/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6511169]

Why do physicists still talk about the "4 fundamental forces," even though they've already shown that the EM and weak forces are the same thing? (aka electroweak force.)
Why don't they say "3 fundamental forces?"

Is it just because of historical conventions, or is there some deeper meaning behind keeping the number of fundamental forces at 4?

[Medical_Physicist !!ST92PtcX00D No.6511189]

At the energies currently relevant in our universe the symmetry in the electroweak interaction is broken, giving rise to two unique forces.

If we observe a process, it is happening subject to four distinct interactions.

It is hypothesized that at sufficiently high energy all of the forces can be unified into one, doesn't change the fact that at our energy levels there are four of them.

[Anonymous No.6511197]

>>6511189
So are the electric and weak forces actually distinct forces at low energies?

Or is it like the magnetic "force", which is just a relativistic distortion of the electric field?

[Anonymous No.6511225]

>>6511197

Define "actually distinct".

I'd say they're not actually distinct because they're described by a common theory.

That said, your ass and the chair you sit on aren't actually distinct either because they lack a well-defined boundary.

It's a neat way to view things when you're an autist, but you rapidly lose the means to talk about anything.

Under normal circumstances it's useful to describe electromagnetic and weak force as separate entities.

That still works well at energies where your ass and the chair you sit on have long been unified.

[Anonymous No.6511240]

>>6511225
Ok, but you still haven't answered my second question:
>is it like the magnetic "force", which is just a relativistic distortion of the electric field?