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

Repulsive forces

  1. May 7, 2003 #1

    Claude Bile

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Gravitation is always attractive,
    Electromagnetism is sometimes attractive, sometimes repulsive.

    Here's my questions:

    Do the two nuclear forces exhibit any repulsive behaviour, in any shape, way or form, or are they always attractive like gravity?

    What about the cosmological constant? Is it a repulsive form of another force, or a totally new force?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 8, 2003 #2
    Short answer: yes

    Long answer: It turns out 'particles' and 'forces' are a bad way to think about the nuclear forces (and the other ones at small scales.) A better way is to think about fields and interaction energy terms, or vertices and virtual particles.

    However, if you insist upon it, the strong nuclear force is vaguely like electromagnetism, except with three 'charges', called colors: red, blue, and green. The strong force acts to enforce color-neutrality, just as the electromagnetic force acts to enforce charge-neutrality. So like colors repel, while unlike colors attract.
     
  4. May 8, 2003 #3
    Yep, and two protons have an energy curve due to the strong force that looks quite a bit like an ionic bond curve - asymptotic at close distances, with a minimum, and horizontal asymptote at large distances.
     
  5. May 8, 2003 #4
    Hi Claude,

    Your stipulation that gravitation is always attractive overlooks the possibility that some mysterious repulsive force must exist to explain why the planets do not fall into the Sun. While your second stipulation is valid there is no way that electromagnetism can account for the mystery. Perhaps the nature of the mystery force might be better understood by an analogy of the force fields present in the stable two-electron QM orbital.

    The property of repulsion of like charges follows from the monopolar electrostatic force but then nature has intrinsically and permanently coupled the unit charge to its unitary mass (emu) where it exists as another monopolar but attractive force [as you have stipulated]. But hold on: it has been known for decades that the ratio of these supposedly compensating forces is so overwhelmingly dominated by the electrostatic force that there must be another force that keeps the orbital from flying apart. The realization that spin is another intrinsic property of these orbital electrons leads to the dipolar aspect of monopolar charge that is called magnetism. Now if one imagines the two orbital electrons as having parallel spins, then the magnetic force would be repulsive; on the other hand, the freedom of electrons to flip led Pauli to his valid discovery that allows the attractive force that would compensate electrostatic repulsion. So far three forces have been identified and none of them accounts for the energy and non-radiative stability of the orbital. First off, if the magnetic force exactly compensated the electrostatic force, nothing much would happen suggesting that magnetic attraction exceeds electrostatic repulsion and therefore the mysterious missing force must be repulsive.

    Considering the loop character of the orbital, it is easy to see that nature uses voltage to determine radius and current that satisfies Planck’s distinctly positioned orbital. Of course it was logical to dismiss monopolar mass but without some dipolar aspect of electronic mass there would be no torque to exactly counter the loop magnetic dipolar attribute of the loop electron current. Furthermore, without the angular momentum necessary to permanently fix the orbital, energy would have to be continuously maintained. Looking back at the intrinsic spin-property of the electron and remembering that along with the spinning charge that produced dipolar magnetism the spinning iota of mass is the mysterious dipolar force that is responsible for the centrifugal force required for the creation of matter.
    Thanks for your audience. Cheers, Jim
     
  6. May 8, 2003 #5
    Angels. There are angels, keeping them from falling into the Sun, and pushing them too -- something's got to be keeping them moving, right?
     
  7. May 8, 2003 #6

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wow... I actually wasn't aware that NEOclassic was a crackpot.

    - Warren
     
  8. May 8, 2003 #7
    Re: Re: Repulsive forces

    Planets actually do, and all the time. The Sun is simply too small (and planets are too far from it), so they just miss it all the time.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2003
  9. May 9, 2003 #8
    Will your bad day ever end?

    Warren you really are a negative entity in this forum. Instead of shooting off with such as "crackpot", really read the post and dish out a little constructive criticism or is your mind closed to Quantum theory expressed in other than QED's "standing wave" modeling of a Pauli two-electron quantum orbital.
     
  10. May 9, 2003 #9

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Will your bad day ever end?

    Your post began with "some mysterious repulsive force must exist to explain why the planets do not fall into the Sun," crackpot. How much more does one need to read?

    - Warren
     
  11. May 9, 2003 #10

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    LOL this thread has exquisite oneliners


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your stipulation that gravitation is always attractive overlooks the possibility that some mysterious repulsive force must exist to explain why the planets do not fall into the Sun.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Angels. There are angels, keeping them from falling into the Sun, and pushing them too -- something's got to be keeping them moving, right?



    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Your stipulation that gravitation is always attractive overlooks the possibility that some mysterious repulsive force must exist to explain why the planets do not fall into the Sun.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Planets actually do, and all the time. The Sun is simply too small (and planets are too far from it), so they just miss it all the time.


    ****************
    nothing can top these
    I guess Kepler would have preferred the angels explanation
    and Newton would go along with them falling but always missing
    so we have good authority on both sides
    my own two-bits is that the original poster started
    the thread asking, among other things, if the
    cosmological constant is a force then is it a new force
    or a repulsive force. I don't think it is a force at all
    (tho it might be an energy density). Does anyone want
    to reply to the original poster on that?

    PS this is a great board and everybody is to be
    congratulated, even the crackpots(as chroot calls them)
    are good crackpots IMHO
     
  12. May 9, 2003 #11

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Eh... Alexander wasn't joking. There is indeed in circular motion an unbalanced acceleration towards the centre of mass of the system. The planets just have enough of a tangential velocity to miss it every time.
     
  13. May 9, 2003 #12

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Er...I realize that, which is why I said Newton would agree
    with that picture.

    Kepler, on the other hand, would have inclined towards
    the agency of angels I suspect. Alexander's way of putting
    it was however a witty comeback "they do fall into the sun
    but it is so small they keep missing" and made me laugh.
    sometimes the truth appears in a comic light.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Repulsive forces
  1. About Repulsion Force (Replies: 6)

Loading...