TED Conversations

Omar Alshishan

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What are the reasons that created the two forces in the nucleus of an atom? Why are there two forces in the nucleus of an atom?

I think that the answer would lead us to a gate for new understands of the universe laws, Light has to be understand as it should be not as we like to explain it.
We still very far of understanding the universe unless we change the methodology of the present physics

Related Talks:
Topics: astronomy light nuclear energy physics
0
Share:
progress indicator

  • Richard Lindsay

    • 0
    Jul 3 2011: Not an easy question. If string theory is proven correct, then all matter is made up of building blocks of pure vibrating energy (strings for the sake of visualization). In that case the "forces" we THINK we are measuring could be just a product of the relation ship of these vibrations. Even more interesting is the fact that if these vibrations were to stop......the matter it was responsible for would blink out of existence. The reason this energy never stops it's dance, and the reason we have a seemingly separate strong and weak nuclear force would have to be related. If super string theory is dis-proven, the answer would be almost totally opposite.

  • Addison Rennick 30+

    • 0
    May 12 2011: The two forces are different aspects of the same force that separated shortly after the big bang, after already having separated from the electromagnetic force. So no, we are not explaining it as we would like to explain it, we are explaining it as we observe it.

    There are two forces for the same reason E=MC^2. Because that's how it is. any other explanation would be incorrect.

  • David Yavner

    • 0
    Apr 27 2011: I am a also a layperson.

    A bit of a sardonic answer is to your initial question is; because they work.

    The actual underlying cause for there being two forces, weak interaction and strong nuclear, that regulate the nucleus are still a bit beyond our present tools of discovery. On a anthropomorphic level, the forces exist because they are stable and suit us. A universe created in another way would not come into existence, or a least not with the physical laws that exist in this universe. The universe exists in a sense because fundamental forces and matter "work" - they are stable enough to allow the universe to exist.

    Reiterating what John Cunningham said. The latest best guess today is that the four forces were created through symmetrical breaking - small fluctuations at a critical crossing points -of the unified force in the primordial universe.

    My understanding is that as the primordial environment changed, forces emerged that could exist alongside each other. It may be further experimentation, new mathematical formulations, or new theories will gives us an "aha" insight into why it was these forces that were created.

    Light is understood in the best [pun warning] light of our understanding. I have not known light to be explained as we like - some would liken it to a particle, some as a wave. I was taught it was both, but I have learned lately that this may not be quite correct.


    The scientific method might need refining, but I do not know of a better tool to sate curiosity. Well OK, perhaps the internet.
  • thumb

    John Cunningham 20+

    • +1
    Mar 12 2011: You state as a fact that we need to change the methodology of present physics - what exactly do you propose? What is wrong with the way physics is done at present?

    Sorry to try to answer a question with a question. :)

    I'm not a physicist, but my layperson's understanding is that many believe the weak force joins with the electromagnetic force at high energies to become the electroweak force. At even higher energies, (Grand Unification Energy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_energy) the electroweak and strong forces combine into a superforce (i.e. all their interactions become the same).

    So if that's correct, then the apparent two forces in the atom are a result of symmetry breaking, i.e. that the symmetry in the early universe 'broke' as the Universe cooled.

    I'm sure a physicist could give a much better answer but I'd be curious to know why you are so dismissive of current physics. What you're saying about light isn't clear to me, sorry.
  • thumb

    Nicholas Cristella

    • 0
    Mar 6 2011: Your assumption is the belief we can change physics and that man ultimately holds the power to do so. Assuming you are correct in your belief it would likely be homogeneous and ultimately the conclusions would not be left up to any explicit deliberation. Again the overtly macro with no real direction. Most can create an assumption of the exteriors of the universe to create a more directional topic.
Showing all 6 comments