Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Another Fundamental Force?

  1. Sep 27, 2003 #1
    PLease forgive my ignorance if this proves to be nothing more than a showing of how far behind I have become in the last 3 years...but here it is:

    I was outside mowing my lawn the other day, thinking about the universe, nature, etc., when I asked the question: "What force is causing the expansion of the universe?"...(and I would like very much for someone like Russell E. Rierson to review this) I thought about the 4 fundamental forces and how none seemed to fit on a scale that large. I thought of some sort of "momentum", but that made no sense...something is driving this expansion because it is overtaking the total gravity of mass and dark matter in the universe. I know, very basic to many here...

    Yet still, nothing about the known forces fit. I thought of another force, possibly an "anti-gravity"; *yet not totally related to known gravity because of the scale involved*...as possibly another fundamental force; I began to think of it in terms of string theory and how this "new force" might be broke down into those tiny dimensions, relating it to and possibly being the unifier of the other 4 forces...this "new force" would be even weaker than gravity and 2 of it's functions being driving the expansion and uniting the 4 known forces. (I will explain why it would unite the other 4 forces if asked, way too much to write here...I'm hoping someone can see what I'm talking about just by thinking about this and help with the math).

    Please someone show me what is known about this (with the math) and forgive my obvious "laymanness". Brian Harred
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 27, 2003 #2
    Upon reading other posts in other areas, I won't be using the "I'm a humble layman" stuff anymore...after all, Schwartzchild was a "layman" fighting in the trenches in WWI when he solved Einstein's equations in his free time, right before his tragic death.

    I still hope what I posted will be taken more as a serious question rather than "a theory of mine"...I never appreciated people posting hair-braned theories with no math or evidence for them, yet I (in a sense) just violated my own peave.

    I'll get caught up before I post again...but thanks in advance to anyone who looks at this seriously.

    Brian Harred
  4. Sep 27, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Schwarzschild was not a layman. On p 255 of Pais' Subtle is the Lord.. he describes Einstein's eulogy for Schwarzschild before the Prussian Academy. "He spoke of Schwarzschild's great talents and contributions both as an experimentalist and as a theorist. He also spoke of Scwarzschild's achievements as director (since 1909) of the astrophysical observatory in Potsdam."

    Scientists were often caught up in the vast armies of the 20th century. Kaku himself describes how an insight into hyperspace came to him while he was crawling under machine gun bullets in a US army live fire excercise.
  5. Sep 27, 2003 #4
    LoL, I knew somebody would bring that up. All I meant was that at the time he wasn't in an official research/professional position, and niether am I. All appologies, can we concentrate on the subject please. I want to hear about it from someone who is "caught up".
  6. Sep 27, 2003 #5
    Avron, it is not known for certain what force is causing the acceleration of the expansion, but alot of scientists are leaning toward the idea that Dark Matter has anti-gravitational properties (which seems rather interesting to me).
  7. Sep 27, 2003 #6
    Mentat, what exactly seems interesting to you?

    Backing off here and getting the math down before I carry on with this, I can see I will have to qualify myself...Einstein himself used gedanken (or thought experiments) to simply explain what he was thinking...but I haven't even done that yet, lol...

    So if nobody understands yet what I'm trying to disseminate, I will at least come up with a good thought experiment to explain it before I go on any further. I was just hoping someone does understand and would try using this as a variable (or rather a constant probably) in the appropriate equations to see what they come up with (Not even remembering the equations, *sorry*!!...but I KNOW somebody here knows what I'm talking about).

    OK I'm silencing myself until I can come back with the proper tools. Carry on my friends!

  8. Sep 27, 2003 #7
    One Last thing

    This is from SECRETS OF GENIUS
    Review of Imagery in Scientific Thought by Arthur I. Miller. Cambridge, MA:
    MIT Press, 1986...I'm posting it for what I hope are obvious reasons:

    Einstein did not need an elaborate analysis of experimental data to identify
    the conflict between Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetic theory. Both
    theories are involved in explaining the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction,
    which underlies the operation of electric motors and generators. The essence of
    the phenomenon is that a magnet moving relative to a wire loop induces an
    electric current in the wire. Einstein observed that the induced current predicted
    by the theory depended on whether the wire or the magnet was kept at rest,
    whereas the physical phenomenon appeared to depend only on the relative motion
    of the magnet and wire. Thus, the theory exhibited an asymmetry which was not
    inherent in the phenomena. Einstein removed this asymmetry by invoking the
    principle of relativity, which requires that the laws of physics for an observer at
    rest must be the same as for an observer moving with uniform velocity. This
    principle had been stated for mechanics by Newton, though not as a basic axiom.
    Einstein generalized it to apply to electromagnetic theory as well. Paradoxically,
    this required a modification of mechanics rather than electromagnetics. The
    precise form of the modification was determined by the second postulate of
    Einstein's theory.

  9. Sep 29, 2003 #8
    Interesting thought>>>>>What makes the universe expand? Has anyone mathematically examed time as a force? If it is a force, it came to be first after the Big Bang and the elctro-magnetic weak and strong nuclear and gravity followed as a result. Scientific probability BUT
    could also consiousness be the force behind the expansion of the universe? If we were not observing would it expand?
  10. Sep 29, 2003 #9
    With all due respect Richard, I think things that are affected by our observation only applies to the Quantum, or microcosm...I think because of our place in the cosmos (if you compare our size to everything else, we are right in the middle...i.e., we are just as "big" to a quark as we are to *small* to the universe) (or was that a galaxy??) at any rate, as Hiesenberg pointed out, we affect what we see when we observe the very small, but I don't see any way the very large can be affected merely by our observing it. If so, the theories of relativity could not possibly apply because we couldn't trust our observations., and one would be left with a "MacroQuantum"...(pardon me if that's used in science somewhere else, I just needed a word I could illustrate with, lol)
    If anything, *it* would have to be observing *us* for anything to be affected in that way...

  11. Oct 2, 2003 #10
    The idea that Dark Matter has anti-gravitational properties. I don't know quite how that would work, but it's interesting nonetheless.
  12. Oct 2, 2003 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    IIRC, the term "dark matter" was coined, several decades ago now, partly to convey the idea that a) it behaved like matter wrt gravity, and b) it did not emit 'light', which came to include radio, microwaves, IR, UV, and X-rays. In other words, it behaved - gravitationally - just like the matter astronomers could 'see', except they couldn't 'see' it!

    Much more recently, studies of distant supernovae turned up a real surprise; rather than the expansion rate of the universe slowing down (the distant supernovae were used to measure what the expansion rate was at z ~1 and greater), it seemed to be accelerating! Many theories were put forward to address this; today, with the first year's WMAP results in hand, the 'dark energy' theory seems to fit the data the best. It is dark energy which has the 'anti-gravitational properties'.

    I'll dig up some references if folk are interested.
  13. Oct 2, 2003 #12
    Given the only method for detecting it (as well as reasoning that dark matter exists) is due to it's positive gravitational effects, why would you think it also has anti-gravitational effects? Moreover, how does something have both positive and negative gravitational forces?
  14. Oct 2, 2003 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Dark energy (not dark matter), if interpreted as due to a cosmological constant, has anti gravity effect in the sense that it acts to expand spacetime beyond the growth that is deerived from the Einstein equations themselves. The only way to harness this kind of action that I know of is the Alcubierre warp solution of the equations and the various "metric engineering" results that have followed from it. So far all this is just existence proofs with no real proposals for making them happen.
  15. Oct 3, 2003 #14
    I was aware of the anti-gravity effects postulated regarding Dark Energy, it was the use of the term Dark Matter that threw me.
  16. Oct 3, 2003 #15
    My view is simple. The lack of friction or the absence of any force or energy in the original state of the primordial universe (Singularity) before the Big Bang -( a dead state of existence) causes the ever expanding wave of the super explotion. Meaning that the expantion wave will continue traveling for ever -or until it find something to stop it, which I don't think it'll happen-.
  17. Oct 3, 2003 #16
    Yeah, I misused the term. I meant dark energy, but said "dark matter". Sorry about that.
  18. Oct 3, 2003 #17
    I'm not Muslim, but with all the turmoil, I read a little of the Koran, and it has some interesting statements in it. Here are two that apply to what caused the Big Bang.

    First of all, we know that temperture caused the Big Bang. The Koran says (from my memory) the original gods broke up the matter to make the unvierse; as though there was one chunk of matter, and they broke it up. That would seem to indicate the matter, the stuff that makes primary particles, is hard like rock. But I studied matter and realized matter has to be impossible to compress but very easy to pull apart, more like water than rock. After realizing it was probably more like water, I remebered the first verse of the Bible, which says something like, The world was formless and void, and God's spirit brooded above the waves of the deep. This describes water. So there was all the matter in the universe in one place and it looked like a sea of water. Now go back to the Koran which says the gods broke it up. How? What tools did they use? Again in the Koran, the Devil complains to God and says, We have bodies of fire, we will not bow down to man who has a body of black loam and clay. The Koran says man's body is made of black loam and clay where the Bible only says clay. Black loam implies that we are carbon based, which is very advanced.

    If the Devil and the original gods had bodies of fire, then life itself could be the energy that caused the Big Bang. Life dove into the waters and heated them up so they exploded out to create the heavens.
  19. Oct 3, 2003 #18
    I find it amazing how the search still goes on to find that which is. If the truth is not known by any of you it is because you have not questioned it. I could say it but would you know it. Would it become a realization to you? You would believe or you would not. You would say it is logical but you would not comprehend it because you do not care enough to make it an experience to yourself. It is so simple and logical. It will require one small leap into.......
  20. Oct 4, 2003 #19
    TENYEARS, why withold from others what they may not be able to discover entirely on their own? Surely you didn't do so without any help, did you? Besides, if you have some answers to questions that everybody is asking, and then tell us you have answer but don't tell us what it is, isn't that like dangling meat in front of starving dogs? Isn't that wrong?
  21. Oct 4, 2003 #20
    Im all ears,give us the data.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Another Fundamental Force?
  1. Fundamental Forces? (Replies: 4)

  2. Fundamental forces (Replies: 4)

  3. Fundamental forces (Replies: 1)

  4. Fundamental forces (Replies: 5)