Gravity

[scimath No.6650260]

Ok, so gravity and electromagnetism are two different forces. But is it possible that gravity is just another form of electromagnetism?

[Anonymous No.6650268]

>>6650260
No. The two forces have nothing in common besides infinite range.

[Anonymous No.6650271]

Ok, so the Dunning-Kruger effect and shitposting are two different forces. But is it possible that the Dunning-Kruger effect is just another form of shitposting?

[Anonymous No.6650276]

>>6650260
Technically no, but the combined force wouldn't be called a form of electromagnetism, electromagnetism is a subset of the combined force.

Its worth saying that dipole electromagnitism causes net attraction.

[Anonymous No.6650594]

>>6650260
No, but this is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_force#Weak_interaction

[Anonymous No.6650630]

>>6650268
They share Gauss' law.

>>6650260
Maybe. About 150 years ago they thought magnetism was separated from electricity.

[Anonymous No.6650643]

We have no evidence of a singularity between gravity and electromagnetism.

Anyone not providing sourced evidence of such relation is just speculating.

[Anonymous No.6650652]

It was a popular idea for a little while that gravity was electromagnetic and that the forces between negative and positive particles didn't quite cancel in the Victorian era. It was disproven by Lord Kelvin but I don't know how.

Unfortunately because there is no much psudoscience on the web I have been unable to find any reference to this. I would be interested if anyone had any insight.

[Anonymous No.6650806]

>>6650652
at the electroweak unification scale, EM stop existing as it is and becomes part of the SU(2)xU(1) interaction; gravity is intact and stays so for at least other ten orders of magnitude.

It is literally impossible for gravitation to be a form of EM.

[Anonymous No.6650974]

Is it possible for the gravity force to be greater to electromagnetism on massive objects?

[Anonymous No.6650997]

>>6650271
Yes. Dunning-Kruger, is german, meaning Thunder-Warrior. Thunder Warriors are mythological creatures. Now, what is another mythological creature? Exactly, the troll. And trolling is a form of shitposting. Q.D.E

[Anonymous No.6653256]

>>6650260
Are you fucking kidding?
This is a troll, right?

[Anonymous No.6653277]

>>6650260

> hey /sci/ what's the Theory of Everything? you got it, right?

[Anonymous No.6653382]

>gravity is just another form of electromagnetism?

[Anonymous No.6653386]

>>6650260
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza–Klein_theory

[Anonymous No.6653397]

the one thing they have in common is that their respective bosons have zero mass (this results in things like 1/r potentials/gauss law etc)

[Anonymous No.6653399]

>>6650997
>Dunning-Kruger, is german, meaning Thunder-Warrior.

That would be Donnerkrieger

Dunning Kruger would mean demanding innkeeper.

From the English: Dunning, demanding payment.
And the old Saxon name Kruger/Krüger, a tavern keeper.

[Anonymous No.6653450]

>>6650260
neutrogravitism? =D

[Anonymous No.6653456]

Well, the electrons aren't the only things moving / vibrating...

What happens if the nuclei sync up?

[Anonymous No.6653487]

>>6653399
Demanding payment? Jews... people shitpost jews. The relation holds.

[Anonymous No.6654716]

>>6650630
gauss' law applies to all conservative forces.

not just EM and Gravity.

The strong and weak forces are like exceptions to being conservative, because they're layered.

[Anonymous No.6654736]

>>6650806

I never understood that electroweak shit

Like I understand that, if i recall at a certain temperature the electromagnetic force and weak force become one but...how exactly does the force interact with matter? One force creates attraction between oppositely charged particles while the other is the force trying to tear apart atoms. How in the fuck do they become one?

[Anonymous No.6654739]

>>6654736
This.

And the impression i get from weak force is sorta "fuck the police, i'ma not conserve anything", how is that related in anyway to the orderly mannered EM?

[Anonymous No.6654742]

There is a theory called electrogravatics that basically says the electromagnetic force is connected to gravity. So far, most of the tests have been aggravatingly weak or literally flew away from us. Look up Searl Effect Generator and Assymetrical Capacitors.

[Anonymous No.6654753]

>>6650260

> Negro IQ question time:

How kill is gravity?

[Anonymous No.6654758]

>>6654753

Kek

[Anonymous No.6654762]

>>6650268
they're both massless and travel at the speed of c.

[Anonymous No.6654818]

>>6654736
I'll try to explain best that I can.

Technically, the 'weak force' is not a gauge interaction in the strictest sense

Below GUT scale (we don't know what's above) and above EW unification scale, there is one SU(2)×U(1) gauge theory (that thing is the gauge group of symmetries associated). SU(2) is called weak isospin (NOT isospin) and is mediated by three (because SU (2) is 3-dimensional) gauge bosons called usually W (NOT the W+-). Since this is a non abelian gauge theory, it's much more complicated than EM, gauge bosons interact with eachother (this is the same thing that happens with the strong force, which is SU(3)). You cannot interpet it simply as an attraction or repulsion force between particles with SU(2) charge. U(1) is called weak hypercharge (NOT hypercharge) and is an abelian gauge theory mediated by a single boson usually called a B boson. This theory looks and works is exactly the same as EM, but it's not the same thing.

So we have 4 gauge bosons that are massless as a consequence of gauge invariance.

continues...

[Anonymous No.6654819]

>>6654818
cont.d

At EW breaking temperature, the higgs field (which is charged under both of this fields) condenses and breaks the symmetry described above (spontaneous symmetry breaking). Most of the gauge group is "gone" (the symmetry is not "physical") but a part of it is actually preserved. This is the U(1) of EM (it's not the same U (1) as weak hypercharge, it's a different copy of U(1) included in SU (2)xU (1)) and the gauge boson associated is the photon, which stays massless. So we get the gauge theory of EM as the unbroken part of the EW interaction. The photon is actually a linear combination of one of the W bosons with the B boson.

The other three bosons, which are other combinations of the 4 W and B bosons, acquire mass. These are the Z^0 and W^+- bosons. The gauge group is broken and thus we don't observe that symmetry nor we can see this as a gauge theory at low energy. However, these particles still have interaction terms with the fields that were charged under SU(2)xU(1). These interaction vertices allow the reactions we classify under the weak force.

[Anonymous No.6655171]

>>6650260
Ok op.
Logical thinking now.
What is electricity?
Its a temporary distortional state which has voltage and current.
Since electromagnetism is electricity it consist of MAGNETIC LINES OF FORCE and DIELECTRICAL/ELECTROSTATICAL LINES OF FORCE.
These forces are PHYSICAL AND REAL and that is which we actually measure with our equipment.
The electron is an ABSTRACTION AND NOT REAL.The electron was made into a theoretical simplification on how you determine electrical force namely 1 unit of magnetical line of force times the dielectrical lines of force.
So magnetism is not electricity and dielectricity is also not electricity but if both are together then it is contrary what other idiots may tell.
For their understadning they form pairs inductor-condenser,magnet-electret,series -parallel,spacial-counter spacial,resistance-conductance etc.
The magnetic lines of start from end and end in another forming a close loop (they are slow).
The dielectrical lines go straight way and unless they end at some point they form a loop upon themselves.
Now this was an example of the basics on how the inductor and condenser works.
If you want to store magnetic energy in an inductor you have to form a closed loop and in the case of condenser you have to short circuit it.
So i try to pint out what electricity aka EM is.
In the case of condenser when the dielectrical current flows through it the plates are attracted to each other and try to pull themselves together.
So my honest theory is that gravity is dielectrical in its essence.

[Anonymous No.6655202]

>>6653399

Dunning Kruger actually means absolutely nothing in German.

Jetzt fick dich weg, schuchtel.

[Anonymous No.6655207]

It's possible to electromagnetism be related to gravity, just think about electrons when they go at C they are constantly building up mass, so that would mean the mass is altered and it's increased. Beyond that I don't know for sure

[Anonymous No.6655211]

>>6650260
Hasn't there been already some talk about the Higgs field being the reason why matter has mass and gravity?

[Anonymous No.6655219]

>>6654819
Thank you! I never expected to see a helpful and clear explanation on /sci/ of all places. I feel like I understand this much better now.

Two questions:

The weak force is responsible for beta decay. How does this work? I "know" how it works on a particle level, but it's a Wikipedia-level understanding. Can it be explained from a forces-and-fields perspective, in the same way electromagnetism (which is really a particle theory, under QED) can?

I know that a classical forces-and-field-lines explanation isn't really valid over long distances because the weak bosons decay, but at short ranges it should be ok.

[Anonymous No.6655222]

>>6655211
Not why it has gravity, just why it has mass. Photons are unaffected by the Higgs field, have no mass, and still have gravity.

[Anonymous No.6655223]

>>6655219
Oh, right, second question: What does it mean that the Higgs "condenses" at low temperatures for a certain field interaction? I get that it only comes into play at low temperatures, breaking the field symmetry, but I never understood why.

[Anonymous No.6655226]

>>6655222
Interesting.

[Anonymous No.6655234]

>>6655222
>still have gravity
Having gravity due to mass and being affected by gravity are different phenomenons. Photons are only affected by mass by the fact they follow a straight line across gravity-bent space-time.

[Anonymous No.6655237]

>>6655234
Photons also gravitationally attract other things. To oversimplify: they have energy, which is the same thing as having mass as far as gravity is concerned.

[Anonymous No.6655255]

>>6655237
I stand corrected. However their effect is negligible. The Higgs field would not significantly affect the photon even if it has energy/mass/gravity.

[Anonymous No.6655288]

so tell me if i've got this right

gravity is not a force, but rather the result of spacetime being bent by mass and /or energy

seems to be a result of other forces rather than be a force itself, is that right?

[Anonymous No.6655317]

>>6655288
Gravity is a force that results from diffeomorphism invariance of the metric being gauge symmetry, like EW is U(1) phase invariance of fields being gauge symmetry. Then they're different, because phase symmetry is auxiliary but diffeomorphism invariance is tied to the space-time.

[Anonymous No.6655324]

>>6655317
I just realized that if you went into a park and started talking like this to people, you'd be in a psychiatry faster than a black man in jail.

[Anonymous No.6655336]

>>6654753
Gravity is not something that you can have sex with.

[Anonymous No.6655339]

>>6655336
But can't you accidentally gravity?

[Anonymous No.6655342]

Like electrons, gravity has an anti version of itself. Anti-gravity, as one would imagine, is not the lack of gravity, but the complete opposite of gravity entirely.
It's a tiny point in space time that spits out matter at a "slow" and constant rate.

It's basically what made the big bang and the reason why the universe is expanding. Gravity is such a small power compared to most of what's out there but Anti-gravity is a force that can create an entire universe just by showing up and getting through the higgs field.

[Anonymous No.6655343]

how might gravity relate to dark energy?

[Anonymous No.6655347]

>>6655219

>The weak force is responsible for beta decay. How does this work? I "know" how it works on a particle level, but it's a Wikipedia-level understanding. Can it be explained from a forces-and-fields perspective,

yup. The standard model is a theory of quantum fields. The point is that the classical equation of motion are very complicated and unsolvable, and qm makes the problem monstrous. Perturbation theory is the main tool of tackling most of these problems if couplings are weak (and they are here). Basically you write your QFT as a "simple" free field theory (which is solvable) + a small perturbation, and you expand in powers of the perturbation. In terms of particles, the free field theory contains them explicitly, but they don't interact. The perturbation is the interaction.

Now, if you actually do the expansion, and you write in term of feynman diagrams, you actually see that the terms can be envisioned as particular ways of performing the process through the exchange of virtual particles. You are still working out the dynamics of the field, but particles arise naturally (or rather intuitively) in the description of small perturbations.

>in the same way electromagnetism (which is really a particle theory, under QED) can?

woah woah woah. QED is a quantum field theory. Not different from all the others.

Sometimes you can talk about particles. But they are an emergent phenomenon, and often not identifiable. The field is the ontology here.

continues...

[Anonymous No.6655350]

>>6655347
...continued

>I know that a classical forces-and-field-lines explanation isn't really valid over long distances because the weak bosons decay, but at short ranges it should be ok.

no, because the weak bosons we have now are not gauge bosons, their simmetry is broken in terms of the degrees of freedom we could reasonably identify at our scale.

I guess you could also say that to get to the lenght scale corresponding to the weak boson mass you're probing energies to the order of magnitude of the electroweak scale and thus we're talking about nothing.

Still, I emphasize that even the full gauge theory of SU(2) weak isospin is nonlinear and complicated; not exactly solvable in the general case like an abelian theory (e.g. EM)

> What does it mean that the Higgs "condenses" at low temperatures for a certain field interaction? I get that it only comes into play at low temperatures, breaking the field symmetry, but I never understood why.

continues...

[Anonymous No.6655353]

>>6655350
contd

It's called the higgs mechanism (or at least the quantum version is, and I won't discuss this) and I'll give you an artificial and simplified but informative example. Let's start from an abelian gauge theory with group U(1) (say, EM, or call it like you want). So we have a massless gauge boson. Now introduce a charged field phi. This field is complex valued (this equals being charged), so you can represent it in a plane. Now give it the famous mexican hat potential (google images). Imagine that the field is jumping around from thermal energy. It goes here, goes there, goes where the fuck it cares. On average, the situation is axially symmetric in the complex plane. Now lower the temperature. When it's chilly enough, the field will fall in the valley. It won't be able to climb up again. It will also have chosen a preferential, arbitrary direction in the plane (all minima of the potential are just the same). This happens IN ALL POINTS IN SPACE (with some caveats that we ignore here). Since U(1) is actually the group of rotation in such a plane, the symmetry is broken. For everybody! Because the higgs had couplings to the gauge field (because it was charged), it being nonzero generates new terms that fuck up shit. The gauge boson acquires mass. We also get a massive scalar (the higgs boson) corresponding to radial oscillations of phi.

This actually was a model for superconductivity, because we made the photon massive and thus EM short range! There is a complicated version of this in the standard model and is the GWS model with SU (2)×U (1) → U (1) that I sketched before.

[Anonymous No.6655366]

>>6655353
Hey, thanks! I feel I understand better now, or at least can more clearly identify the areas of my ignorance.

Just checking here, but does that mean if you (somehow) heated something back up to unification scale, things would revert back to the B and W fields?

And if they cooled back down, could the Higgs field break symmetry again, but pick a different arbitrary direction? Would this have any effects?

[Anonymous No.6655378]

>>6655366
yes
yes
and YES.

The third one is SO interesting. But I can't tell more, it's too technical.

Just know it has to do with monopoles and superselection rules.

[Anonymous No.6655455]

>>6655339

Only if you don't observe it.

[Anonymous No.6655520]

>>6653277

[Anonymous No.6655802]

>>6655202
nice 200-level German dude. you sure showed him