hmm:
So what happens if a repulicon and a boson colide?
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote:
leptons-
I think it is all intermediate vector bosons... or maybe I just like the
way that phrase sounds?
-boson
Thanks for all the answers. To answer John's question first, magnetism
doesn't seem miraculous (it's too familiar), but I can't say I understand
how it works. It was just that question about magnetism that Feynman was
asked as the start of the videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM in
which he danced around the question before saying he couldn't give an
intuitive answer.
What would a satisfying answer look like? That's a very good question.
Superficially it would be something like a sophisticated version of
billiard balls: when one hits another, energy is transferred. But even that
doesn't work well when looked at carefully. What happens in detail when
one hits another. If the two objects were absolutely solid, how would one
feel the impact of the other. Would the transfer simply become a
primitive? If they were somewhat springy, how does that springyness work?
And besides, there must be some surface-like thing that receives the impact
and something more internal that absorbs it.
Bruce's QM photon explanation is pretty close to what I'm looking for,
but as he notes, it only works for repulsive forces. It also relies on
primitives. In that case the emission and absorption of a photon and the
associated transfer of energy seem to be primitive actions.
The papers by Hobson look very interesting. They even look like I can
read them. I haven't done that yet, though.
As a software person, a good explanation is often something like an API.
How does one object interact with another? We know that objects have
capabilities (specified by their APIs), and that it's possible for one
object to trigger the performance of a capability in another object. We
don't ask how the triggering event gets from one to the other. That's magic
at a lower level. We just assume that it can happen and that there isn't
anything more to say about it at the object level of abstraction.
So I would be (somewhat) happy with an answer that said (a) what the
capabilities are (something like a API for elementary particles/fields)
and (b) what the non-decomposable primitive actions are, e.g., like emit
and absorb.
*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
* Professor, Computer Science*
* California State University, Los Angeles*
* My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
*
* Google voice: 747-*999-5105
Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
* vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
CS Wiki http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/ and the courses I teach
*_*
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:06 PM, John Kennison jkenni...@clarku.eduwrote:
Russ,
Before people knew about magnetism, it must have seemed miraculous that
two stones would spontaneously start to move toward (or away from) each
other. Now we can say, Oh, it's just magnetism. But if we think about
long enough, we may still wonder how two objects can move toward or away
from each other. My question would be, Does magnetism still seem a bit
miraculous, or do you feel your question is answered, at least for
magnetism? In either case, what would a satisfying answer look like?
John
From: Friam [friam-boun...@redfish.com] on behalf of Russ Abbott [
russ.abb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 1:50 PM
To: FRIAM
Subject: [FRIAM] How do forces work?
Yesterday I asked this question
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61542/how-do-forces-work?noredirect=1#comment123788_61542
on StackExchange: physics.
Is there a mechanistic-type explanation for how forces work? For example,
two electrons repel each other. How does that happen? Other than saying
that there are force fields that exert forces, how does the electromagnetic
force accomplish its effects. What is the interface/link/connection between
the force (field) and the objects on which it acts. Or is all we can say is
that it just happens: it's a physics primitive?
So far, there haven't been any answers that feel satisfying--although,
please look at them yourselves. One of the comments pointed to a 7 1/2
minute video by Feynman, in which he talks around the problem before
finally saying he can't provide an intuitive explanation. I don't think it
was one of his better efforts. Does anyone on this list have an answer?
-- Russ Abbott
_
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105
Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
