PDA

View Full Version : Forces in nature?



rigney
2010-May-17, 01:49 PM
Parsimony, or Occam's Razor as it's called; refers to over extrapolation as possibly being worse than the initial problem. So, why do some knowledgeable people insist on making mountains out of mole hills to create hypotheses' only they can undrestand? Natural forces, to me; is one.

01101001
2010-May-17, 01:54 PM
Natural forces, to me; is one.

Whoosh for me. Could you flesh out the example and describe what it is about "natural forces" that is mole-hill-like and under what circumstances it gets mountainous?

(Are you thinking of natural forces listed on this National Geographic page (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/siteindex/weather.html)?)

rigney
2010-May-17, 02:10 PM
I simply can't get a grasp on the four supposed forces of, gravity, magnetism, weak and strong. Well, magnetism I do understand somewhat.
Rigney

neilzero
2010-May-17, 02:10 PM
Hi rigney: I need some detailed examples also, and you posted some good ones seconds before this post. Some create not understandable hypothesis, because of "publish or die = they are desperate. In most cases, some understand, but I am not among those so gifted. The ones that you mentioned seem to have mainstream acceptance and have graduated from hypothesis to theory. I share your pain. Neil

01101001
2010-May-17, 02:30 PM
[...] four supposed forces of, gravity, magnetism, weak and strong [...]

Ah. The fundamental forces. Wikipedia: Fundamental interaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction)

Why "supposed"?

And, why "mole hill"? Could you give an example of a knowledgeable person creating mountain-nature hypotheses only they can understand? I don't get what you're asking. If you can't get a grasp on their hypotheses, I don't think that requires them to abandon their ideas.

rigney
2010-May-17, 02:35 PM
Thanks Niel. Thought for a minute I might be out here on this limb "all" by myself. Peronally I like simplicity in explination if it can be done. Many great minds have dedicated their entire life trying to get all of this stuff together only to find out that most of it doesn't work. To me?, It's just hard to understand. But I keep trying!

Strange
2010-May-17, 02:45 PM
"I can't understand it" is not the same as "only they can understand it"

Gravity and the electric/magentic forces may seem simpler because we experience them quite directly on a day to day basis. Just because the others are not as obvious doesn't make them any less real or important. None of them are hypothetical. They are all very definitely confirmed by experiment. Are there any specific things you need help understanding?

rigney
2010-May-17, 02:46 PM
Not being disrespectful 001., but ignorance to many of us is merely pot holes in the road we step into on our journey. Some are just so danged deep, they takes longer to climb out of.

rigney
2010-May-17, 03:36 PM
You are absolutely right Strange. While I meant no disrespect to those who have authenticated these claims, it's just that I have such a hard time digesting them.
My own theories are so "off the wall", they scare even me. Having no formal education, it's difficult explaining these (thoughts), other than through a person with intellect. Maybe in time I may shove one or two of these dreams into the main stream. Who knows?

korjik
2010-May-17, 03:45 PM
Gravity and electrodynamics we see every day. Strong keeps atoms together and Weak breaks them apart.

Where is the molehill, much less the mountain?

This is a problem of your lack of education, not a problem of Occam's razor. You can write down all of physics in about a dozen single line equations.

rigney
2010-May-17, 04:35 PM
You're right Korjik. Basically I'm not intelligent enough to disagree with your prognosis, but this guy is: "Einstein's Gravity" By: Albert Einstein

"Al" called gravity a distortion in the shape of space-time. This gentleman won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921, for contributing an alternative theory of gravity in the early 1900s as part of his famous General Theory of Relativity, which offered a very different explanation of Newton's Law of "Universal Gravitation". Einstein didn't believe gravity was a force at all; but said it was a distortion in the shape of space-time, otherwise known as "the fourth dimension" (see How Special Relativity Works to learn about space-time).

Basic physics states that if there are no external forces at work, an object will always travel in the straightest possible line. Accordingly, without an external force, two objects travelling along parallel paths will always remain parallel, and will never meet.

But the fact is, they do meet. Particles that start off on parallel paths sometimes end up colliding. Newton's theory says this can occur because of gravity, a force attracting those objects to one another or to a single, third object. Einstein also says this occurs due to gravity -- but in his theory, gravity is not a force. It's a curve in space-time.

According to Einstein, those objects are still travelling along the straightest possible line, but due to a distortion in space-time, the straightest possible line is now along a spherical path. So two objects that were moving along a flat plane are now moving along a spherical plane. And two straight paths along that sphere end in a single point.

Still more-recent theories of gravity express the phenomenon in terms of particles and waves. One view states that particles called gravitons cause objects to be attracted to one another. Gravitons have never actually been observed, though. And neither have gravitational waves, sometimes called gravitational radiation, which supposedly are generated when an object is accelerated by an external force [source: Scientific American].

Gravitons or no gravitons, we know that what goes up must come down. Perhaps someday, we'll know exactly why. But until then, we can be satisfied just knowing that planet Earth won't go hurdling into the sun anytime soon. Gravity is keeping it safely in orbit.

rigney
2010-May-17, 05:12 PM
Korjik, being a junior member, I'll try not being too obnoxius even refuting Al's thesis on his explination of gravity. If you look closely, he described "parallel lines" in space as something ending in a circular pattern because of space/time warpage? If you are familiar with vectorial positioning eminatring from a specific point, (big bang); there can be no such thing as, parallel lines?

slang
2010-May-17, 05:13 PM
Which prognosis?

Geo Kaplan
2010-May-17, 05:22 PM
You're right Korjik. Basically I'm not intelligent enough to disagree with your prognosis, but this guy is: "Einstein's Gravity" By: Albert Einstein

"Al" called gravity a distortion in the shape of space-time. This gentleman won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921, for contributing an alternative theory of gravity in the early 1900s as part of his famous General Theory of Relativity, {snip}

If you're going to offer history lessons, you ought to do at least a minimal amount of homework first. Remember, there are many professional, practicing scientists on this forum, who pay attention to details. Sloppiness in one area tends to diminish credibility in others.

For the record, Einstein did not receive his Nobel for his work on relativity (special or general). The official citation states that he won it for his work on the photoelectric effect.

Now, back to your question: What "mole hill" are you referring to? It seems to me, as has been suggested by others, that the "problem" is more one of your lack of education than any mole hill inflation by complexity-craving mad scientists. In your totally unnecessary mini-lecture, you failed to explain yourself. Are you sincerely looking for an answer to your question, or are you just looking to post for the sake of posting? If the former, please explain precisely what you mean by your mole hill reference. If the latter, maybe Off-Topic Babbling is the right place for your posts?

rigney
2010-May-17, 05:35 PM
Slang, My lack of intellect. But remember a simple truth:

Into this life we are let
first to inquire, then to our fame
Oh! so quickly do we leave
taking not, but as we came!

Have a good one, Rigney

Geo Kaplan
2010-May-17, 05:40 PM
But you don't seem to be interested in hearing our answers to your inquiry.

As has been the advice to many a visitor here, "Get thee to a library." Approach your studies with an open mind, instead of starting with the biases you seem to have built up. Look at the experimental support for the various theories. If you want to cook up an alternative, understand that you are constrained by the realities of those experimental results.

rigney
2010-May-17, 05:46 PM
Geo, How do I get to "Off Topic Babbling"? Perhaps that's where my thoughts belong.

Geo Kaplan
2010-May-17, 05:52 PM
Go to the main page (http://www.bautforum.com/), scroll down. You'll see it.

ETA: I should mention that there doesn't seem to be a place here for "on-topic" babbling (which seems more suited to what you apparently prefer). Q&A is for those looking for actual answers from the mainstream to questions about science. ATM is for those who think they have answers that the mainstream doesn't (or has gotten wrong). Your posts may not fit OTB either, but give it a whirl. Just don't be surprised if you hear from some mods.

slang
2010-May-17, 06:01 PM
Slang, My lack of intellect.

His words were "lack of education", not lack of intellect. Lack of education can be fixed, by study. Thanks for the answer, but I still don't understand why you bring up Einstein, how Einstein disagrees with korjik's assessment that you (seem to) lack knowledge to have a good understanding of the forces of nature.

Cougar
2010-May-17, 06:14 PM
"Al" called gravity a distortion in the shape of space-time...

He also said theories or explanations should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. (Or something like that.)

Scientists love the beauty of simplicity, but some things in Nature are just a bit complicated.


I simply can't get a grasp on the four supposed forces of, gravity, [electro]magnetism, weak and strong.

What sort of grasp do you need? The strong force is fairly well figured out, but complicated. It involves quarks and gluons and asymptotic freedom, to name a few. It explains how the like-charged protons in a nucleus can stay together. Without it, there would be no atoms, except perhaps hydrogen. Fortunately, if you don't have a grasp of it, your body does not disintegrate. ;)

Geo Kaplan
2010-May-17, 06:23 PM
What sort of grasp do you need? The strong force is fairly well figured out, but complicated. It involves quarks and gluons and asymptotic freedom, to name a few. It explains how the like-charged protons in a nucleus can stay together. Without it, there would be no atoms, except perhaps hydrogen. Fortunately, if you don't have a grasp of it, your body does not disintegrate. ;)

So, it's ok if you don't have a grasp of it, as long as it has a grasp of you.

Swift
2010-May-17, 06:39 PM
Geo, How do I get to "Off Topic Babbling"? Perhaps that's where my thoughts belong.
rigney,

If you are looking for answers to your questions, even if the answers are in the form of a discussion, Q&A is probably fine.

If you are just looking to sort of chat about this, than OTB might be a better spot. If so, I can move the thread. I do warn that OTB threads tend to get fairly random and easily wander off topic, so discussions there may be much less serious.

Either PM me or state your thoughts in thread.

rigney
2010-May-17, 07:10 PM
Somewhere out there I feel a hug!! And since I'm not trying to sell you "tap water" as Aquafina, don't get your hackles up. Hey,! Some of you may be teeners or mainstreamers with brilliant minds, but that doesn't mean all of us below your level of intellect are jerks and stupid. And Geo, that was not a short history lesson in spades, Big Al made the assessment himself.

korjik
2010-May-17, 07:14 PM
You're right Korjik. Basically I'm not intelligent enough to disagree with your prognosis, but this guy is: "Einstein's Gravity" By: Albert Einstein

I made no comment on your intellect. I said you dont have the education.


"Al" called gravity a distortion in the shape of space-time. This gentleman won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921, for contributing an alternative theory of gravity in the early 1900s as part of his famous General Theory of Relativity, which offered a very different explanation of Newton's Law of "Universal Gravitation". Einstein didn't believe gravity was a force at all; but said it was a distortion in the shape of space-time, otherwise known as "the fourth dimension" (see How Special Relativity Works to learn about space-time).

As has been stated alread, Einstein did not get a nobel prize for Relativity. To get to the real meat tho, Relitivity is not a very different explanation from Newton. As a matter of fact, Newtonian gravitation is simply the low-mass limit of General Relativity. It is also one of those one liner equations.


Basic physics states that if there are no external forces at work, an object will always travel in the straightest possible line. Accordingly, without an external force, two objects travelling along parallel paths will always remain parallel, and will never meet.

That depends on your coordinates, which is one of the places your education is lacking


But the fact is, they do meet. Particles that start off on parallel paths sometimes end up colliding. Newton's theory says this can occur because of gravity, a force attracting those objects to one another or to a single, third object. Einstein also says this occurs due to gravity -- but in his theory, gravity is not a force. It's a curve in space-time.

And oddly enough, gravity works exactly the same either way.


According to Einstein, those objects are still travelling along the straightest possible line, but due to a distortion in space-time, the straightest possible line is now along a spherical path. So two objects that were moving along a flat plane are now moving along a spherical plane. And two straight paths along that sphere end in a single point.

Not spherical path, but works out the same either way.


Still more-recent theories of gravity express the phenomenon in terms of particles and waves. One view states that particles called gravitons cause objects to be attracted to one another. Gravitons have never actually been observed, though. And neither have gravitational waves, sometimes called gravitational radiation, which supposedly are generated when an object is accelerated by an external force [source: Scientific American].

Gracitational radiation has been observed, most notably in neutron star and white dwarf binary systems.


Gravitons or no gravitons, we know that what goes up must come down. Perhaps someday, we'll know exactly why. But until then, we can be satisfied just knowing that planet Earth won't go hurdling into the sun anytime soon. Gravity is keeping it safely in orbit.

what goes up dosent always come down. Once you exceed a certain speed, you wont come back down. This is known as escape velocity.

kevin1981
2010-May-17, 07:57 PM
Gravity and electrodynamics we see every day. Strong keeps atoms together and Weak breaks them apart.

Is the weak force radioactivity, and why are some particles radioactive ? How does radioactivity harm humans ?

Shaula
2010-May-17, 09:37 PM
Is the weak force radioactivity, and why are some particles radioactive ? How does radioactivity harm humans ?
The weak force mediates beta decay. It does other stuff as well but this is the most common effect we see. Wikipedia has the basics for both radioactivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactivity) and the weak force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force). Worth a quick read as they answer your questions pretty well.

Geo Kaplan
2010-May-17, 11:20 PM
Is the weak force radioactivity, and why are some particles radioactive ? How does radioactivity harm humans ?

Radioactivity can harm humans by breaking chemical bonds. This can disrupt your body's chemistry in any number of ways, including killing off cells.

kevin1981
2010-May-18, 12:31 AM
So radioactive elements are unstable and lose energy which we call decay, some part of the energy radiates out breaking down human (and other) cells and molecules. Also while they decay they can turn into other types of atom.

Is this about right ?

Shaula
2010-May-18, 04:07 PM
@Kevin1981
Pretty much. Some atoms are unstable. If there is an available more stable (more energetically favourable) configuration of nucleons then there is a chance (depending on how hard it is to do) that they will spontaneously flip into this lower energy state. If they do they have to eject other particles or even change one particle into another. Thus some atoms eject alpha particles (2 protons, 2 neutrons), some eject beta particles (electrons released when a neutron turns into a proton), some just eject energy (gamma rays). These particles are energetic and when they hit organic matter they have a tendency to smash up molecules. The fragments of these molecules react unpredictably with whatever is around them which, if they are near DNA, messes up the instructions your cells uses to run. This can cause all sorts of unpleasant things to happen including cancer. In very high doses the damage can be so catastrophic that radiation sickness sets in which is caused by the sudden deaths of large numbers of essential but radiation sensitive cells. Very nasty.

An example: Uranium 238 is unstable. It ejects an alpha particle (pretty rarely - the reaction has a half life of 4.468x10^9 years!) to turn into Thorium 234 (4 units lighter, two elements down the table as it has got rid of two protons). This Thorium decays more quickly (half life 24.1 days) via beta decay to become Protactinium 234 (no mass loss, moves one point up the periodic table as a neutron decays to a proton). This then decays as do the sixteen other elements it can turn in to as the atom approaches a nice stable configuration - Lead 210. See Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain).

Hornblower
2010-May-18, 04:19 PM
@Kevin1981
Pretty much. Some atoms are unstable. If there is an available more stable (more energetically favourable) configuration of nucleons then there is a chance (depending on how hard it is to do) that they will spontaneously flip into this lower energy state. If they do they have to eject other particles or even change one particle into another. Thus some atoms eject alpha particles (2 protons, 2 neutrons), some eject beta particles (electrons released when a neutron turns into a proton), some just eject energy (gamma rays). These particles are energetic and when they hit organic matter they have a tendency to smash up molecules. The fragments of these molecules react unpredictably with whatever is around them which, if they are near DNA, messes up the instructions your cells uses to run. This can cause all sorts of unpleasant things to happen including cancer. In very high doses the damage can be so catastrophic that radiation sickness sets in which is caused by the sudden deaths of large numbers of essential but radiation sensitive cells. Very nasty.

An example: Uranium 238 is unstable. It ejects an alpha particle (pretty rarely - the reaction has a half life of 4.468x10^9 years!) to turn into Thorium 234 (4 units lighter, two elements down the table as it has got rid of two protons). This Thorium decays more quickly (half life 24.1 days) via beta decay to become Protactinium 234 (no mass loss, moves one point up the periodic table as a neutron decays to a proton). This then decays as do the sixteen other elements it can turn in to as the atom approaches a nice stable configuration - Lead 210. See Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain).

My bold for reference.

I would say that the beta decay results in a slight mass loss, that of an electron, which is about 1/1800 of the mass of a proton or neutron.

If you scroll down to the end of the radium/uranium series in the Wiki article, you will find lead 206 as the stable end product.

Shaula
2010-May-18, 07:11 PM
I would say that the beta decay results in a slight mass loss, that of an electron, which is about 1/1800 of the mass of a proton or neutron.
If you scroll down to the end of the radium/uranium series in the Wiki article, you will find lead 206 as the stable end product.
Ooops, 208 it is.

As for mass loss - I should have been clearer. I meant that the nucleon count doesn't change. So it goes from Thorium 234 to Protactinium 234 (although as Hornblower say, in reality there is a small actual mass loss). That is the key difference between the alpha and beta decay modes - one results in a fairly significant (in atomic terms!) hunk of matter flying off whereas the other spits out an electron.

kevin1981
2010-May-18, 09:07 PM
Is the energy that radiates out and harms living cells, gamma rays ? Same as a nuclear bomb, you get light rays and gamma rays ?

ta

Hornblower
2010-May-18, 10:10 PM
Is the energy that radiates out and harms living cells, gamma rays ? Same as a nuclear bomb, you get light rays and gamma rays ?

taYes, there is gamma radiation along with the alpha and beta particles.

Geo Kaplan
2010-May-18, 11:13 PM
Is the energy that radiates out and harms living cells, gamma rays ? Same as a nuclear bomb, you get light rays and gamma rays ?

ta

It's even more general than that. The bonds that link atoms together are only so strong. To make biology work, these bonds can be neither too strong (or we'd be rocks), nor too weak (we wouldn't hold together at room temperature). The numbers work out to the order of a few electron-volts for typical bond energies in biologically important molecules. That corresponds to the upper end of the visible range of light. Gamma rays are much, much more energetic than that, which is why they're capable of a lot of damage.

If you think of bonds as somewhat akin to springs that link atoms together, light of sufficiently short wavelength can break these springs, and then potentially bad things can happen to you. It's not just gamma rays -- UV is not so good for you, either. And the list doesn't end there.

DrRocket
2010-May-19, 04:03 AM
Korjik, being a junior member, I'll try not being too obnoxius even refuting Al's thesis on his explination of gravity. If you look closely, he described "parallel lines" in space as something ending in a circular pattern because of space/time warpage? If you are familiar with vectorial positioning eminatring from a specific point, (big bang); there can be no such thing as, parallel lines?

It is quite easy for there to be no parallel lines. It happens in non-Euclidean geometry.

General relativity was Einstein's extension of his special theory of relativity which was needed to incorporate gravity. Special relativity specifically excludes gravity.

So, Albert spent about ten years developing a theory that extended special relativity to include gravity, basically inspired by a vision in which physics would exhibit no distinguished reference frames. To do this he engaged the help of a mathematician friend, Marcel Grossman. The basic question that he posed to Grossman was what the appropriate mathematical tools might be to formulate physics in this observer-neutral manner. Grossman pointed him toward the relatively new, at the time, mathematics of tensors and Riemannian geometry. Riemannian geometry is non-Euclidean.

In the mathematics of manifolds Einstein found his answer. He related the curvature of the spacetime manifold to the distribution of mass-energy in the universe, and found the relationship to be in the form of equations that relate the mass-energy distribution to a notion of curvature in 4-space. This notion of curvature is relatively subtle and may not mean quite what you think it means. But among other things it relates to the fact that nearby geodesics tend to move apart, which is what we see as "tidal forces" due to gravity. Geodesics are what serve as "straight lines" in Riemannian geometry and the fact that nearby geodesics tend to move apart (hence are not "parallel") is what is responsible for gravitation.

A very simple example of a non-Euclidean geometry is the surface of a sphere. On a sphere the geodesics (aka straight lines) are great circles. The shortest distance between two points on a sphere is a great circle. That is why airlines flying internationally tend to fly great circle routes. Great circles intersect one another. So there is no such thing as two parallel lines on a sphere.

Shaula
2010-May-19, 07:20 AM
Is the energy that radiates out and harms living cells, gamma rays ? Same as a nuclear bomb, you get light rays and gamma rays ?
Gamma rays do deep tissue damage because they can penetrate quite a way into the body before they dump their energy (it is a probabilities thing - for each centimetre they travel in tissue there is a probability they will be absorbed so some get stopped right away, some get stopped later on and a few nip right through you without doing damage). But the alpha and beta particles can actually be more dangerous because they can do more damage. Normally they get stopped by the upper layers of the skin(so they can brurn you, cause skin cancers and so on but not do the more serious deep damage) but if you accidentally eat an alpha (or beta - alpha is more dangerous) emitter then you are in serious trouble. This is why the fallout from a nuclear weapon is such nasty stuff - it gets into the food chain, into dust, everywhere. And then they get into living things and the alpha/beta emitters cause havoc. So the initial damage from the bomb will be mostly down to the gamma rays (and neutrons if you are close enough) but the longer term, insidious damage comes from the fallout.

rigney
2010-May-19, 07:18 PM
"Dr. Rocket"
Got into a discussion with you and was mesmerized with your explination of why parallel lines can intersect because of spherical configuration of planets. Dr. Einsteins explains time and space warpage in like fashion. While I understand and readily accept planetary systems and galaxies following this rule, since both spin; why should an entire universe splayed out as it is in vectorial and (axial) lines of diversity, follow the same rule?

Euclidian Principals of Mathematics: American Heritage, 2004

a. Relating to, or designating two or more straight coplanar lines that do not intersect.
b. Relating to, or designating two or more planes that do not intersect.
c. Relating to, or designating a line and a plane that do not intersect.
d. Relating to, or designating curves or surfaces everywhere equidistant.

DrRocket
2010-May-19, 07:37 PM
"Dr. Rocket"
Got into a discussion with you and was mesmerized with your explination of why parallel lines can intersect because of spherical configuration of planets. Dr. Einsteins explains time and space warpage in like fashion. While I understand and readily accept planetary systems and galaxies followinf this rule, since both spin; why should an entire universe splayed out as it is in vectorial and (axial) lines of diversity, follow such a rule?

Euclidian Principals of Mathematics: American Heritage, 2004

a. Relating to, or designating two or more straight coplanar lines that do not intersect.
b. Relating to, or designating two or more planes that do not intersect.
c. Relating to, or designating a line and a plane that do not intersect.
d. Relating to, or designating curves or surfaces everywhere equidistant.

Einstein based the general theory of relativity on Riemanian geometry. Riemannian geometry is really an approach to geometry, and most Riemannian geometries are non-Euclidean.

The fact that the universe follows such rules is just a facet of general relativity. It comes with the package.

The universe is NOT splayed in radial and axial lines of diversity (whatever that means). That is the basic point of general relativity. Objects, unless influenced by non-gravitational forces follow geodesics in spacetime -- this is the crux of general relativity.

It is important to note the the trajectories are geodesics in spacetime. They are not geodesics in space.

mugaliens
2010-May-21, 06:09 AM
Einstein based the general theory of relativity on Riemanian geometry. Riemannian geometry is really an approach to geometry, and most Riemannian geometries are non-Euclidean.

A I'm well aware you well know, DrRocket, Riemann's (1826-1866) contribution was to advance calculable solutions which approximated exact solutions, computationally, particularly iteratively, which made his approximations so dang valuable during the early days of computing. He pioneered rapid, iterative computational solutions to problems void of other solution, and solidified the idea of tensors and manifolds.

I know how much 20th-Century people's hail Einstein, but Bernhard Riemann accomplished very much with the very little he was given during his day and age.

Geo Kaplan
2010-May-21, 06:51 AM
A I'm well aware you well know, DrRocket, Riemann's (1826-1866) contribution was to advance calculable solutions which approximated exact solutions, computationally, particularly iteratively, which made his approximations so dang valuable during the early days of computing. He pioneered rapid, iterative computational solutions to problems void of other solution, and solidified the idea of tensors and manifolds.

I know how much 20th-Century people's hail Einstein, but Bernhard Riemann accomplished very much with the very little he was given during his day and age.

To paraphrase my nephews, "Riemann was a dude." [pronounced "dood"]

JohnD
2010-May-21, 08:15 AM
rigney,
Dragging the thread back on course, you originally complained that there were too many forces.
You implied that the intellectuals are dancing in pinheads, and that one force would be a more 'parsimonious' and logical way of thinking.

You are absoloutly right! About the need to unify forces, at least.
It is the ambition of many intellectuals (scientists) to reconcile these apparently diverse forces in a "Grand Unified Theory".
At present, the stumbling block appears to be gravity v. quantum explanations.
It is hoped that the LHC will produce more observations at the very high energies where such forces can unify, and guide us to that nirvana.

John

mugaliens
2010-May-21, 08:23 AM
To paraphrase my nephews, "Riemann was a dude." [pronounced "dood"]

And absolutely and totally without any qualifications whatsoever as to life (a shortcut - hunker down...)