Fundamental Forces: Electromagnetic, Gravity, Strong & Weak Interactions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the four fundamental forces: electromagnetic, gravity, strong, and weak interactions. Participants explore the nature of these forces, particularly focusing on the electromagnetic force and its comparison to gravity, as well as the implications of current theories like Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and string theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the electromagnetic force, gravity, strong, and weak interactions are regarded as the four fundamental forces.
  • One participant raises a question about whether there is a new theory for the Coulomb force analogous to the new theories for gravity, specifically mentioning string theory.
  • Another participant clarifies that Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is the established theory for the electromagnetic force, contrasting it with general relativity.
  • Concerns are expressed about potential inconsistencies between experimental results and the Coulomb force theory, similar to issues found with Mercury's precession.
  • It is suggested that the analogy between the Coulomb force and gravity is primarily for educational purposes and may not hold in more complex scenarios.
  • Participants discuss the understanding of the other three forces in terms of quantum mechanics and field theory, while gravity is described as a pseudoforce related to the geometry of space-time.
  • There is acknowledgment of unresolved fundamental disagreements between quantum mechanics and general relativity, with string theory posited as a potential avenue for resolution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that gravity is understood differently from the other forces, but multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation and theoretical frameworks for the fundamental forces.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of forces, the assumptions underlying the analogies made, and the unresolved nature of the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Mayan Fung
Messages
131
Reaction score
14
As far as I know, we regard the electromagnetic force, gravity, strong and weak interactions as the four fundamental forces.

We know that Newton's law of gravitation does not perform as well as Einstein's general relativity. Scientists are now using energy-stress tensor to describe gravitational fields. Here comes my question: How do we interpret the other three forces? I am more familiar with the EM interaction. Let me focus on it.

When I first learn the Columb Force, my teacher told us that it behaves just like gravitation - both decay inverse squarely. Now, we have a new theory explaining gravity. Do we have a new theory for Columb force? I read some articles saying that string theory is trying to do this. My main concern is: do we find any inconsistency between experiments and our Columb Force theory, just like the case of Mercury's precession?

I look forward to your comments and opinions!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Chan Pok Fung said:
As far as I know, we regard the electromagnetic force, gravity, strong and weak interactions as the four fundamental forces.
Yes.
Chan Pok Fung said:
When I first learn the Columb Force, my teacher told us that it behaves just like gravitation - both decay inverse squarely. Now, we have a new theory explaining gravity. Do we have a new theory for Columb force?
Hmm, yes and no :smile:, it's not a new theory. It is called Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). And it is not like general relativity.

See these links on HyperPhysics:
and, if you are interested
Chan Pok Fung said:
I read some articles saying that string theory is trying to do this.
Please note that there are no experimental evidence (yet) for string theory :wink:.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mayan Fung
Chan Pok Fung said:
When I first learn the Columb Force, my teacher told us that it behaves just like gravitation - both decay inverse squarely. Now, we have a new theory explaining gravity. Do we have a new theory for Columb force? I read some articles saying that string theory is trying to do this. My main concern is: do we find any inconsistency between experiments and our Columb Force theory, just like the case of Mercury's precession?
The comparison of the Coulomb force and gravity is for teaching purposes only - it's a handy analogy for givig students a loose feel for electrostatic forces. The two are not considered anything alike IRL.
At some point in those lessons, the analogy should break.

We understand the "other three" forces in terms of quantum mechanics and, specifically, field theory... in this picture, the forces are the result of interactions with fundamental particles whose behaviour is described using probability and statistics. The particles themselves appear as small fluctuations in the overall field.
We understand gravity as a pseudoforce arising from the geometry of space-time.

However - there are fundamental disagreements between quantum mechanics and general relativity which remain unsolved.
String theory is a work in progress that attempts to do this, or, at least, tries to find out what such a solution may look like.
You will also see references to "quantum gravity" which attempts to treat gravity like a quantum mechanics force.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mayan Fung
Wow, your comments are awesome! Can I say gravitation is somehow different from the other three forces?
 
At current state of knowledge it is fair to say that gravity is understood in a quite different way to the other forces.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mayan Fung

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K