The Four Fundamental Forces of Nature

[McQ]

Just in case anyone wants to know. A few reputable sites that discuss the forces of nature, upon which all physical interactions take place.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0127c.html

Here's one from the Eurpoean Space Agency:

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM7ZI5V9ED_index_0.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... unfor.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/a ... nt_02.html

[Asmodean Prime]

Good sites, McQ

They need more scrutiny on the part of all of us.  please be patient while we peruse these things.

good sites, though, at first glance.  I like things like this.

[MikeyV]

I really like the last link. I've been to that site frequently after seeing "The Elegant Universe" on PBS.

For those who have an interest in a layman's approach to quantum physics and string theory, I highly suggest reading the book of the same name as the TV series by Brian Greene.

He approaches string theory the same way Stephen Hawking approaches general and special relativity in "A Brief History of Time".

[McQ]

I really like the last link. I've been to that site frequently after seeing "The Elegant Universe" on PBS.

For those who have an interest in a layman's approach to quantum physics and string theory, I highly suggest reading the book of the same name as the TV series by Brian Greene.

He approaches string theory the same way Stephen Hawking approaches general and special relativity in "A Brief History of Time".

The Elegant Universe, the book and PBS show, are excellent. as is the book, Fabric of the Cosmos. I would recommend some other books on these subjects first, as these are pretty tough for laymen.

Timothy Ferris' book, The Whole Shebang, is a good one, as are a bunch of others that lay down the basics of astronomy first, then go into cosmology, then into relativity and string. I don't recommend jumping right into string or M Theories without a solid astronomy foundation.

I've loaned my extra copy of Elegant Universe to people who read it, said they liked it, but then later had questions for me like, "So is our solar system part of the Milky Way?", or "The Sun is a star, right?"
Doh!
I loaned them some basic astronomy books after that. LOL!

[Aullios]

I wish my library was worth a crap... I've really been wanting to read some Greene...

[iplaw]

I haven't done too much reading on this topic since I went to law school, but it's fascinating.  The last book I read on the topic was "In search of a final theory" by Stephen Weinberg.  

I may be slow with the times, but is it still a problem for particle physicists reconciling the gravitational force with the other three?  What if anything has been advanced in the last few years in that area?

Do you think that we may possibly be missing another force that helps reconcile gravity with the other 3?  I have also wondered if there are sets of even more fundamental forces that control quark behavior that we haven't discovered which may help in understanding the interaction of the other 3 forces?

[Asmodean Prime]

The unified field theory?

I have a theory.  You will probably not agree with it.   It goes like this:

"He upholds all things by His Word."

[Aullios]

I haven't done too much reading on this topic since I went to law school, but it's fascinating.  The last book I read on the topic was "In search of a final theory" by Stephen Weinberg.  

I was just reading that one.  I find Weinberg a little dry, though.  Hawking is more engaging.

[quote author="iplaw'I may be slow wiyh the times, but is it still a problem for particle physicists reconciling the gravitational force with the other three?  What if anything has been advanced in the last few years in that area?
[/quote]
11 dimensional M-Theory touches on that.  Gravity is the only force distributed among the extra dimensions, so it appears weaker than the o ther three.  Wikipedia has a decent article on M-Theory.

[quote="onlyme"]"He upholds all things by His Word."[/quote]
Aren't you glad that scientists don't agree with this statement?  Otherwise, we'd have no scientific advancements at all.  Think about your life without science for a little while.. you won't like it.

[iplaw]

onlyme.

Discussions of the fundamental forces of the universe and God are mostly ad hoc.  You can discuss one without discussing the other by necessary implication.  Even though I believe in God I can seek to understand what makes the universe work without sacrificing my faith or intellect.  If you are interested, here is a link to a fellow Brit who is a particle physicist who studied under Dirac then turned theologian.  He is the author of several books dealing the the "consonant" nature of science and theology.  

www.polkinghorne.org  You could spend months on this site and never finish all the material.  It also contains some fabulous debates about the existence of God.

Here is a brief bio about him:

Rev Dr. John Polkinghorne KBE FRS, Cambridge University, England, is a Fellow of the Royal Society, a Fellow (and former President) of Queens' College,Cambridge and a Canon Theologian of Liverpool Cathedral. He was born 16th Oct 1930 in Weston-super-Mare, England, and is married to Ruth. They have three children (Peter, Isobel and Michael). He was at school at  Elmhurst Grammar School, Street, Somerset and his distinguished career as a Physicist began at Trinity College Cambridge where he studied under Dirac and others. He received his MA in 1956, was elected a Fellow of Trinity in 1954, and gained his PhD in 1955. In 1956 he was appointed a Lecturer in Mathematical Physics at Edinburgh: returning to Cambridge as a Lecturer in 1958, promoted to Reader in 1965 and Professor in 1968. In 1974 he was elected FRS in and awarded an ScD by Cambridge. During this time he published many papers on theoretical elementary particle physics in learned journals, and 2 technical scientific books, The Analytic S-Matrix (CUP 1966, jointly with RJ Eden, PV Landshoff and DI Olive) and Models of High Energy Processes (CUP 1980).

Here is another link to a website that lists books written by scientists about science and theology amongst many other topics from varied authors.

http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/bibliography.htm

http://www.starcourse.org

Aullios.

"He upholds all things by His Word."

Most rational Christians can believe in the truth of that statement without suspending their belief and genuine interest in the sciences.

BTW, He discusses M-Theory in the Q&A section and also mentions something called LISA which is a satellite that is scheduled for launch in 2014 that hopes to study M-Theory in more detail.

[Whitney]

The unified field theory?

I have a theory.  You will probably not agree with it.   It goes like this:

"He upholds all things by His Word."

Onlyme...look up the definition of trolling.  We really don't need science threads cluttered up with religious discussion...especially since you already knew the majority of members here would not agree with your statement.

[Asmodean Prime]

Laetus, in what section then, should I post them?

If you want me to post them in the 'religious section' I will do so, but bear in mind that this is what I believe, in other words, what scientists are trying to define as the 'unified field theory', we already know as the creation aspect, which covers all facets of life, including the cosmos and all it's workings.

[Whitney]

Laetus, in what section then, should I post them?

If you want me to post them in the 'religious section' I will do so, but bear in mind that this is what I believe, in other words, what scientists are trying to define as the 'unified field theory', we already know as the creation aspect, which covers all facets of life, including the cosmos and all it's workings.

We already know that's what you believe...you are a theist you beleive God is behind everything.  If you must post it do so in the religion section, or in your random question thread.

[Asmodean Prime]

Ok, I will do so, laetus, but how then can I reply to the postings in other sections, unless I re-direct them to my own 'random questions' forum?  which I don't know how to do anyway.  Please elaborate.  

Anyway, since you are the admin, I will do as you request from now on, but please answer my above question.

[Whitney]

My point is that you don't reply to topics in the science section with a religious answer...there really is no need to include a religious reply because scicence doesn't conflict with being a theist.  If something some one says sparks a religious idea you have, you could start a new thread in the religion section.  Personally, I don't even see a need for random 'god did it" comments when everyone already knows that's what you believe.

If you think a specific scientific theory is wrong for some reason, feel free to explain why by using science...if you have to explain why by using God as the reason then you probably don't understand the theory.

If you don't understand a theory, that's fine...I don't understand everything about science either.  That's also why you don't see me trying to explain very much about some of these theories...I simply don't have the background to do so properly.  But, just because I don't understand doesn't mean others also don't understand...you can learn a lot just by reading about the topic then asking relevant questions if necessary.

[Jassman]

Well said, laetus.

"It wuz jezus !" gets us nowhere.