The Nature of Strong Force: Explaining Its Cause and Effects

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature and cause of the strong force in physics, exploring theoretical explanations, the role of gluons, and the philosophical implications of scientific models. Participants engage in a conceptual examination of fundamental forces, including gravity and the weak force, and the limitations of current scientific understanding.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests a complete explanation of how the strong force is caused, indicating confusion over existing answers.
  • Another participant asserts that physics cannot fundamentally describe "how" or "why" forces exist, only how to predict measurements.
  • A question is raised about whether gravity and the weak force also lack fundamental explanations.
  • It is suggested that while we can describe forces like gravity in terms of spacetime curvature, this leads to further questions about the nature of spacetime itself.
  • Concerns are expressed regarding the reliance on "imaginary models" in fundamental physics, questioning the validity of models that cannot be directly observed.
  • A participant asks for clarification on how gluons generate the strong force, while another references quantum chromodynamics as a framework for understanding this interaction.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of scientific models, emphasizing that they are based on experimental results and predictions rather than direct observation.
  • Some participants argue that models can never be proven but can be discarded if they fail to make accurate predictions.
  • A point is made that while quarks and gluons are not directly observable, other particles like leptons and photons have been detected, raising questions about the visibility of fundamental particles.
  • One participant compares scientific models to the concept of wind, which cannot be seen but is inferred from its effects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of scientific models and the explanations for fundamental forces. There is no consensus on the adequacy of current explanations for the strong force or the philosophical implications of model-based science.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding fundamental forces, the dependence on experimental results for model formulation, and the unresolved nature of questions surrounding the existence of forces and particles.

Syed Ammar
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Please explain how is exactly strong force caused, I've come across various answers but haven't yet received a complete answer. What is the nature of the strong force?
P.S: If this is the wrong thread, Please RE-LOCATE and do not remove please. :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Syed Ammar said:
Please explain how is exactly strong force caused
Physics cannot describe "how" or "why" on a fundamental level. Physics just can give a description that allows to predict measurement results, bi
 
This means there's no explanation for how gravity and weak force are caused too?
 
Yes. And there is no scientific way such an explanation could look like on a fundamental level.
You can say "gravity is caused by spacetime curvature" (using gravity as an example), but then you can ask "why do we have spacetime curvature?". "The strong force is caused by gluons" - "why do gluons exist?" - just an observation, it is perfectly possible to imagine a universe without the strong force (or with something completely different), this just does not happen to be the universe we live in.
 
Is this due to the fact that Fundamental Physics is built up on Imaginary Models and Experimentation?
 
BTW, Could you explain how the gluons generate this strong force (leaving the formation of sub-atomic particles by the gluons aside).
 
Syed Ammar said:
Is this due to the fact that Fundamental Physics is built up on Imaginary Models and Experimentation?
What are "imaginary models"? All of physics is built on experiments. Experiments are the only way to learn something about our universe. Models are made based on those experiments, to predict the results of more experiments.
Syed Ammar said:
BTW, Could you explain how the gluons generate this strong force (leaving the formation of sub-atomic particles by the gluons aside).
Quantum chromodynamics describes the details, the Wikipedia article gives an overview.
 
I just meant to say that these models have not been seen, just been formulated from results of experiments, and you know what the common perception( Seeing is Believing) is. Thanks a hundred times for that link.. :)
 
What do you mean by a model being "seen"? How do you "see" gravity? Models in science make predictions and these predictions are then tested against what we can observe about how the Universe behaves. A model can never been proven, but it can be discarded if it fails to make correct predictions. Naturally, the first step when making a model is to make sure it is consistent with things already observed. It can then be used to make further predictions that may make us discard it if it is not fulfilled or let it live another day if the observation is compatible with the model.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gildomar
  • #10
Orodruin said:
What do you mean by a model being "seen"? How do you "see" gravity? Models in science make predictions and these predictions are then tested against what we can observe about how the Universe behaves. A model can never been proven, but it can be discarded if it fails to make correct predictions. Naturally, the first step when making a model is to make sure it is consistent with things already observed. It can then be used to make further predictions that may make us discard it if it is not fulfilled or let it live another day if the observation is compatible with the model.

Well, but for quarks and gluons we have been able to "see" leptons and photons... and hadrons and mesons...
 
  • #11
Syed Ammar said:
I just meant to say that these models have not been seen, just been formulated from results of experiments, and you know what the common perception( Seeing is Believing) is. Thanks a hundred times for that link.. :)

Nobody has ever seen wind either - just its results. That isn't a very good reason to disbelieve wind.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gildomar, Syed Ammar and Nugatory

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K