Are the strong and weak nuclear forces realistic?
99456
Einstein alluded about forces saying that they are fictitious.This make sense because forces do not exist unless there is an interaction between two entities.\nThe magnetudes of interaction depends on the densities of the masses and their volume.The greater the densities the greater the interaction.Thus we can categorize them.\nHowever ;the mechanisms involved is the same in all interactions!Einstein Related this mechanism to a curvature.\nHe had discovered when a force comes into being it comes  from a common  mechanism(.A force is a force ). Force only come into being only as pairs.A force cannot exist by itself no more than a magnet having a single pole.\nUnfortunately ,He had the basis for a Unified Theory and did not realize it.\nAs far what has been measured in the interaction of micromasses or micromasses,I  dont believe there is anything exact.Only approximtions.\nThe phenomena of gravity apply to both micromasses as well as Macromasses.This is the only thing that is Realistic.\nIn other words Electrical phenomena as well Gavity are all one and the same Phenomena.\nYou may not agree with it but its a more realistic answer than resorting to the aphabetic soup of forces that the Physists have concocted as saying that they are different Phenomenae.\nIf you dont understand about their description of weak,strong nuclear forces, dont feel bad. I doubt that they fully understand it themselves!
634270
i think the problem is when you try to apply general relativity - or gravity - to interaction betwen subatomic particles - especially when trying to understand how these forces worked during the first instant after the big bang. you wind up with nonsencial results - like zero equals one.
208985
The force of gravity has to do with an attraction of objects due to mass. The nuclear force has to do with attraction or repulsion of nucleous at very small distances. Electric Force is attraction or repulsion due to the charge of the object, and is very important in the actual structure of an atom. Inertia has to do with the continued movement of an object (an object in motion continues to move unless another force acts upon that object.)\n\nYou might think that gravity is a strong force, because you see it's effects all the time - however, the strongest forces will either be the nuclear force or electric force. If gravity is stronger than electric force, then you get black holes.
1053094
What you're describing is called the 'grand unified theory,' or GUT. There are four known fundamental forces in nature that literally control everything--gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. Science has been successful in uniting all of these except gravity.
14668
There is not an equal amount, despite what the first responder said. The question of why there is so little antimatter is a key problem for cosmologists today. There is, as yet, no completely satisfactory solution to the problem. The weak nuclear force clearly affects antimatter differently than matter, in a way that has caused the symmetry to fail. This only accounts of a miniscule fraction of the extra matter in the universe.
598564
There are fundamentally many ways to answer this question; and I will address three.\n\nIn nuclear chemistry, there are four fundamental interactions of matter that can be termed energy:\n\n1. Strong interaction, or strong force. This is the force which holds together quarks and other subnuclear particles into discreet protons, neutrons, and electrons. This is the energy that is released in a nuclear reaction.\n\n2. Weak interaction, or weak force. This is the force which holds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom. This is the energy that is released in radioactive decay.\n\n3. Electromagnetism. This is the attractive or repulsive force caused by the positive or negative charge of atomic particles and the electromagnetic field of photons. This force is the most wide in function, and is present in practically every conventional phenomenon. The electromagnetic force is responsible for electron orbitals, for chemical bonds and reactions, for electromagnetic radiation, and fundamentally for traditional force.\n\n4. Gravity. This is the tendency of objects with mass to accelerate toward each other. This is the weakest force, but can act over an almost unlimited distance.\n\nOR ....\n\nIn classic chemistry, a molecule can have three kinds of energy:\n\n1. Transitional energy, or the energy relative to motion.\n\n2. Chemical energy, or the energy inherent to electrochemical bonds.\n\n3. Vibrational energy, or energy relative to the vibration or oscillation of individual molecules.\n\nOR ...\n\nIn physics, we categorize all energy in the universe into two sets:\n\n1. Potential energy. This is the energy inherent in position or interaction with another body.\n\n2. Kinetic energy. This is the energy a mass possesses relative to its motion, whether it be classic velocity or vibration. This is sometimes termed work, though this is technically incorrect; both kinetic and potential energy are work, in different forms.\n\nAnd there you have it.
418166
The strong force holds protons and neutrons together. Protons can't be in a nucleus alone, but the neutrons somewhat neutralize the charges between them so that a strong force can  hold the center together. There isn't really an answer of why this is, just like there isn't an answer to why there is gravity, or existance. But it's true that the only stable nucleuses are ones with roughly equal numbers of protons and neutrons, and the only nucleus comprised of only protons is hydrogen, made of one proton.
1165718
The key to understanding fission and fusion is to understand what is known as the "binding energy per nucleon" or "mass defect." The force (attractive force) that keeps the nuceii of atoms together, called the strong nuclear force, acts differently depending on the configuration of the nucleus. If we divide the total binding energy of this nuclear force for a particular nucleus by the number of nucleons (i.e., protons + neutrons added together), we get a measure of how "stable" the nucleus is.  The more binding energy per nucleon, the more stable the nucleus is - that is, the more tightly bound the particles are. \n\nSimilarly, the mass defect represents the difference between the relativistic mass of the nucleus and the rest masses of the particles - another way of looking at the binding energy in relativistic (E=mc^2) terms.\n\nCertain nuclei are more stable than others. Ordinary hydrogen, for example, consists only of a single proton - so there is no binding energy per nucleon. Very large nuclei - such as uranium and plutonium - are very unstable because as the nucleus becomes larger, the relative effect of the nuclear force (the "binding energy per nucleon") becomes less and the electromagnetic repulsion of the protons becomes greater.\n\nOur universe tends toward greater stability. When large relatively unstable nuclei such as Uranium or Plutonium are bombarded by free neutrons, there is a probability that some of the nuclei will split into two more stable nuclei (i.e., nuclei with greater binding energy per nucleon). This is fission.  The difference in binding energy is converted to kinetic energy (heat) and radiation (gamma rays, light). \n\nSimilarly, some very small nuclei such as hydrogen have less binding energy per nucleon than larger nuclei such as helium.  When these smaller nuclei are forced together within the range of the strong nuclear force, there is a probability the nuclei will combine (fuse) into a more stable nucleus with greater binding energy per nucleon.  This is fusion.  Again, the difference in binding energy is converted to kinetic energy (heat) and radiation (gamma rays and light).\n\nFission and fusion are only sustainable if the resultant nuclei are more stable than the initial nucleii - i.e., if the binding energy per nucleon increases.  Also, fission and fusion require some energy input to get them started - Uranium and Plutonium have lower initial energy requirements, so it is easier for them.  Similarly, hydrogen fusion into helium is "relatively" easy compared to fusion of other nuclei.
918873
If it were posible for the neutronium to exist in a plane, then yes, I think so. However, neutronium is so dense that its own gravity will pull it into a sphere. If you got close enough to look at it, it would pull you in and you would be a (very thin) stain on the surface.\n\nNeutron stars are supposed to be made mostly of neutronium. If two collided or got close enough for their tides to pull one apart, then small pieces might be left. But neutronium is supposed to be very unstable. It is only its own gravity that binds the electrons and protons together so that they merge and lose their identities. \n\nFor very massive neutron stars (just short of being black holes, I guess) their inner layers are supposedly a quark-gluon soup. \n\nFor very small ones or pieces broken off, if that is possible, if there is not enough gravity to keep the particles together, the electrons and protons will regain their identities and the nuclear interctive forces will reassert themselves, and the mesons will begin to interact between the electrons and protons again,. What would happen is that the small piece of neutronium would erupt in a burst of energy and high energy particles. \n\nS/F writers like H. Beam Piper (in the 60's) postulated that we would learn to control nuclear forces like we learned to control electricity and have (what he called ) 'collapsium' plated spacecraft, where the outer shells of the electrons were in contact with the nuclei (what we would now call 'degenerate matter'.) Such a plating (a tiny fraction of an inch thick) would protect like several feet of lead shielding. It would also weigh more than many feet of lead shielding! (He also proposed that we would have antigravity by now.)\n\nTheoretically, a sphere of neutronium would be perfectly reflective, and the noted s/f author Larry Niven used that feature in his classic story There Is A Tide (1968, Galaxy magazine.)\n\n15 NOV 06, 1632 hrs, GMT.
296792
Your experimental model is corrupt in terms of current known information about matter and energy in a space-time continuum.  No prediction or calculation can be applied.\nWith two point masses, the only force in the system would be do to gravity.  This is an assumption based upon multiple moving masses in what we would call the normal physical universe.\nIf the distance between their centers (d) was sufficiently small, the points would be touching one another and no force would be exerted on the masses.  If the distance was sufficiently large, then it is possible that the force would be so small that the masses would not move.  Only in a finite range of distances would any gravity possibly exist.\nOne can make no assumptions about G as a gravitational constant, since G assumes that one of the masses is the earth.  One would need additional information about the masses to solve the problem.
205616
The Begy atomic model. It eliminates the nedd for the quite unbelievable strong and weak nuclear forces. It also defines gravity as a force acting upon the universe rather than from within it. This reduces the forces in this universe to just one the electromagnetic force. Is this a unified field theory?\n\nWeb search, "Begy atomic model"
578174
All forces ultimately resolve to so called "Magnetic", "Electrostatic" and "Nuclear" forces - all of which are explained as "action at a distance" via a "field".\nSince none of these actions at a distance can be explained except via artificial theories such as "ghost particles" in Quantum physics or "space/time distortions" as in Relativistic physics, your question is very valid and the simple answer is no-one knows what a "force" really is or how it is produced.
20032
The weak nuclear forces are the ones that bond atoms to atoms (rather than the strong nuclear forces that bind the atom together).  These Electromagnetic Forces can be as weak as static electrical forces that make balloons cling to walls, or can be the attraction between Hydrogen and Oxygen in water that can be broken down by the application of low voltages.
356020
I would say the strong nuclear force, that holds quarks together in protons and neutrons. This is the strongest if you add up all the individual forces in the universe, as it is present in every proton and neutron in every atom in the universe. If the strong force disappeared, the entire universe would instantly explode into fundamental particles.\n\nOn the other hand, on an everyday scale, the electromagnetic force is most noticeable (it is responsible for everyday forces between objects), and is stronger than gravity (by standing up the electromagnetic forces between atoms of your feet and the floor are overcoming the gravity of an entire planet.)
277720
I am very sorry to tell you this, but this question cannot be answered. The reason for this has to do with the fact that very, very small things (like protons) act in a very different way than larger-scale objects. For a full explanation, you'd need to delve in quantum theory, but for now, here is the best answer I can give you:\n\nA proton consists of three quarks, who are held together with the strong nuclear force. Looking at the distance dependency of this force, a non-accelerated proton would have a diameter of about 10^-15 m in reference to its inertial frame. The weird thing is, the more accurately its velocity is determined (for example, by applying a certain electromagnetic field to it) the more "diffuse" and wave-like the proton becomes, thus in a sense enlarging it! For more on this, look into the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.\n\nFor similar reasons, it makes no sense to talk about the "shape" of a photon.
943536
Currently, dark energy seems to be a "fifth" force that seems to conteract gravity at large distances.\n\nHowever, there could be many more forces that we don't know about. For example, what if every dominant force we know is result of a strong force overpowering a weaker force?\n\nIn the case of "dark energy" and gravity, gravity is just a small fraction stronger than dark energy. So it takes a lot of mass to have a reasonable gravitational field. But like the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity is only stronger than "dark energy" at relatively short distances. As the distances increase, dark energy overpowers gravity and pushes objects away from each other.\n\nIt's something to think about. Counteracting forces, especially if one of them is dominanting, would be difficult to discern.\n\nBut that's just one example. There could be many others that we just haven't experienced yet. These may be all there are. Scientists are making new discoveries everyday so only time will tell.\n\n~X~
92221
Gravity and electromagnetic forces.  Gravity is an odvious answer.  Most other forces, including frictional forces, fall under electromagnetic forces.  The strong and weak force mentioned earlier can not be experienced directly.  They come into play when dealing with radiation and sub-atomic physics.