/sci/ - Science & Math

When the little space mice fight against other space mice’s inertia.

Midi-chlorians

Bosonic exchanges between particles

>>4409262
Force is a very shitty physics concept that is pretty outdated in modern day. The concept of force is faulty and can only be applied to the simplest of systems.

Force is the derivate of energy. Now of days, physicist just talk about energy, and leave the force nonsense to retards (engineers).

>>4409277
This

>>4409287

>Doesn't realize that our current strongest model is based entirely on 4 fundamental forces

>>4409287

>Now of days

I’ve always thought it was “nowadays,” and now I’m wondering if I was wrong…

>>4409301

does that man by any chance suffer from Down's Syndrome?

>>4409291

The word “force” in the phrase “electromagnetic force” is not the same as the word “force” in the phrase, “Force is equal to mass times acceleration.”

>>4409291
>doesn't know what "fundemetal forces" are
>thinks it is literally about "forces"

LMFAO.
Show me any standard model reference what uses the concept of "force" in the equations, or notation. (Hint* There are none)

>>4409291
>failed

>>4409306

Yes it does. Electromagnetism is a fundamental force while applied forces are derived. Non-fundamental forces work entirely through the action of fundamental forces however.

>>4409291

>>4409311
Fundemetal? Really?

>>4409315
>>4409311

>thinks contact forces aren't completely derived from electromagnetism

>>4409287
can't say i disagree but it works well enough us

>>4409317
The context of the word "force" is very important. You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about kid.

The standard model is not about "force" in any fucking sense. When they use force they are actually talking about "interactions". The standard model is a model of interactions. NO WHERE, WHAT SO FUCKING EVER DO THEY USE THE SHITTY NEWTONIAN CONCEPT OF "FORCE".

Also, fuck off.! And read a book.

>>4409329

OP asked where forces come from. The picture shows someone hitting a tennis ball. That contact force comes from many electromagnetic interactions between the surfaces of the tennis ball and the racket. The standard model does describe forces as being derivative of interactions. Just because they aren't described as fundamental does not mean they aren't described.

>>4409329
Neither the OP nor AHAHAHA FAGGOT specified a meaning of force. Way to get all pissy over nothing.

all caps anger posting ftw man.

I am ignorant about physics. Teach me your ways, 4chan intelligentsia.

I recall hearing about four forces. Electromagnetic, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity. This idea is wrong? Or misleading?

>>4409337
>The standard model does describe forces as being derivative of interactions

No, it doesn't. The standard model doesn't use the shitty concept of force.

>>4409347

The Standard Model, in direct opposition to your own teachings, states heretically that all forces and transfers of energy are mediated by the four fundamental forces which you just mentioned.

However, these are unproven geusses and lies, meant to turn people from your infinite wisdom. Pay the fallible thoughts of men no heed.

>>4409347
When they say "forces" in the standar model, they are refering to interactions.

There are four fundemental types of interactions.

>>4409349

It fucking explains contact forces as consequences of fundamental forces then. Stop being so semantic you pseudointellectual fuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force#Non-fundamental_forces

>>4409350
The standard model doesn't talk about "force", in the same way newtonian mech talks about force. When they metion force, it is an a qualitiave way, in place of the word "interaction".

FOR FUCKS SAKE quantum mechanics doesnt even use the shitty notion of force.

Where the fuck do you get that Quantum field theory uses the notion of force?

You are a funny guy.

>>4409353
Well put.

lol

>>4409357

STOP BEING SO FUCKING SEMANTIC

>>4409366
>semantic
>you're totally fucking wrong
Okay... I guess we should not care if someone leaves out the dx in an integral.. too autistic...

>>4409353
But that isn't the standard model, that isn't quantum field theory. That is fucking classical mechanics you retarded piece of shit.

Yes, classical mecahnics uses the idea of contact forces. Yes, statsitical mechanics says that there contact forces can be derived from QFT, and the standard model. That is fucking trivial, NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT SHIT WITH YOU.

The standard model isn't "all fucking physics" though. The standard model is a very particular Quantum field theory, you dumbfuck. The standard model doesn't ever ever ever mention the shitty notion of newtonian force.

You really need to get your fucking head out of you ass and learn the differences between the different branched of physics.

If you are ever smart enough to take a standard model, quantum mech, or QFF class (or even read a fucking book), YOU WILL NEVER EVEN ENCOUNTER THE CONCEPT OF NEWTONIAN FORCE.

Newtonian force is only used in classical mechanics, it is never used in any other branch of physics. Why? Because it is an outdated concept that produces nonsense when you try to apply it to most physical systems. The shitty newtonian force approach to physics gives you irreconcilable singularities everyfucking where.

>Yes, classical mecahnics uses the idea of contact forces. Yes, statsitical mechanics says that there contact forces can be derived from QFT, and the standard model. That is fucking trivial, NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT SHIT WITH YOU.

That's all I'm saying you fucking faggot. You ARE arguing it. You're the ONLY one arguing it.

perhaps i should leave this thread before more jimmies are rustled

>>4409409

we must associate a particle with each of the known forces, based on experimental evidence such as the photoelectric effect and compton scattering. these forces are described by their respected field equations/lagrangian, and the said particles are described by the fourier components of these fields quantized as a collection of harmonic oscillators. examples of these 'fields' include the higgs field, the photon field, the graviton field, etc.

digressing a bit, the idea that the exchange of a particle can produce a force was one of the most profound conceptual advances in physics. quantized fluctuations in bosonic gauge fields can very accurately describe all physical phenomena (sans gravity) we observe to date. so accurate, in fact, that we may begin to contemplate the physical reality of these fields as individual entities such as portrayed by parallel d-branes in string theory.