Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Theory of Fundamental Force is Incomplete

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    487

    Theory of Fundamental Force is Incomplete

    I'm guessing we have all pondered the nature of fundamental force to some extent? And related to the question of fundamental force, is the apparent perpetual motion state that are atomic activities? What is their cause? do they require a cause? and why do they contrive to build the structures of the world we observe, atomic, molecular and cosmological? We are all familiar with the problems of physics and cosmology known as the complexity problem and fine tuning problems. It is admitted by scientific view, that answering to these problems is currently untenable within the scope of conventional theory, which can only ascribe the many extraordinary properties of matter to Big Bang chance.

    An aspect of this unsolved puzzle which is more grievous than the mere question of atomic perpetual motion, is that fundamental forces are considered to be energy conserving systems, (to explain their persistence) while delivering the product of "perpetual work or force". And that is the aspect of nature I would like to focus on for the benefit of this thread. I will argue that within the scope of "energy conservation laws" and consideration of "equal and opposite reaction" there is no explanation that can be given for this state of affairs which avoids contradiction.

    The reason being, perpetual motion can be argued away as a conserved quantity, conservation of momentum. However "work products" are different, as work cannot be accounted for by systems considered to be energy conserving. "A battery only conserves charge while not in use, while not delivering work". The conventional approach is to consider fundamental forces as conserved quantities, however how does a system conserve its state indefinitely while undertaking perpetual work activities? Does this reasoning expose a basic problem in regard of energy conservation laws. It is easy for me to demonstrate that it does.

    Fundamental forces, the theoretical origin of all known causes! The foundation upon which all our scientific understandings are seated.

    Let us focus on the humble electron bond, a product of electromagnetic force via the theory of charge. Is the electron bond a product of work? They are responsible for maintaining molecular structure, which builds ridged objects such as crystals, rocks, and us. Wrap your own hands around these objects and try to bend or break them, and it is the electron bond that resists your forceful effort. Can there ability to resist force be dismissed as something other than work activity? Let us focus on the atomic scale functions that enact electron bonds?

    Electron bonds are ascribed to the theory of charge. Something really interesting becomes apparent when comparing the behavior and function of charge as applied to our technologies, in comparison to their behavior and function on the individual atomic scale. As exampled by, a battery isolates two differential charge potentials, positive and negative. The wire circuit connects these differential potentials and a current is induced as the system acts to equalize them. We can only induce work from the system to run our appliances while their is a current flow, and the current flow is dependent upon the differential charge potentials which are temporary while the battery is in use. It can be said that the current flow can only be maintained at the cost of the charge potential. This system makes perfect sense within terms of energy conservation laws, "no energy created of destroyed within a closed system" and in terms of "equal and opposite reactions". The energy accounting books can be reconciled successfully, and no anomalous activities are noted.

    However, although atomic systems are far simpler, their comparative consideration of eroding charge potentials in exchange for current and work activities, shows up as anomalous. There is a photon exchange between electron and proton, which engages the force and or work activity that maintains the electron bond, however the charge potentials are never eroded. This can therefore be classified as a system with an infinite work potential? And because the theory of fundamentals is considered the origin of all cause, there is no prior cause to deffer too. Therefore the perpetual work that is yielded from fundamental force must be considered as causeless work effort.

    Balancing the energy accounts. If a system is considered to be that of energy conserving, then that suggests 100% of its energy content is accounted for and preserved with non activity, to enable the conservation. As soon as you say the system is undertaking a work action, then the energy content equivalent to the work effort, needs to be accounted for in some way or form, does it not? With this question in mind, how does the electromagnetic fundamental force preserve its state indefinitely, while enacting an indefinite and forceful electron bond?

    This circumstance leaves science in a precarious position, whereby it harbors a stark contradiction. Either the theory of fundamental force is incomplete, or theory of energy conservation is invalidated by atomic activity.

    The seriousness of this problem is exampled by the event, that some random guy claims to have invented a battery whereby the induced current doesn't effect the differential charge potentials, therefore the current flow is indefinite, leading to infinite work potential. Conventionality doesnt buy this claim, but they would be Hippocrates to disagree because they are ascribed to just such an atomic theory. Would they not, coz do they not?
    Last edited by Questing1; 2017-Oct-09 at 01:30 AM. Reason: Spelling error

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Questing1
    Let us focus on the humble electron bond, a product of electromagnetic force via the theory of change. Is the electron bond a product of work? They are responsible for maintaining molecular structure, which builds ridged objects such as crystals, rocks, and us. Wrap your own hands around these objects and try to bend or break them, and it is the electron bond that resists your forceful effort. Can there ability to resist force be dismissed as something other than work activity? Let us focus on the atomic scale functions that enact electron bonds?
    In this example you displace the atoms from their rest positions (positions where the energy associated with the configuration of the system is minimal), effectively storing energy in the system. You are doing the work, not the bond.

    Can you please provide a detailed definition of what you are calling work? You don't appear to be using a standard definition. If you do put in the standard definition then your post becomes logically inconsistent as the bonds are not doing work until they relax from their non-equilibrium positions.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    In this example you displace the atoms from their rest positions (positions where the energy associated with the configuration of the system is minimal), effectively storing energy in the system. You are doing the work, not the bond.

    Can you please provide a detailed definition of what you are calling work? You don't appear to be using a standard definition. If you do put in the standard definition then your post becomes logically inconsistent as the bonds are not doing work until they relax from their non-equilibrium positions.
    Hi Shaula

    I will answer to your other points soon.

    Work done is defined as product of the force and the distance over which the force is applied. I would also add, the capacity for a system to impart force is equivalent in every respect to a systems ability to resist forces applied against it. I think this last definition is important for electron bonds.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Questing1 View Post
    Work done is defined as product of the force and the distance over which the force is applied. I would also add, the capacity for a system to impart force is equivalent in every respect to a systems ability to resist forces applied against it. I think this last definition is important for electron bonds.
    So the first part is standard - it is your addition that I would like to understand more. Do you mean that work is done when resisting a force? Or that simply by having the potential ability to resist a force the system needs to be performing some form of work? I provided you with the basis of the standard picture (work is performed to displace the system from its equilibrium position, the energy is stored in the system and then when the force is removed the system performs work relaxing back into equilibrium) - can you give a description of how you would describe this scenarios using your definition of work?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    So the first part is standard - it is your addition that I would like to understand more. Do you mean that work is done when resisting a force? Or that simply by having the potential ability to resist a force the system needs to be performing some form of work? I provided you with the basis of the standard picture (work is performed to displace the system from its equilibrium position, the energy is stored in the system and then when the force is removed the system performs work relaxing back into equilibrium) - can you give a description of how you would describe this scenarios using your definition of work?
    You will find that my premise is ultra simple. It is that all actions attributed to fundamental forces are "work" actions, mediated by Gluons and Photons. However, it is not easy for me to argue every individual case. For example, it is hard to corner the argument as to whether a photons velocity is work, because it can easily be excused as conservation of momentum. Mass is also a manifestation of fundamental force, and ultimately I would develop the argument that it is also a product of work. It is the electron bond I select for argument for a number of reasons, not least of them being that we can directly perceive their mechanical properties with our senses, as we can see and feel ridged objects.

    I suggest the concept of fundamental force only has to be invalidated in one example, to be called into question under all circumstances. Not that I think doing so will be easy in any respect, because convention has worked hard to build self-reinforced models. Even if they are a bit convoluted.

    Even if I cant prove my case, I would be content just to have an alternative possibility considered. And I always learn a great deal from conversing here, so eager to share and to learn.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Questing1 View Post
    ...fundamental forces are considered to be energy conserving systems, (to explain their persistence)...
    It would appear that you have mixed up concepts and terms in an effort to create the appearance of a paradox. But I don't see a true paradox when one uses these terms in the way that scientists have come to use them.

    For example: forces aren't considered to be systems, for one thing.

    As to a "persistent force", a mass held over the earth feels one. So what?

    Remember: Noether tells us that energy is conserved automatically by time invariance. That's the only symmetry you need. The rest is just noise. I think you've gotten lost in the noise.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Questing1 View Post
    Does this reasoning expose a basic problem in regard of energy conservation laws. It is easy for me to demonstrate that it does.
    If it is easy for you to do so, then you should've done so. I think that is the reason for your posting in ATM.

    Provide such a demonstration.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Questing1 View Post
    You will find that my premise is ultra simple. It is that all actions attributed to fundamental forces are "work" actions, mediated by Gluons and Photons. However, it is not easy for me to argue every individual case. For example, it is hard to corner the argument as to whether a photons velocity is work, because it can easily be excused as conservation of momentum. Mass is also a manifestation of fundamental force, and ultimately I would develop the argument that it is also a product of work. It is the electron bond I select for argument for a number of reasons, not least of them being that we can directly perceive their mechanical properties with our senses, as we can see and feel ridged objects.
    The reason I am asking these questions (which I's still like you to answer as you are able) is that your first post can essentially be summed us as "Assume that fundamental forces violate energy conservation. Therefore by the principle of energy conservation there is a problem with our understanding of fundamental forces."

    In order to make progress with the discussion you either need to
    1) Show that, using conventional physics, there is an logical inconsistency (which you have not done because you have apparently modified the concept of work)
    2) Show that your ideas or concepts have greater predictive power than current ones (which you have not done because they remain at the stage of being a postulate)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Questing1 View Post
    I'm guessing we have all pondered the nature of fundamental force to some extent? ...
    There is some ignorance about fundamental physics in the OP, Questing1.
    There is not such thing as "fundamental force". There are many kinds of force, e.g. electromagnetic, gravitational, strong, weak.
    "Atomic activities" are apparent but not actual perpetual motion. Their cause is forces. No forces = no atoms so they require them! The structures of the world are built via the forces and laws that they obey.

    Your argument is wrong. Conservation of energy is built into our models. Equal and opposite reaction has been tested for 400 years and works. There is no contradiction to avoid.

    Argument from incredibility does not make an ATM idea.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Questing1 View Post
    Let us focus on the humble electron bond, a product of electromagnetic force via the theory of change ....
    As written this is vague to the point of nonsense, Questing1.
    Electrons do not bond - they have the same charge and so repel. There are several different kinds of bonds between atoms, e.g. ionic, covalent, hydrogen. There is no "theory of change". You seem to be asking us to give you a course in solid state physics which is not the purpose of the ATM section. You need to first learn about the mainstream physics so that you can at least state your ATM idea clearly.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Questing1 View Post
    You will find that my premise is ultra simple. It is that all actions attributed to fundamental forces are "work" actions, mediated by Gluons and Photons.
    Merely redefining terms is not an ATM idea, Questing1. As an absurd example, we could sat that "It is that all actions attributed to fundamental forces are "pixy" actions, mediated by Gluons and Photons". That does not change any physics.
    Applying the term "work" to everything robs it of any meaning. Velocity is never work. Mass cannot be a manifestation of an undefined "fundamental force".

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    As written this is vague to the point of nonsense, Questing1.
    .
    Hi RC
    haha I guess I would be shocked if you didnt stop by to say ignorant.

    Talk about making a fuss over a spelling error. But thanks for pointing that out for me in your own round about kind of way.

    No such thing as "fundamental force" you say? Are they not teaching it in these terms any longer?

    Shaula is capable of balanced discussion, which aims toward recognizing the heart of an argument. Rather than the alternative I might describe as war of assertions, and miss-directions. I think you will find my discussion with Shaula will answer most of your assertions.

    However I have to credit you with this statement, very good and we agree. "Their cause is forces. No forces = no atoms so they require them! The structures of the world are built via the forces and laws that they obey.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Questing1 View Post
    haha I guess I would be shocked if you didnt stop by to say ignorant.
    I pointed out some ignorance in the OP about the mainstream that should have been addressed before you started an Against the Mainstream thread about an ATM idea that is still unclear. The clearest mistake is that there are the fundamental forces (plural). There is no fundamental force (singular).
    A bit of possible ignorance about energy conservation and work. Work is related to energy being converted to other forms and explicitly conserves energy.

    IF01: Please state clearly what the "unsolved puzzle" is, Questing1.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Oct-09 at 02:07 AM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Merely redefining terms is not an ATM idea, Questing1. As an absurd example, we could sat that "It is that all actions attributed to fundamental forces are "pixy" actions, mediated by Gluons and Photons". That does not change any physics.
    Applying the term "work" to everything robs it of any meaning. Velocity is never work. Mass cannot be a manifestation of an undefined "fundamental force".
    As written this is vague to the point of nonsense. "we could sat that" Thats an absurd example of an argument against an ATM proponent!

    But seriously for a moment. The terms of "work" and of "force" are inseparable from one anothers consideration. As for your second point concerning mass, Gluons manifest both the strong nuclear force and are the primary givers of mass within matter. Do you still assert that the manifestation of mass is unrelated to considerations of force, or fundamental force?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Questing1 View Post
    As written this is vague to the point of nonsense....
    Yes it was thus my later question.
    IF01: Please state clearly what the "unsolved puzzle" is, Questing1.

    The Higgs mechanism gives the mass of gauge bosons: photons, which carry the electromagnetic interaction; W and Z bosons, which carry the weak interaction; and gluons, which carry the strong interaction. The Higgs mechanism has nothing to do with force. It is symmetry breaking. The kinetic energy of gluons in nucleons gives most of the mass of nucleons. That is the mainstream physics.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Oct-09 at 02:17 AM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Questing1 View Post
    Hi RC
    haha I guess I would be shocked if you didnt stop by to say ignorant.

    Talk about making a fuss over a spelling error. But thanks for pointing that out for me in your own round about kind of way.

    No such thing as "fundamental force" you say? Are they not teaching it in these terms any longer?

    Shaula is capable of balanced discussion, which aims toward recognizing the heart of an argument. Rather than the alternative I might describe as war of assertions, and miss-directions. I think you will find my discussion with Shaula will answer most of your assertions.

    However I have to credit you with this statement, very good and we agree. "Their cause is forces. No forces = no atoms so they require them! The structures of the world are built via the forces and laws that they obey.
    Questing1

    You have been here long enough and received enough infractions to know better. You will not make public judgments about other members. This will earn you an infraction. Any more inappropriate posts and you will be suspended or banned.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    I pointed out some ignorance in the OP about the mainstream that should have been addressed before you started an Against the Mainstream thread about an ATM idea that is still unclear. The clearest mistake is that there are the fundamental forces (plural). There is no fundamental force (singular).
    A bit of possible ignorance about energy conservation and work. Work is related to energy being converted to other forms and explicitly conserves energy.

    IF01: Please state clearly what the "unsolved puzzle" is, Questing1.
    This is why I so quickly loose interest in your discussions. I have the distinct feeling that explaining this for you is a waste of time, and the time of those reading this thread.

    I can speak about a single fundamental force in the non-plural. I can also refer to a generalization of fundamental forces, as "the theory of fundamental force".

    You and I have done this little dance to often RC. Peppering trivial arguments at the expense of worth while discussion. There has to be a limit drawn

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,130
    Thread closed pending moderator discussion.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,914
    Another infraction issued, for ignoring moderator instructions. And after posting ATM content in the feedbackforum another infraction for that sees Question1 banned after accumulation of infraction points. The thread will remain closed.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •