Discovering the Strong Force: The History of its Discovery

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter McQueen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Strong force
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the historical development of the understanding of the strong force, including key discoveries related to nuclear physics, radioactivity, and the interactions of particles within the atomic nucleus. Participants explore various theories and models, including Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and the role of virtual particles in nuclear forces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes the significance of radioactivity in understanding nuclear forces, highlighting the discovery of neutrons and their role in nuclear reactions.
  • Another participant questions the omission of beta rays in the initial discussion of radioactive emissions.
  • Concerns are raised about QED's assumption of particles having zero size, suggesting that finite-sized particles could explain certain interactions, such as high-energy protons reaching Earth without interacting with the microwave background.
  • A participant expresses dissatisfaction with their own explanation of the historical discoveries, indicating a desire to clarify the progression of nuclear research.
  • Another participant critiques QED's interpretation of the Double Slit Experiment and its implications for particle behavior, suggesting that this leads to flawed conclusions about photon paths.
  • Discussion includes the uncertainty principle and its implications for virtual particles and nuclear forces, with claims about the strong nuclear force being significantly stronger than electromagnetic forces.
  • One participant mentions a proposed mechanism for how attractive forces arise from particle interactions, contrasting it with the repulsion that can occur through virtual photon exchange.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the nature of nuclear forces and the validity of QED, indicating that multiple competing views remain without consensus on the explanations provided.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific theories and experimental data, but there are unresolved assumptions regarding the interpretations of QED and the mechanisms behind nuclear forces. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives on the historical and theoretical aspects of the strong force.

  • #31
baffledMatt said:
Wow, (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/) makes such an interesting read. I especially like the bit where they prove the origin of the fine structure constant by plugging Heisenberg's uncertainty relation into Newton's second law.

Genius!

Matt

the page does not say what you claim, no wonder you are "baffled matt". learn to read before you learn physics! the historical origin of the fine structure constant is actually Sommerfeld's atomic physics. the proof using Heisenberg comes later, and shows that the quantum electrodynamic exchange is wrong since it overestimates the QED force for electromagnetism by a factor of 137. this factor has to be canceled out by dividing the result by 137 which feynman admits in "QED" is is the biggest damn mystery. anyhow, can the moderator keep this to science and get rid of sneering abuse and deception from this "baffled mat" character, please.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
baffledMatt said:
Wow, (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/) makes such an interesting read. I especially like the bit where they prove the origin of the fine structure constant by plugging Heisenberg's uncertainty relation into Newton's second law.

Genius!

Matt

the page does not say what you claim, no wonder you are "baffled matt". learn to read before you learn physics! the historical origin of the fine structure constant is actually Sommerfeld's atomic physics. the proof using Heisenberg comes later, and shows that the quantum electrodynamic exchange is wrong since it overestimates the QED force for electromagnetism by a factor of 137. this factor has to be canceled out by dividing the result by 137 which feynman admits in "QED" is is the biggest damn mystery. anyhow, can the moderator keep this to science and get rid of sneering deception from this "baffled mat" character, please.
 
  • #33
I do not refer to a "continuous spectrum". There is no spectrum associated with electron spin, or with electron orbit for that matter. The energy is emitted continuously and received continuously. It amounts to the same thing as saying there is an ether, since the momentum delivered invisibly where there is "cancelled" charge produces inertia, etc., like being immersed in a perfectly frictionless fluid. Energy is emitted along the electric field lines, delivering momentum and causing forces along those lines.
I admit that this theory sounds interesting. How would you explain quantum effects. Of couurse an ether would go a long way towards explaining how electromagnetic waves propagate , no convincing explanations seem to exist in the present etherless physics to explain this phenomenon.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K