by GP-B.....
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/
NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories

Artist concept of Gravity Probe B spacecraft in orbit around the Earth. Image Credit: Stanford

NASA's Gravity Probe B (GP-B) mission has confirmed two key predictions derived from Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which the spacecraft was designed to test. The experiment, launched in 2004, used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the hypothesized geodetic effect, the warping of space and time around a gravitational body, and frame-dragging, the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates. GP-B determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


In actual fact the spacetime twisting effect, was verified earlier by Satellites sent into orbit.

 

[paddoboy]

A noted fact with regards to GP-B is the following.....
"The Gravity Probe B gyroscopes are the most perfect spheres ever made by humans. If these ping pong-sized balls of fused quartz and silicon were the size of the Earth, the elevation of the entire surface would vary by no more than 12 feet".
The above, from the article.....

 

[paddoboy]

Time to resurrect this thread again, as the forum's chief troll and purveyor of ignorance appears on the rampage again in the fringes.....

 

[paddoboy]

Because of Life's Energy .

Life Energy is an Entirely different form of Energy from Cosmic Plasmas .

Life Energy wants to Know ....

Cosmic Plasmas don't want to know ....knowledge . We do Life does .

Here river, this is another in depth explanation, as opposed to your one liner nonsense. Ooops, sorry, four liner nonsense.

 

[Seattle]

It's not "Gravity and the 4 forces". Gravity is one of the forces. Although you could argue that gravity isn't a force, that's it's just bending space time. Quantum physics doesn't as yet really define it either.

What does River say? I'm sure it crazy but I haven't seen what River's approach is.

 

[paddoboy]

It's not "Gravity and the 4 forces". Gravity is one of the forces. Although you could argue that gravity isn't a force, that's it's just bending space time. Quantum physics doesn't as yet really define it either.

Shit!! Nice pick-up, and my mistake. Off goes my head and on goes a pumpkin!!

What does River say? I'm sure it crazy but I haven't seen what River's approach is.

Not sure in actual fact. he says so many fucking stupid things that I have lost count.
Oh yeah, of course, he sees electromagnetism and the old debunked Plasma universe as the real thing.

 

[Seattle]

Shit!! Nice pick-up, and my mistake. Off goes my head and on goes a pumpkin!!


Not sure in actual fact. he says so many fucking stupid things that I have lost count.
Oh yeah, of course, he sees electromagnetism and the old debunked Plasma universe as the real thing.

There's a science channel on YouTube called Veritasium (or something like that). They have an interested video about how gravity isn't really a force and could be considered just as an "illusion". It's basically what happens when you run into something.

If you fall off a tall building you are weightless (no gravity) until you run into the ground. In a spaceship you are weightless until you run into a planet or until you accelerate. It uses the analogy of two people starting out walking on Earth on parallel lines some miles apart.

Eventually they bump into each other at the Pole with no force required.

 

[paddoboy]

There's a science channel on YouTube called Veritasium (or something like that). They have an interested video about how gravity isn't really a force and could be considered just as an "illusion". It's basically what happens when you run into something.

If you fall off a tall building you are weightless (no gravity) until you run into the ground. In a spaceship you are weightless until you run into a planet or until you accelerate. It uses the analogy of two people starting out walking on Earth on parallel lines some miles apart.

Eventually they bump into each other at the Pole with no force required.

Yep, I'm familiar with gravity under GR.
Just slightly worried that river has given you alike! The mind boggles...more then likley he has misunderstood as usual.

 

[Q-reeus]

The universe is held together by four known forces...the strong nuclear force, Electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force and gravity.
The strong nuclear force is responsible for the formation of protons and neutrons with quark combinations, and also the combining of protons and neutrons in atomic nuclear. It has limited range.

The electromagnetic force, is that force associated with electricity and magnetism, and is a result of the exchange of photons, [the electromagnetic field quanta] It can be either attractive or repulsive. The most common example is Sunlight. It is also responsible for the orbits of electrons [negative charge] around atomic nuclei [positive charge]. It has infinite range

The weak nuclear force is that force responsible for radioactivity, and the decay of unstable subatomic particles. It has limited range.

Gravity is that force which shapes the universe. It is the attraction between all masses, no matter how big or how small. Gravity only ever is attractive and is infinite in its range. Our best model of gravity is GR, and entails the warping, curving and twisting of spacetime in the presence of mass. Gravity is spacetime geometry and spacetime is the universe framework. In essence then gravity within GR is not really a force per se. While the weakest of the four forces speaking comparitively, it is also accumalitive. Gravity at its most accumalitive power is shown with Black Holes...regions of curved spacetime where matter has collapsed to beyond its Schwarzchild radius, and so that the escape velocity exceeds "c"

Here are two illustrative links that will help to explain....
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.html

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/05/22/why-is-gravity-the-strongest-force/
Other associated threads can be found at....
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-are-things-in-space-the-shape-that-they-are.163155/
and
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-early-universe.163207/
and
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/flashback-einstein-was-right-space-and-time-bend.163108/
The above narrative by me is pretty basic and any errors, alterations and/or corrections are welcome. Including of course any elaboration that may help
The main reason I saw the necessity of posting this, is because we have the continued nonsense and ignorance being portrayed in the fringes by river.

See posts #11 and #14 there. It's sad but instructive of human tendencies to perpetuate errors that a demonstrably mistaken fallacy 'dragged space/spacetime' maintains its status as 'fact' for so long.

 

[paddoboy]

See posts #11 and #14 there. It's sad but instructive of human tendencies to perpetuate errors that a demonstrably mistaken fallacy 'dragged space/spacetime' maintains its status as 'fact' for so long.

Or you are simply being a smart arse pedantic. I prefer the explanations of mainstream professionals thank you.

 

[Michael 345]

Eventually they bump into each other at the Pole with no force required.

Think this might be the one you referenced

Just rewatched

Think will need to see a few more times (ya I know I don't think time exist but here I am using common Minion meaning, not TIME as a fundamental)

Anyway it is the use, by the presenter of the word "acceleration" which he appears to use, referencing the Earth, on its geodetic path

Speed of which is, around the sun, As schoolchildren, we learn that the earth is moving about our sun in a very nearly circular orbit. It covers this route at a speed of nearly 30 kilometers per second, or 67,000 miles per hour
https://www.scientificamerican.com/..., the surface of the,or 67,000 miles per hour.


Not sure I learnt that but still

Falling speed = Near the surface of the Earth, an object in free fall in a vacuum will accelerate at approximately 9.8 m/s2, independent of its mass
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall#:~:text=Near the surface of the,mph) for a human skydiver.

So how does speed of Earth around the sun link up with free fall speed please?

Anyone

 

[Q-reeus]

Or you are simply being a smart arse pedantic.

The old abusive paddoboy reemerges full bloom. Instead of hurling abuse, try and rationally defend 'dragged space/spacetime'. I have given a rational argument against it. What can you personally offer as technically meaningful rebuttal? Nothing, instead resort to..."I prefer the explanations of mainstream professionals thank you."
Well some time back you got feedback from a number of GR experts and the only one out of iirc four who believed in 'moving space/spacetime was your goto guy Andrew Hamilton of 'the river model' fame. So experts will disagree. I prefer thinking for myself.

 

[exchemist]

Think this might be the one you referenced

Just rewatched

Think will need to see a few more times (ya I know I don't think time exist but here I am using common Minion meaning, not TIME as a fundamental)

Anyway it is the use, by the presenter of the word "acceleration" which he appears to use, referencing the Earth, on its geodetic path

Speed of which is, around the sun, As schoolchildren, we learn that the earth is moving about our sun in a very nearly circular orbit. It covers this route at a speed of nearly 30 kilometers per second, or 67,000 miles per hour
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/#:~:text=Thus, the surface of the,or 67,000 miles per hour.


Not sure I learnt that but still

Falling speed = Near the surface of the Earth, an object in free fall in a vacuum will accelerate at approximately 9.8 m/s2, independent of its mass
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall#:~:text=Near the surface of the,mph) for a human skydiver.

So how does speed of Earth around the sun link up with free fall speed please?

Anyone

I haven't watched the video but what they may be talking about is that the Earth, as it moves along its orbit, is in free fall round the sun, continually accelerating towards it but not getting closer because it is moving in a curved path.

 

[Michael 345]

I haven't watched the video but what they may be talking about is that the Earth, as it moves along its orbit, is in free fall round the sun, continually accelerating towards it but not getting closer because it is moving in a curved path.

I was under the impression in a eliptical orbit there is speed up and slow down regions

ie

The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
The square of a planet's orbital period is proportional to the cube of the length of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kep...The orbit of a planet,major axis of its orbit.

So I don't think continually accelerating is correct

And again how does

30 kilometers per second (speed of Earth moving around the sun) square with

9.8 m/s2 (which I take, from the video, NOT the person falling speed, but the Earth speed moving towards the person who is in free fall)

Thanks