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

Evolution of interactive forces?

  1. Aug 7, 2006 #1
    I'm not positive that this belongs in the philosophy section but I'm not really sure that it belongs in physics or anywhere else either.

    For too long I've been trying to unify the fundamentals laws of the universe and those laws that govern how life behaves and how the planets behave. And what I've finally come down to is interactive forces. Without the interaction of the forces between subatomic particles nothing would exist as we know it. If you could define happiness as a force then it would act upon another force such as sadness. If the happiness is stronger than the sadness then happiness will prevail over the weaker and dominate and vice versa. Such as when compared to a strong negative magnitization and a weak positive magintization. The negative will dominate due to strength alone. Some forces are fundamentally stronger than others such as anger and depression. This interactivity of these forces is not much diffrent from what is happening when comparing magnetism and gravity. The stronger magnetic force will over come the weaker gravitational force with comparable ease. Similarly when anger confronts happiness it will generally dominate it. This does not mean that the anger will beat the happiness only that it has the strength to change it completely. Another example of this is fear. Fear is a very strong force. Fear can alter another force even anger. In all this I am not saying that fundamental forces are guided by the same laws as such forces as fear and anger but rather that it is by these interactions that life and even existence itself is even possible. I know that one could ask what drives the forces? Where do these forces come from? But for the sake of this particular post I do not what to delve into metaphysics.

    Evolution did not begin with life. Evolution began with existence.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 7, 2006 #2
    Three possibilities to your question (1) first things then forces between things, (2) first force then things for forces to act on (3) both things and forces between things appear as a dialectic--the one made of two--think coin having both head and tails--not correct to ask which has priority. Same answer IMO between things and forces between things--together they did come to be, one united.
  4. Aug 7, 2006 #3
    This is exactly what I was trying to avoid. I'm not pondering the begining of things. I'm not asking where the forces come from but rather what the forces are and how they act. Newton didn't ponder how gravity worked or where it originated or how it was allowed. He merely described its properties. All I am attempting to do here is better understand the properties of all existence and life. Not what causes them.
  5. Aug 7, 2006 #4
  6. Aug 8, 2006 #5
    Are you suggesting that forces "evolve"?

    If you are not, then I'm not sure just what question you're asking.

    Best Regards
  7. Aug 8, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Quantum theory says matter particles (fermions) interact by exchanging virtual force particles (bosons), and this is all that happens (Feynman:
    "All that happens in QED is, an electron goes from A to B, an electron emits a photon, an electron absorbs a photon"). Or alternatively you can say that fermionic fields interact (including self-interaction).

    Since these interactions are dynamic, i.e. the states of the fields are different after each interaction from before, the fields do evolve in the original non-Darwinian sense, but unlike life forms they evolve toward states of lower energy and higher entorpy, whereas life forms can evolve toward states of higher or steady energy and lower (local, relative) entropy.
  8. Aug 8, 2006 #7
    Simply, Yes. For a more indepth look at it, I prefer to look at it as though they complexify. Perhaps by allowing fundamental particles to be bathed in large amounts of ambient energy they will adopt new more intricate ways to become bigger. If you take a look at everything that exists it is trying to become more. To come to the conclusion I have I am combining metaphysics, particle physics, astrology and many other areas of interest. I know that this idea has many holes in it but its just an idea.

    If you take a look at Darwins theory of evolution he states that the strongest will survive and this is the way of evolution. Well what about say a new type of fundamental force has the ability to change or destroy another force. This new force would be evolved from its predecessor and yet is just a force.

    In conclusion, Is it not possible for forces themselves to evolve?
  9. Aug 8, 2006 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    No he doesn't! That is a crude and inaccurate description of natural selection. Stronger sometimes wins but other qualities can trump strength too. For example biologists identify two overall life strategies that come into play across many species and genera. One is to expend energy to breed a few very strong (or otherwise well defended) offspring, so that they will be able to survive predators in their infancy. The other is to expend the same amount of energy to breed a great many weak offspring, so that even if many are eaten by predators, many more will survive. Both strategies work.

    Aside from that a lot of selection does not concrn competion of living things with each other, but with interaction of individuals with the environment. Here strength is often trumped by some other skill which opens up an "environmental niche" to be exploited. For example flight. Some dinosaurs learned to fly and evolved into birds; light weak little creatures, but having that wonderful ability. Other dinosaurs evolved for greater strength and size. Which type survived and which is now extinct?

    And I repeat; nonliving interactions tend to low energy and high entropy; toward the inability to do much of anything.
  10. Aug 10, 2006 #9
    What is a "non living" interaction? Existence evolves/ed, and evolution is existence/ing. These are fundamental mirrored necessities of existence. You have already figured out your answer to the above question, you just forgot to accept it. :)

    Peace and love my man Chong,
    Keep up the beautiful curiosity.
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2006
  11. Aug 11, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Dream on. Just assuming or believing something doesn't make it so, nor does it serve to persuade others.
  12. Aug 14, 2006 #11
    I apoligize for simplifying this theory to a single sentence for it can easily be misinterpreted. There are many strengths to be had beyond just the muscular sense. After all there is strength of mind and strength in camoflauge. All I meant by this is that the best adapted to survival will survive. The strongest in a situation, whatever that situation and whatever the strength is, will in fact survive.
  13. Aug 14, 2006 #12
    I beileve that when I was writing the original post I got sidetracked. I suppose my question is, is it possible that humans are nothing but interactive forces? Is it possible that everything that exists is nothing but interactive forces?
  14. Aug 17, 2006 #13
    Yes! So we must stop our expectations! We are all one here together! One and the same. Beyond humans. My book on all of this should be out in a few years, everyone will enjoy it, I'm sure it will revolutionize the world.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook