A challenge: break the force barrier of nature

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the claim of a maximum possible force in physics, specifically proposed as c^4/4G or approximately 3 x 10^43 Newtons. Participants explore theoretical scenarios, particularly involving black holes, to challenge or support this claim, engaging in technical reasoning and speculative arguments.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Tom Helmond introduces the claim of a maximum force and challenges others to provide a counterexample, noting that no one has succeeded so far.
  • Some participants reference the force experienced near a Schwarzschild black hole, suggesting that as one approaches the event horizon, the force tends to infinity, which raises questions about the validity of the maximum force claim.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of hovering over a black hole and the conditions under which this might be theoretically possible.
  • Participants debate whether the maximum force should apply to all observers, including accelerated ones, with differing opinions on the implications of the claim.
  • One participant suggests that producing a force greater than the claimed limit would require an extremely powerful engine, which could lead to the formation of a black hole from its exhausts.
  • Another participant proposes that a wire cannot maintain the claimed force without leading to the creation of black holes at its ends, while others seek mathematical explanations for this assertion.
  • There is a mention of the inflationary force of the cosmological constant as a potential counterexample, prompting further inquiry into its implications and the nature of universal acceleration.
  • Participants express a desire for more mathematical derivations and explanations regarding the claims and counterclaims made throughout the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views and interpretations of the maximum force claim remain, with ongoing debate about the validity of various scenarios and the mathematics involved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of a definitive derivation of the maximum force claim, unresolved mathematical steps regarding the implications of forces near black holes, and the dependence on specific definitions and conditions for hovering above a black hole.

tomhelmond
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
A new claim has appeared in physics. It is claimed that there is a largest
possible force, namely c^4/4G or 3 x 10^43 Newton.

(The claim is made in the paper http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0309118 )

All my friends and acquantances have first said "wrong!"
but then failed to produce a counterexample. Nobody was able to imagine
a situation in nature where a higher value of the force appears.

*Everything* is allowed: black holes, accelerators, supernovae, rockets,
etc. Nobody has yet captured the prize of producing the first
counterexample. There is even a prize of 20 Euros (:-) for the first
counterexample, sponsored by two posters of the de.sci.physik
newsgroup. ( 10 Euros are from myself )

Does anybody know a solution?

Tom Helmond
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've not read the paper but:

The force felt by an object stationery over a Scwarzchild black hole is:

|F| = (GMm/r2)/(1 - 2GM/rc2)1/2


therefore as r tends to 2GM/c2 (the event horizon), |F| tends to infinity (as at r = RBH, the denominator is equal to zero).
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by jcsd
I've not read the paper but:

The force felt by an object stationery over a Scwarzchild black hole is:

|F| = (GMm/r2)/(1 - 2GM/rc2)1/2


therefore as r tends to 2GM/c2 (the event horizon), |F| tends to infinity (as at r = RBH, the denominator is equal to zero).

That is true, but the formula just says that no such observer
hovering over the horizon exists.

The claim means that the nearest place one can hover over a black
hole is the place where the downwards force is c^4/4G.

To find a counterexample, one would have to show that hovering nearer
to the black hole is possible.

Tom Helmond
 
Ok I've read the first part of the paper

Christoph Schiller, though doesn't even derive the maximal force so it's difficult to work out what exactly he means as he only says it is so for a remote observer, yet the above formula shows that it is not so for a real observer.
 
Originally posted by jcsd
Ok I've read the first part of the paper

Christoph Schiller, though doesn't even derive the maximal force so it's difficult to work out what exactly he means as he only says it is so for a remote observer, yet the above formula shows that it is not so for a real observer.

Hm, I beg to disagree. If there is a maximum force, it must be valid for all observers, even accelerated ones.

But the challenge is to produce a force larger than the claimed limit. It is well known that it is not possible to hover above the horizon (after all this is a black hole); so this is NOT a counterexample to the claim.


Tom Helmond
 
It is theoretically possible to hover at XRBH where X is greater than 1 as long as you have a power source and light from the point of view of a remote observer does hover at the event horizon.

It's almost impossible to disprove without the original derivation that shows that this is the maximal force for all observers.
 
If you want to work this out a particle traveling radially outwards from a black hole with a velocity v will hover at a certain distance away from the black hole, r, it is then just a case of finding a v so that |F| is greater than the maximal force.
 
Originally posted by jcsd
If you want to work this out a particle traveling radially outwards from a black hole with a velocity v will hover at a certain distance away from the black hole, r, it is then just a case of finding a v so that |F| is greater than the maximal force.

I guess that the answer would be this: to produce a hovering
in such a situation you would need an extremely powerful engine.
The exhausts from that engine are so massive that the gravitation
they produce cannot be neglected. The claim is that
to produce a force larger than c^4/4G, these exhaust are so massive
that they form a black hole on their own, which attracts the body that
tries to leave the exhausts behind, preventing it from doing so.
As a result, the hovering fails.

Tom Helmond
 
For a high force to appear near a black hole, a body needs to be
hovering above it, as mentioned above. There are two was to do this:
with a wire and with a rocket engine.

A wire cannot maintain a force c^4/4G: if it did, lovering the wire by
a distance d would create a black hole of diameter d at the other end.
This is impossible.

A rocket cannot either: its engine would have to spit out black holes
in order to do so.

Tom Helmond
 
  • #10
Can you show that for me though, why exactly can a wire not theoretically maintain such a force, it's diffcult to disprove things that haven't been proved in the first place.
 
  • #11
The formulas for the tnesion in the wire is in no way dependent on the properties of the wire.
 
  • #12
Try the inflationary force of the cosmological constant accelerating (a=[del]r/([del]t)2=~(1028cm/102sec2)) the universe mass (~1056gm).

Finflationary=1082dynes >>3 x 1043Newtons=3 x 1048dynes.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Loren Booda
Try the inflationary force of the cosmological constant accelerating (a=[del]r/([del]t)2=~(1028cm/102sec2)) the universe mass (~1056gm).

Finflationary=1082dynes >>3 x 1043Newtons=3 x 1048dynes.

This is interesting! I never thought about this.
Can you explain it a bit more?
What acceleration is meant? In what sense
can one say that all mass of the universe is accelerated?

And why don't I feel this gigantic value?

Tom
 
  • #14
Originally posted by jcsd
Can you show that for me though, why exactly can a wire not theoretically maintain such a force, it's diffcult to disprove things that haven't been proved in the first place.

Apart from the fact that no material is able to withstand this, the argument
was just saying that even if the wire withstands this, strange things
happen at the two ends that make the hole thing impossible:
black holes must appear there.

Tom
 
  • #15
Originally posted by tomhelmond
Apart from the fact that no material is able to withstand this, the argument
was just saying that even if the wire withstands this, strange things
happen at the two ends that make the hole thing impossible:
black holes must appear there.

Tom

What I want is the mathematics behind this though.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by jcsd
What I want is the mathematics behind this though.

That is easy. A black hole has a radius of R=2Gm/c^2.


A force of c ^ 4 /4G times a distance d gives the same energy E=m c ^ 2
as the one that is contained inside a black hole
of radius R=d, namely c^4 d / ( 2G ).


Let us see if a larger force can appear.



Tom
 
  • #17
Can I have a more complete derivaiation esp. with respect to tension.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad How Does Beta Decay Relate to the Role of W Bosons in Weak Nuclear Force?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Graduate Shinichi Mochizuki's ABC Conjecture and Replication Crisis in Maths
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
10K
Is my fictional Solar System stable and realistic?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
Undergrad Some questions about Cosmic Microwave Background radiation
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
8K
Chapter 7: Paradoxes for Liberal Naturalism
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
April Fool's Physics Papers 2026
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
How Can Plasma Be Created and Ignited in Toroidal Fusion Reactors?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
White Paper on Revolutionary Technology - X-FORCE
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
A suggestion for dolphin communication.
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
From Pooh’s first Assessment Report on Climate Change
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
8K