Another Fundamental Force?

  • Thread starter Avron
  • Start date
  • #1
Avron
16
0
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
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Avron
16
0
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
 
  • #3
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
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.
 
  • #4
Avron
16
0
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".
Brian
 
  • #5
Mentat
3,918
3
Avron, it is not known for certain what force is causing the acceleration of the expansion, but a lot of scientists are leaning toward the idea that Dark Matter has anti-gravitational properties (which seems rather interesting to me).
 
  • #6
Avron
16
0
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!

Avron
 
  • #7
Avron
16
0
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.

Avron
 
  • #8
Rader
765
0
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?
 
  • #9
Avron
16
0
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...

Avron
 
  • #10
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Avron
Mentat, what exactly seems interesting to you?

The idea that Dark Matter has anti-gravitational properties. I don't know quite how that would work, but it's interesting nonetheless.
 
  • #11
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,401
3
Originally posted by Mentat
Avron, it is not known for certain what force is causing the acceleration of the expansion, but a lot of scientists are leaning toward the idea that Dark Matter has anti-gravitational properties (which seems rather interesting to me).
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.
 
  • #12
radagast
484
1
Originally posted by Mentat
The idea that Dark Matter has anti-gravitational properties. I don't know quite how that would work, but it's interesting nonetheless.

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?
 
  • #13
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
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.
 
  • #14
radagast
484
1
I was aware of the anti-gravity effects postulated regarding Dark Energy, it was the use of the term Dark Matter that threw me.
 
  • #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 expansion wave will continue traveling for ever -or until it find something to stop it, which I don't think it'll happen-.
ENKI
 
  • #16
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by radagast
I was aware of the anti-gravity effects postulated regarding Dark Energy, it was the use of the term Dark Matter that threw me.

Yeah, I misused the term. I meant dark energy, but said "dark matter". Sorry about that.
 
  • #17
John
133
0
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.
 
  • #18
TENYEARS
472
0
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...
 
  • #19
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by TENYEARS
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...

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?
 
  • #20
merak
51
0
Originally posted by TENYEARS
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...

I am all ears,give us the data.
 
  • #21
Rader
765
0
Well Enki, we are sort of on the same wavelenght. Energy conversion to matter after the Big Bang is pushing on the frontiers of the universe. The frontier is was and will be ever changing from a singularity in a vacuum to what is now >15< billion light years. In a vacuum any force will expand from this singularity in all directions. The question is does the vacuum pull or does the force push. We know a vacuum is not empty. Could they have it all wrong and the virtual particles in a vacuum be pulling the universe to ever greater frontiers. If this is the case dark virtual energy is increasing as it becomes part of the entire mass of the universe we know. You could say that the dark energy possesses anti-gravity affects but then is not anti=gravity from a vacuum really gravity from dark virtual particles. If this is the case the universe will expand forever, gradually slowing but not stopping until the balck virtual energy of the vacuum has obsorbed all of the energy converted into matter from the Bing Bang.
 
  • #22
John
133
0
Wow, I have said something like that too. Maybe with heat from life, the energy of the vacuum was tripped. Or maybe, the vacuum is pushing inward, which was my original idea. I have never considered it could be pulling outward. And yet, it is nicer to think the vacuum is pulling outward. The vacuum, which matter expands into, is definitely the source of the invisible energy.

Here are two opposite theories based on the same concept: that energy comes from the vacuum. One theory is a lot of hard work created the Big Bang, forcing all the matter into the vacuum, which is a nothingness, and doesn't even contain the concept of space. It thus resists expansion. The resistance of the vacuum creates the inward force.

The other concept, an interesting idea, is that life only had to trip a trigger to get it all started, unless it started all by itself for no reason, which would be unlikely. And so, your proposal gives us two very neat primal forces: Life and Nothingness. But if you don't include life tripping a trigger at its discretion, then you only have one force, which is nothingness. They say that need, having only nothing, is the mother of all invention, including maybe, the creation of the universe.
 
  • #23
Rader
765
0
Well John> Heat from Life, I take that to mean, the Creator. Before the Big Bang there was no material universe only energy and the Creator. Bear with me i am mixng metaphysics with physics, two different sides of the same coin. Could the heat be a thought from the Creator?
A proven fact, the human mind when thinking creates heat and matter. Could then not a mind much greater than imaginable produce a thouhgt and creat a universe. If so the thought would have caracteristics of the Creator, reasons for having it and a final destiny for it. Think about it where do your thoughts come from? Are they pulled out of your mind or pushed.
It would be interesting for me to give me your thouhts on this angle of my comments.

Its interesting chatting back and forth on these forums because you find people who have had the same original thought you had before you had it.
 
  • #24
TENYEARS
472
0
Originally posted by Mentat
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?

I did figure it out on my own and so can you if you want the answer bad enough. If you are content with just watching a movie, that is not the answer it is a relative formation which will be stored as an object. The food is on the table and it is all around you. I have been in a quandry myself lately, waiting and wondering what am I supposed to do.

It will spring up and it will be recognized as fact. It will regard a vision which I had on vacation last year and it will come to pass. Have faith and balance yourselves. You spend too much time on these forums. They are fun and it is good to exchange ideas, but the work you must do in life is alone. It does not require a paper or pen or pencil, but it does require a commitment to that which you ask. In a single momment your life will be changed forever.
 
  • #25
Avron
16
0
OK everyone who has replied to this has said exactly what I needed them to say in order to better explain myself...thank you. I will attempt to address all important points in hopes of getting my point accross., possibly furthering an understanding of why I think there may be a 5th fundamental force.

1) "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'." (thank you Neried)

A) The observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating is another property
(in fact a HUGE reason) that has led me to consider the possibility of this "new force". It doesn't seem logical that energy/mass (being two sides of the same coin) would have both positive and negative gravitational force. I may inject logic (as opposed to Quantum Probabilities) at this level becase we haven't reached the discussion of QG yet, although that will come into play in this discussion soon. Also, were talking about *expansion of nothing* (spacetime)...which seems counter-intuitive yet fits the data. Zero point energy will enter into the equation soon also...please no conclusions yet, we have only begun this discussion. I do need help from you guys on many details before the debate stage can be reached.

2) " 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." (Thank you ENKI)

B) EXACTLY. "no real proposals for making them happen"...this is the essence of my proposal. Enter this "new fundamental force" (I shall now dub it "Harred's Force" in all my ego, lol) as that proposal.

I am working feverishly on the known data in order to lend disprovability (not to mention credibility) to this idea. I am in dire need of someone who is seriously doing the work in SST and QG to use this idea in their equations, as I am not yet up to the task. I'm working on it, however...I do understand what my argument is lacking. Ego is one thing but true understanding is quite another; if there turns out to be anything to this, whoever helps me with proving it will see nothing from me except pure respect and friendship when we are both standing in front of the Nobel commitee, lol.

(CMON, *SOMEBODY* throw *this* in their equations if you even halfway understand what I'm getting at in my limited ability to get my idea across).

Avron
 
  • #26
phoenixthoth
1,605
2
was it weird for you, at first, TENYEARS?
 
  • #27
TENYEARS
472
0
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
was it weird for you, at first, TENYEARS?

My life was turned upside down a rebalancing and then something quite new.
 
  • #28
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,401
3
Originally posted by Avron
OK everyone who has replied to this has said exactly what I needed them to say in order to better explain myself...thank you. I will attempt to address all important points in hopes of getting my point accross., possibly furthering an understanding of why I think there may be a 5th fundamental force.

1) "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'." (thank you Neried)

A) The observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating is another property
(in fact a HUGE reason) that has led me to consider the possibility of this "new force". It doesn't seem logical that energy/mass (being two sides of the same coin) would have both positive and negative gravitational force. I may inject logic (as opposed to Quantum Probabilities) at this level becase we haven't reached the discussion of QG yet, although that will come into play in this discussion soon. Also, were talking about *expansion of nothing* (spacetime)...which seems counter-intuitive yet fits the data. Zero point energy will enter into the equation soon also...please no conclusions yet, we have only begun this discussion. I do need help from you guys on many details before the debate stage can be reached.

2) " 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." (Thank you ENKI)

B) EXACTLY. "no real proposals for making them happen"...this is the essence of my proposal. Enter this "new fundamental force" (I shall now dub it "Harred's Force" in all my ego, lol) as that proposal.

I am working feverishly on the known data in order to lend disprovability (not to mention credibility) to this idea. I am in dire need of someone who is seriously doing the work in SST and QG to use this idea in their equations, as I am not yet up to the task. I'm working on it, however...I do understand what my argument is lacking. Ego is one thing but true understanding is quite another; if there turns out to be anything to this, whoever helps me with proving it will see nothing from me except pure respect and friendship when we are both standing in front of the Nobel commitee, lol.

(CMON, *SOMEBODY* throw *this* in their equations if you even halfway understand what I'm getting at in my limited ability to get my idea across).

Avron
Good luck!
FYI, there are a number of ideas already as to what 'dark energy' is. Among PF readers, the cosmological constant ("Einstein's greatest blunder", in his own words), or some variant, seems to have the hottest odds. But, it's early days, and accumlated observations over the next decade or two should contrain ideas and theories quite tightly. May we live in interesting times.
 
  • #29
Jeebus
255
0
"The universe is made mostly of dark matter and dark energy," says Saul Perlmutter, leader of the Supernova Cosmology Project headquartered at Berkeley Lab, "and we don't know what either of them is." He credits University of Chicago cosmologist Michael Turner with coining the phrase "dark energy" in an article they wrote together with Martin White of the University of Illinois for Physical Review Letters.

In the May 28 Science article, Perlmutter and Neta Bahcall, Jeremiah Ostriker, and Paul Steinhardt of Princeton use the concept of dark energy in discussing their graphic approach to understanding the past, present, and future status of the universe. The Cosmic Triangle is the authors' way of presenting the major questions cosmology must answer: "How much matter is in the universe? Is the expansion rate slowing down or speeding up? And, is the universe flat?"

The possible answers are values for three terms in an equation that describes the evolution of the universe according to the general theory of relativity. By plotting the best experimental observations and estimates within the triangle, scientists can make preliminary choices among competing models.

The mass density of the universe is estimated by deriving the ratio of visible light to mass in large systems such as clusters of galaxies, and in several other ways. For several decades the evidence has been building that mass density is low and that most of the matter in the universe is dark.

Changes in expansion rate are estimated by comparing the redshifts of distant galaxies with the apparent brightness of Type 1a supernovae found in them. These measurements suggest that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Curvature is estimated from measurements of the anisotropy (temperature fluctuation) of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), a remnant of the Big Bang. Although uncertainty is large, current results suggest a flat universe.

The Cosmic Triangle eliminates some popular models, such as a high-density universe that is slowing down and will eventually recollapse, as well as a nearly empty universe with no dark energy and low mass. While the evidence from galactic clusters shows that mass density is low, supernova evidence for acceleration shows that dark energy must be abundant.

"These two legs of the Cosmic Triangle agree with the evidence from the CMB that the universe is flat," Perlmutter says, adding that "this is a remarkable agreement for these early days of empirical cosmology."

Thus the Cosmic Triangle suggests that the standard inflationary scenario is on the right track: one of its key predictions is a flat universe.

Various types of dark energy have been proposed, including a cosmic field associated with inflation; a different, low-energy field dubbed "quintessence"; and the cosmological constant, or vacuum energy of empty space. Unlike Einstein's famous fudge factor, the cosmological constant in its present incarnation doesn't delicately (and artificially) balance gravity in order to maintain a static universe; instead, it has "negative pressure" that causes expansion to accelerate.
 
  • #30
Avron I agree with you in that discovery is made way off the beaten path but convincing others with some proof is all that matters because there are way more crackpots than facts.
Answer me this, if two large masses were floating about in space a certain distance away from one another and gravity was pulling them together what would their potential energies have been before moving? Probably a good amount, but if they move closer together will some of that potential energy be lost? If I drop an apple from a certain hight does it lose potential energy as it falls? When the apples hits the ground that potential energy that was converted into kinetic energy goes into the ground and air, but where does it go in space if two things only fall into an orbit and there is no air friction? This puzzles me...

Or check this out in theory development, "the ultimate aether theory re-revealed!", it's an old hypothesis on the two-slit experiment that may give a good argument for dark energy if it's true.
 
  • #31
In the introduction to physics, we learn almost right off the bat, that a force is not required for motion to happen, a force is only needed to start something in motion. The expansion of the universe that we are just discovering, has been here all along and is the the effect of the explosion from the big bang.

gravity is, however, involved in that once the force of gravity overtakes the slowly decreasing momentum of the mass accelerating outward, the expansion will stop. Then some scientists go as far as saying the mass of the universe will began, because of universal gravitation that says all mass in the universe attracts and is being attracted by all other mass in the universe, that the universe will undergo a big crunch. some go as far as saying it is a cycle in that the universe has already undergone many of these big bang, big crunch cycles.

i hope this clears thing up.
 
  • #32
I agree with actinide244 i have heard the same thing and i believe it to be true. If my opinion even matters.
 
  • #33
TENYEARS
472
0
Yaaa I herd donkeys fly if they flap their ears. Think people. That is all it will take to figure this out. Think. You don't need particle accellerators, expensive equipment or bandwagons of damm fools all shaking their heads in confirmation of something they know nothing about.
 
  • #34
FZ+
1,599
3
There are donkeys in your head?
 
  • #35
Hey TENYEARS do you have any scientific information to tell or are you all philosophy?
 

Suggested for: Another Fundamental Force?

Replies
50
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
803
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
817
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
Top