• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

what force is holding the universe together other than graivity

sushi

Active Member
Local time
Today, 04:06
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
354
#1
it seems that only gravity is the only valid force in large macrosocipic scale.
the other forces in standard model become irrelevant, like eletromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force. they exist in nuclear and atomic scale.

this is where i don't agree with the standard model, this imply gravity is only force that exist in outer space which we can feel and experience? and the only force responsible for the structure of space time universe.

some people introduced dark energy, dark matter as the unknown forces, and i feel there is much more holding the universe together other than gravity.

PS: GR attempted to explain it but i feel its insufficient model.
 
Last edited:

Serac

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 04:06
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
1,286
Location
Stockholm
#2
What do you mean "holding the universe together"? Are you talking about mass in particular?
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 16:06
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,717
#3
Why does our universe exist, if something exists why doesn't something else exist, why doesn't everything exist, indeed why does anything exist?

The answer to all these questions is: Bullshit.

There's no reason for any of it and that's bullshit, none of it makes any sense and that's bullshit, the paradoxical glue holding our universe together is undetectable, inconceivable, unbelievable bullshit.

In hindsight it's quite obvious.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 21:06
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,540
Location
subjective
#5
the path of least resistance
 

Manipulator

analyse, manipulate
Local time
Today, 05:06
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
603
Location
my head is my home
#6
The idea is, that gravity can be much more complicated than our simplify. The dark matter can be just gravity working in other conditions.
If someone believes in dark matter, he is the same fool as people who believed in ether.
 

redbaron

consummate salt-extraction specialist
Local time
Today, 13:06
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,593
Location
38S 145E
#7
not really sure what's meant by 'together' in this context?
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 16:06
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,717
#8
Are you in that solipsistic phase of the month, cog?
Shaddup! *goes off to wrap himself in a doona, eat icecream and watch battlebots*
 
Local time
Yesterday, 21:06
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,540
Location
subjective
#10
INTP forum (Hearts) Serac
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 16:06
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,717
#11
The force that actually holds the universe together is Love, folks.
Love-bullshit, potato-tomato, it's all shit in the end.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 21:06
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,540
Location
subjective
#12

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 16:06
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,717
#13
All biomass is eaten by black holes and shat out as radiation which dissipates until there's nothing left.
 

Cegorach

Charnel Horror
Local time
Yesterday, 21:06
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
749
#15
Hm, neither dark matter nor dark energy are really meant to be physical forces.

In the most basic sense, dark energy is an intrinsic property of space itself, theorized to explain an expanding universe, while dark matter is a unique form of matter with generally weak physical interactions meant to explain certain discrepancies between calculations and observations, they're more things for gravity to interact with than something held up alongside gravity as a fundamental physical interaction.
Though, like others, I may not be comprehending what you mean by "unknown forces" and "holding the universe together".

It is entertaining to speculate on or discover alternative explanations however. I tend to phase into the conceptual fringes myself, regardless of interference, but it's also crucial to acknowledge the validity of developing working models such as the above.
Science ought to be fancifully cruel, after all, with such theories being mere victims awaiting the knife.

Certainly elements of string theory attempt to provide a partial substitute for such murky apparitions, though it's often untestable to its detriment in a field almost entirely based upon a fulcrum of substantive corroboration; modified gravity, meanwhile, has been attempted many times, but has always come short of explaining everything required of it.

-

Matter and energy aside, regardless of their ethical inclinations, there are already some places you could begin searching for macro physical interactions beyond gravity; first of all, you'd need to peer into the smallest of scales...

An electronuclear force, or grand unified theory, combining the remaining three physical interactions into a singular model would be the first step, but the real prize is probably found in quantum gravity, where'd you smash together the resulting micro-scale grand unified theory with macro-scale general relativity to (presumably) spectacular insight.

COMBIIIINE!

Macro-scale quantum effects probably have very hard limits, if they exist, theoretically being more of an aggregate outcome rather than a literal mirror of the standard quantum effects, but there have been some feasible indications of them at such a grand scope at least; it's not necessarily entirely reasonable to expect quantum effects to always hit some imaginary barrier at some unspecified scale.

Outside of that, it's a bit more uncertain, these things are usually best taken in steps, otherwise you can end up rather disoriented, dancing along to the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.
azathoth_by_nightserpent-d4pwklf small.jpg

Additional tangentially interesting articles:
P.S. - I'm not a physicist, not even close, you'd be better served reading articles on all of these ideas than listening to anything I say.
 
Last edited:
Local time
Yesterday, 21:06
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,540
Location
subjective
#16
Long video (55 minutes) explains Dark energy/matter as time as being more than one dimension but 3 dimensions. There are infinite frames of reference in time thus. Redshift is a loss in time not an expansion in space. Antimatter travels back in time accounting for its absence in space and why it does not destroy matter with its spin reversed going back mirrored in time to normal matter.

Entropy is reversible when superfluid experiments demonstrate superfluidity is one capable of synchronized temperature change. Sum to say if the fluid is getting hot all the atoms are connected as being the same atom (Boise einstein condensate) so as one super unit the superfluid must have all atoms together as one unit get hotter if that direction is taken because it cannot get colder. The flow of atoms has no friction in the superfluid and all the atom s are still considered one atom unit, so the temperature can increase without resistance. (This is my understanding The movie is the primary source you should listen too)

 
Local time
Today, 13:06
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
4,605
#17
Why does our universe exist, if something exists why doesn't something else exist, why doesn't everything exist, indeed why does anything exist?

The answer to all these questions is: Bullshit.

There's no reason for any of it and that's bullshit, none of it makes any sense and that's bullshit, the paradoxical glue holding our universe together is undetectable, inconceivable, unbelievable bullshit.

In hindsight it's quite obvious.
Time to worship the one true god, Bullshit.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday, 17:06
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,107
#19
it seems that only gravity is the only valid force in large macrosocipic scale.
the other forces in standard model become irrelevant, like eletromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force. they exist in nuclear and atomic scale.

this is where i don't agree with the standard model, this imply gravity is only force that exist in outer space which we can feel and experience? and the only force responsible for the structure of space time universe.

some people introduced dark energy, dark matter as the unknown forces, and i feel there is much more holding the universe together other than gravity.

PS: GR attempted to explain it but i feel its insufficient model.
(I know I probably won't get a response to this, but somebody mentioned to me that the Higgs field is essentially an ether theory and it sparked a lot of research and thought. So this is what I think is understood at this point).

Electromagnetic force is only relevant when talking about the movement of electrons around protons or electron orientations in complex molecules. Move an electron around protons and you generate an electric field that can be propagated throughout space and matter or orientate electrons a certain way to generate a magnetic field that can hold particles together or break them apart to release energy (like an explosion).

But on a macro scale you aren't dealing with the electrons around individual atoms so much. Instead you'd be concerned with collections of all different types of matter. So gravity, resulting from the large amounts of collected mass have a lot more effect on things than electromagnetism. The warping of space around matter becomes very significant compared to electromagnetic fields.

Strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force I believe have to do with what goes on inside the nucleus of an atom. Neutrons and protons are held together by a strong force (called gluons) which apparently binds quarks together to create neutrons and protons, while also holding them together. Weak nuclear force I think relates to the unstable nature of the what's assumed as fundamental particles (such as the electron, quarks, neutrinos, etc.) changing into other particles. For example, in isolation from the nucleus, a neutron decays into a proton that gives off a neutrino and I think an electron anti-neutrino. Inside the nucleus neutrons are a lot more stable, but still decay over time into protons (though supposedly it takes a really long time). What I've been reading about though and what's really interesting and sparked this post is that supposedly when a particle changes to another, for example a down quark to an up quark, it doesn't simply change into the other, it loses all its mass first and then gains the mass of the opposite particle.

So to explain why something can suddenly gain and lose mass, physicists argue there is an ether "field" permeating space that slows particles down from the maximum potential of the speed of light, acting as a kind of filter to differentiate things by creating drag, thus creating different kinds of matter. So to prove it they used the Large Hadron Collider to smash fundamental particles in an attempt to excite this field. And I guess it worked, creating a temporary Higgs-Boson particle, which was mass created from the excitation of what is thought to be an "invisible ether field permeating space".

What's really neat about this is that it basically proves space is not empty and that it can be stimulated to create mass. It also gives a medium for massless "particles" (if you want to call it that), such as photons, to be able to propagate through space. And although it doesn't explain the forces created by bosons, it gives everything a rest mass. Though personally, I think photons are just the kinetic energy of electrons moving through space-time, like a domino effect. And gluons might just be the resulting greater relativistic mass created by the quantum-coupling of quarks (but who knows). Dark matter too could very well be a result of the Higgs field generating extra mass that we didn't expect. This shit is cool.
 

Hadoblado

I em Hedo I like smell of grass
Local time
Today, 12:36
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,960
#20
some people introduced dark energy, dark matter as the unknown forces, and i feel there is much more holding the universe together other than gravity.
I'm all for feels over reals, but this doesn't seem the topic for it? If something like the macrostate of the universe, which is only really known in abstractions, makes you feel that it is or isn't some particular way, then there should be some sort of conveyable explanation for why you come to these conclusions.

TLDR
The model says one thing, you think it's another. What about the model makes you think it's wrong? What is insufficient about gravity as an explanation?

How is your conclusion not just your preference?
 

Serac

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 04:06
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
1,286
Location
Stockholm
#21
My understanding is that modern physics is just a bunch of ad-hoc speculations intended to make a flawed theory work.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday, 17:06
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,107
#23
My understanding is that modern physics is just a bunch of ad-hoc speculations intended to make a flawed theory work.
How do you mean? I've actually noticed the opposite, that physicists are reluctant to propose intuitive explanations for things. Instead they get a lot of data and then model it with mathematics without breaking any well-studied laws of physics. And no more is ever presumed or said, like it's supposed to be some kind of mystery or something.

For example, I read that the Higgs field was really just proposed to model the observed behavior of sub-atomic particles without breaking any laws of physics. For that to happen, particles had to lose and gain mass in the mathematical equations. So it was extrapolated that there must be a "field" that is causing particles to gain or lose mass. In my opinion, that's a very conservative estimate, given that it says nothing about what that "field" might represent or even be exactly or what might even be happening.

Even in looking up online whether other people see the Higgs-Boson as proof of an ether, it seems all the theoretical physicists on quora and in some physics discussion sites will default to saying that it's just meant to represent how particles can gain and lose mass, but that the Higgs field isn't observed to have anything to do with say photons for example or any other bosons, so it can't be an ether theory...very unimaginative if you ask me.

They also like to point out that all we know about electrons for example is that we don't know what they look like or how they behave, except that we can use probability to know where they will most likely be around a nucleus. Or that electrons relate directly to electromagnetism and photons. But no theories of how the electron might spin or move around and in and out of sub-atomic particles. No theories of what a photon actually is or how it relates to anything other than what is measurable with say electrons. No theories of quarks and what they are or how they form or relate. No theories of what antimatter actually is or what an electric "charge" actually is, except to say that opposites attract and the same repel, even in the case of matter and antimatter. No theories of what gravity actually is or how it relates all things, except that it exists due to mass and is measurable (well except for Einstein who at least proposed that gravity is the warping of space-time and not just a magical force). No theories in general to attempt to relate different things or even similar things together. Just stale data and mathematics...and old crusty farts with their physics Noble prizes for playing it safe and being ISTJs in disguise of INTxs.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 21:06
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,540
Location
subjective
#24
I wonder about the physics of glow in the dark toys and glow sticks.
What is happening at the atomic level in 3D motion picture?
 
Top Bottom